Does the president's divisiveness promote or discourage political violence?

[j brown's body]

"Mr. Trump has long made clear that coming together is not the mission of his presidency. In an era of deep polarization in American society, he rarely talks about healing. While other presidents have typically tried to lower the temperature in moments of national crisis, Mr. Trump turns up the flames. He does not subscribe to the traditional notion of being president for all the people. He acts as president of red America and the people who agree with him, while those who do not are portrayed as enemies and traitors deserving payback.

He sees a country riven into two ideological and political camps: one that supports him and one that does not. He governs accordingly. In recent days, he has vowed to order troops into cities run by Democrats, while sending money in the form of disaster relief to states run by Republicans. This viewpoint reflects Mr. Trump’s own history and personality, born out of an us-against-them, winners-and-losers approach to life that carried him through decades in business, reality television and eventually politics. He is not comfortable as a comforter. He prefers a fight; he needs an enemy.

...Every other recent president has said that he saw his role as transcending partisanship at least some of the time, to serve as leader of all Americans — even those who disagreed with him. ...But none of them practiced the politics of division as ferociously and consistently as Mr. Trump, for whom it has been the defining characteristic of his time on the national stage."

Link

 

[Middleground]

Trump is the godfather of divisiveness. And being the head of country make it even the more dangerous.

 

[americanwoman]

Constantly promotes it.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Well, look at the statistics since Trump emerged as a political figure. Political violence has increased exponentially.

 

[gman]

The tumultuous years of the 60’s with its assassinations and violence never once did any politician dare attempt to stoke the flames of discord and division the way Trump has.

 

[Callen]

Non stop promotion of anger and hatred against liberals. His language is divisive and there is no doubt in my mind that one of his devotees will act out on it. The impact on politicians is significant, I can't imagine anyone wanting to run for elected office

 

[Dans La Lune]

I'd say heated political rhetoric predates Trump. This iteration can be traced back to the 1990s with figures like Rush Limbaugh. It began ramping up significantly when Obama became president for some mysterious reason. Those reasons having NOTHING to do with Obama's milquetoast, centrist rhetoric. But something else. Something, lets say, darker.

To be honest though, the main reason for divisiveness is Late State Capitalism which DID hit a tipping point under Obama during the 2007 Financial Crash., While Obama did not cause the crash, he did very little address the systemic issues and made things worse in many respects. He could have been an FDR figure, but chose to put a series of band-aids on the issues, which lead to many people losing their homes and jobs. Note that he governed from a center-right angle on economics, so he was not implementing leftist policies and those half-solutions cannot blamed on the Left, but rather the center and the right-wing.

Figures like Trump emerged from this state of decay to stoke division and to move the country further towards fascism to avoid addressing the systemic problems that society is facing. Trump is like the pus-filled boils that emerge on your skin from the plague, while the plague is the real issue.

In conclusion: The Right is to blame, whether it comes in the form of Trump or center-right policies designed to uphold the systems which favor the elite and are ultimately destroying civilization from within.

 

[dmpi]

'divisiveness' is a product of the message, not the messenger. And it's not even the message, it's the people hearing the message and how they feel about the topic.

 

[j brown's body]

'divisiveness' is a product of the message, not the messenger. And it's not even the message, it's the people hearing the message and how they feel about the topic.

Is that a "no?"

 

[Callen]

'divisiveness' is a product of the message, not the messenger. And it's not even the message, it's the people hearing the message and how they feel about the topic.

No, not in this case. With Trump it is deliberate and targeted. He perceives the left as the enemy and deliberately uses very specific language to demonize them and drive hate. He absolutely means to widen the chasm between the left and right not close it.

 

[dmpi]

No, not in this case. With Trump it is deliberate and targeted. He perceives the left as the enemy and deliberately uses very specific language to demonize them and drive hate. He absolutely means to widen the chasm between the left and right not close it.

Two ways to deliver a message, 1) raw & direct or 2) sugar coated in an attempt to make it more palatable. If you're going to attack and solve big problems, you got to get the facts out directly in plain common sense terms. If you're hurt, that because the truth hurts.

 

[j brown's body]

Two ways to deliver a message, 1) raw & direct or 2) sugar coated in an attempt to make it more palatable. If you're going to attack and solve big problems, you got to get the facts out directly in plain common sense terms. If you're hurt, that because the truth hurts.

Not sure of what you mean. Could you provide an example?

 

[Peacenik]

"Mr. Trump has long made clear that coming together is not the mission of his presidency. In an era of deep polarization in American society, he rarely talks about healing. While other presidents have typically tried to lower the temperature in moments of national crisis, Mr. Trump turns up the flames. He does not subscribe to the traditional notion of being president for all the people. He acts as president of red America and the people who agree with him, while those who do not are portrayed as enemies and traitors deserving payback.

He sees a country riven into two ideological and political camps: one that supports him and one that does not. He governs accordingly. In recent days, he has vowed to order troops into cities run by Democrats, while sending money in the form of disaster relief to states run by Republicans. This viewpoint reflects Mr. Trump’s own history and personality, born out of an us-against-them, winners-and-losers approach to life that carried him through decades in business, reality television and eventually politics. He is not comfortable as a comforter. He prefers a fight; he needs an enemy.

...Every other recent president has said that he saw his role as transcending partisanship at least some of the time, to serve as leader of all Americans — even those who disagreed with him. ...But none of them practiced the politics of division as ferociously and consistently as Mr. Trump, for whom it has been the defining characteristic of his time on the national stage."

Link

He started an Insurrection.