Analytics

Thursday, September 19, 2024

Post #6923 Rant of the Day: Busting the Trumpkin Myth Over Trump's Charlottesville "Very Fine People" Kerfuffle

 I don't believe in beating a dead horse. I recently published a post on the Charlottesville kerfuffle that I think holds up very well, I'm not really presenting new material here, just sharpening the argument, if you will.

What triggered this rant? In brief, it surfaced during and after Trump's disastrous debate performance against Harris and then the "Good Morning Liberty" hosts Nate Thurston and Chuck Thompson explicitly addressed the point during their most recent signature episode of "Dumb Bleep of the Week". Now to be sure, Thurston and Thompson are libertarians who say they've never supported (and won't this fall) Trump politically). But they have sided with Trump on a number of times, including his first impeachment. I've written past essays in the blog over some of these. Thurston does well on a number of economic issues with due diligence. At one point I had listened to every GML episode of hundreds. Now we libertarians notoriously bicker with each other. But they annoyed me enough to stop listening to their daily podcast. I really didn't want the blog to turn into a contra-GML one. It just annoyed me they weren't doing due diligence like I do, especially for someone like Trump who routinely lies and distorts everything, gaslighting other people.

So, on the most recent "Dumb Bleep" episode, embedded in an upcoming daily post,  they start griping about how the ABC moderators were unilaterally factchecking Trump. I don't necessarily disagree; in fact, I tweeted about it during the debate and didn't know at the time if others had noticed. Still, I don't think that critical questioning during a debate is out of bounds. 

Then they (GML) sounded out with a touch of exasperation, alleging how notably they hadn't fact-checked Harris, in particular her reference of the long-debunked "very fine people" kerfuffle, where they even cite Snopes.com as leftist confirmation of Trump's vindication. (I don't recall them citing Snopes in other contexts.) Snopes only verifies what Trump said in a transcript, which doesn't mean what they think it means. I'm fairly sure they didn't read the Snopes post in detail I wrote a Twitter thread in response below I may embed below, but I'm going to expand on below.

First, the unite the right rally was ostensibly focused on the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue and park renaming. This is important in context because Trump later goes on a rant over the removal of the statue and I think he is vested in the purported protest, and it's probably why he is reluctant to point fingers at the protesters. I think he sees the counter-protesters as representative of those who had been involved in the movement targeting southern statues and monuments.

A brief synopsis:on the night before the official Saturday march/rally, there was a rally of sorts to the Jefferson statue on the nearby UVA campus where protesters CNANTING Nazi-like slogans (I'll be referencing this point which is a key part of my argument) march with tiki torches to the campus Jefferson statue where they surrounded student counter-protesters, and I saw references to tiki torches being thrown at the students. I believe the police broke up the confrontation.

The next day:

 The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017. [T]he organizers intended for the rally to unite far-right groups with the goal of playing a larger role in American politics. Marchers included members of the alt-right,neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right militias. Some groups chanted racist and antisemitic slogans and carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus vult crosses, flags, and other symbols of various past and present antisemitic and anti-Islamic groups...The rally turned violent after protesters clashed with counter-protesters, resulting in more than 30 injured. ..At around 1:45 p.m., self-identified white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. deliberately rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters about 1⁄2 mile (800 m) away from the rally site, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 35 people.

Now this would actually start the kerfuffle, Trump's first statement on Saturday:

[Saturday] "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides — on many sides," Trump said in a short statement delivered in New Jersey. "It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump. Not Barack Obama. It's been going on for a long, long time." Trump tweeted twice more that afternoon, offering condolences to the families of Heyer and the troopers, but did not make any specific mention of the controversial groups.

This is the morally ambiguous "very fine" people on both sides. Let me quote from my earlier essay:

To be sure, counter-protesters engaged in taunting the protesters and tried to block the protesters from entering, e.g., Emancipation Park. There are some reports of certain counter-protesters fighting back with stones, mace or pepper spray and  other homemade weapons. However, it was clear that the protesters were prepared for resistance, fronting the march into the park, with body shields, helmets, stick and clubs, aimed right at unprotected counter-protesters ahead of them, not waiting for police to make a hole. I've seen copies of celebratory messages claiming successes in confronting Antifa.

Now it's true there were some militias on both sides, and there's a context of prior marches and clashes but what's clear was the counter-protesters were largely unprotected (no shields, helmets or professional weapons), no coordinated paramilitary movements like the protesters, and for the most part, they engaged in confrontation or obstruction and defensive behavior with rudimentary weapons. Almost all casualties I've seen reported were counter-protestors, especially Ms. Heyer and more than a dozen others injured by Fields. The troopers Trump referenced had lost their lives in an unrelated helicopter crash on return having done surveillance at the scene. 

