Trump Inciting Violence Seems Inevitable
Trump’s recent efforts to motivate his base to “liberate” states from implementing social distancing measures are a cue to events soon-to-come. I’ve watched with trepidation since Trump’s election. One of the many possible future concerns in my mind was his potential to incite violence.
Admittedly, as a psychologist in public health specializing in violence and suicide prevention, I am more attentive to cues signaling violence risk than most. Conditions are practically perfect from my vantage point. The recipe for Trump’s inciting violence has been in process for quite some time.
Condition 1: Trump’s personality
Experts and pundits a like keep making the same mistake: Assuming Trump can change. He cannot.
Quite a bit of more accurate commentary has been written about Trump’s authoritarian and narcissistic nature. Among the hallmark qualities setting the stage for inciting violence are Trump’s demand for deference to authority, need for admiration, and impulsively aggressive responding to anyone leveraging criticism toward him.
Condition 2: Permissive social norms
Facilitated by the influences of technology and misinformation, we live in uniquely partisan times. And with major political changes like the election of a populist candidate come shifts in what becomes socially acceptable norms.
The result? The last four years have ushered in an era coined the “Trump Effect”: social acceptance of open expression of prejudice, discrimination and hate in various public forums. The mounting evidence is clear that an unfortunate byproduct of the Trump Effect is further politicization and mobilization of prejudice. Permissive of prejudice, these social norms set the stage for inevitable violence.
Psychological science has shown Trump’s base to be largely frustrated with establishment politics, angry toward any opposition to Trump, and characterized by an array of prejudicial beliefs. Fueled by this trifecta, there exists a large contingent of Americans ready to act on his behalf.
Trump can channel his supporter’s anger and resentment at will. This was evident in his comments about the Charlottesville alt-right events. It was clear in the recent far right threats to Dr. Fauci after Trump’s criticism of him. It is evident in his recent calling for ‘liberation” of states by nudging his supporters to protest science and public health responses to COVID-19. In these actions, Trump willfully activates prejudice and aggression.
Condition 3: Trump feels threatened and a match is lit…
The strong influence of a Trump tweet is never more present than when he feels threatened. In tried and true fashion, he attacks political figures, the media, and more recently public health and medical experts. Here we see the potential problem with his malignant narcissism: pathological need for admiration and deference from others.
Any major event to come that Trump perceives as a threat to his presidency or personal afront may be the spark that ratchets up his efforts to incite his base. He may spur them on to take expression of mass anger and prejudice to the violent extreme.
What troubles me most is that we seem to be heading toward an inflection point. A point of no return. One in which a match will be lit to incite massive unrest exceeding the state of fear-mongering in the current anti-social distancing “demonstrations.”
What that inflection point might be is up for debate. That it will happen is crystal clear to me.
Return to Trump’s authoritarian aggression. He pridefully punches back. Always. And a contingent of his supporters can do the same when they feel threatened, resentful, or hateful. Should Trump lose the election, or something nationally contentious enough happen before then, the worst of our socio-political divide is yet to come.