The counter-protesters were primarily made of nonviolent clergy and other people of faith, civil libertarians, students, civil rights and other allied groups, and other liberals/progressives. I have absolutely  no clue what hatred and bigotry Trump is accusing the counter-protesters of: I've not seen any account of them. There were clashes between Antifa and the alt-right militias, and the latter seemed to think  they got the better of the former.

One of the few reports I've seen on violence on the left comes from the Gray Lady:

[After Fields], Jason Kessler, was heckled, punched and forced to flee a news conference by an angry crowd.

Groups that identify as anti-fascist — also known as antifa (pronounced an-TEE-fa) — have been physically confronting neo-Nazis, white supremacists and, in some cases, speakers who merely challenge the boundaries of political correctness on college campuses across the country.

In Charlottesville, about 20 members of a group called the Redneck Revolt, which describes itself as an anti-racist, anti-capitalist group dedicated to uniting working-class whites and oppressed minorities, carried rifles and formed a security perimeter around the counterprotesters in Justice Park, according to its website and social media.

The group, which admires John Brown, a white abolitionist who led an armed insurrection in 1859, issued a “call to arms” on its website: “To the fascists and all who stand with them, we’ll be seeing you in Virginia.”

The scholar and activist Cornel West told the newscast “Democracy Now!” that anti-fascists saved his life and the lives of other nonviolent clergy members in Charlottesville.

Personally, mu conclusion of Trump's morally ambivalent "a pox on both houses" unduly blamed the victims and avoided focusing blame on his pro-statue allies, all but ignoring the fact that the killed or injured victims were nonviolent counter-protestors. Trump's Saturday comments were purposefully unspecific, not even mentioning neo-Nazis and white supremacists, which is how the kerfuffle got started. Trump handled it badly, incompetently and failed a test of leadership 

The White House  press  (vs. Trump) did much better the next day:

[Sunday] "The president said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry, and hatred, and of course that includes white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together," the White House spokesperson said.

But getting Trump to say it was like pulling teeth:

[Monday] TRUMP: Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

BENNETT: Compare that to what he said two days ago.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

TRUMP: We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.

BENNETT: The phrase many sides is what missed the mark. Trump was roundly criticized for implying that the counter-protesters shared the blame for Saturday's violence. Even key Republican lawmakers called him out.

[Bennett notes Trump's ambivalent responses in the past; unlike GHW Bush, Trump was reluctant to distance himself from David Duke.]

Now on Tuesday (press conference), questioned about his Saturday response, Trump instantly goes on the defensive and double-downs on blaming both sides:

[Tuesday] Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"

Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."
Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."
Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"
Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."
Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."
Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment.  But there are two sides to the country.

And here's the Snopes comment on its finding:

Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong. 

 Okay. A lot to unpack in this extended news conference clip. First of all, Trump specifically is calling the UVA protester marchers "very fine people" protesting his glorious statues. These protesters weren't celebrating Southern heritage. The were chanting Nazi slogans as discussed above. Yet Trump insists these weren't neo-Nazis or white supremacists, but "very fine people".  And he doesn't talk about these protesters surrounding counter-protestors om the UVA campus, some tiki torches thrown at them. As far as I'm concerned, this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact Trump was including neo-Nazis/white supremacists among "very fine people".

Second, it seems he seems to associate the bad men as with weapons, shield, weapons, etc. He seems to link neo-Nazis, white supremacists with these incidental characteristics, not ideology. He could be confounding militias with group characteristics. He seems to be identifying Antifa with the reference to black outfits and baseball bats. Now I've seen some discussion of clashes between groups, in part to the failure of cops to keep them separated.

I haven't seen a lot of numbers but I've seen one estimate of 500 protestors and 1000 counter-protestors.  Most of the arrests I've read about were made of protestors vs. counter-protesters. 

So, yes, Trump did pay lip service to condemning neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but I don't think he knew which protesters they were. And as I pointed out, he called marchers to UVA shouting Nazi slogans as "very fine people".  His implied moral equivalence of the mostly peaceful counter-protesters with protesters responsible for almost all crimes and death/injuries to others is beyond reasonable. It was also reported a number of alt-right protesters were wearing MAGA caps, and Trump has been very protective of his minions. I saw counter-counter-protestors in plain clothes; I saw protesters with shiels, helmets and clubs heading directly towards a crowd of counter-protestors.

I don't think I've ever seen a national tragedy so badly botched. Nobody should make or accept disingenuous legalistic defenses of Trump's mishandling the crisis, 

 

 

Posted by at