The Case of the Trump and the Murderous Dog Whistles

As I noted earlier today, Donald Trump made some ostensibly off-hand comments at a speech today about how, if Clinton, as president, started making judicial appointments that threatened American gun rights, there would be nothing that the crowd of supporters in front of him could do. Though maybe, he added, the "Second Amendment people" might, maybe, undefinedly do something.

This has been, not surprisingly, interpreted (as does the writer below) as Trump suggesting that someone with guns might take the "greater law" into their own hands and assassinate a President Clinton. Others have suggested that it's Clinton's appointees who need to worry for their lives.

Others have interpreted it as not being a serious or heartfelt suggestion ("Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?!") but simply a typically unfunny / brutish / bullying / snarky Donald Trump comment. meant to be a blunt-speaking joke (of course). That was my immediate thought. Because, of course, Trump.

What the statement most clearly was not was a suggestion that lovers of the Second Amendment might, in the face of a threat to their rights, might band together to defeat Hillary Clinton in the election. The context of the comment was in the future, when Clinton was already president, making devilish appointments.

What the statement was very likely not was a suggestion that, in the case of such appointments being nominated by "Crooked Hillary" that the supporters of the Second Amendment might band together and lobby the Senate to oppose the nomination. Because Trump's there talking to his faithful followers, the very people who would do such lobbying — and they have no hope of stopping the devilish Clinton. Only the "Second Amendment people."

Add into this that there has been plenty of bumper sticker-style crowing about "Second Amendment remedies" to those (like That Man in the White House) might be tyrants over the American people … and the message is clear.

It is also suggested — even by those within the Trump campaign — that Donald Trump just isn't … well, just isn't very articulate. That he speaks awkwardly, off the cuff, doesn't really form these sentences coherently, goes off-script, has other meanings in mind before he talks.

But, fergoshsakes, even if one takes this last tack, is that all that much better? This is a man who is supposed to lead the nation. To take the bully pulpit. To speak to crowds and to speak to individuals. To influence. To negotiate and work with foreign powers. To be the President.

If he's actually that incoherent, if he's that prone to inarticulate utterances, if he's so easily able to say things that can be so easily construed as joking about assassination, if not actually suggesting it as some sort of "stochastic dog whistle," then is he someone who should be President? If he makes a joke in a negotiation with a foreign power that sounds like a threat, if he makes a comment in a public speech abroad that seems to point in an unintended direction on American policy, if he says something off the top of his head in a negotiation with Congress that creates a misunderstanding about what he's proposing or willing to deal with … are those consequences we should just write off as, "Oh, well, heck, it's Donald Trump"?

And, remember, that's the best case scenario, that he's simply prone to misspeaking when it comes to things like this — and then, of course, when people take him at his word, attacking them as liars and media hacks and political enemies, never apologizing or explaining but simply using it as a springboard to attack. That's the best case scenario.

Donald Trump is psychologically and emotionally unfit to be President of the United States.

Originally shared by +Yonatan Zunger:

"Stochastic terrorism" is a concept in the theory of war. It refers to putting out open calls for terrorism, and trying to incite specific acts of terror, without knowing who (if anyone) will take you up on it. It's one of the principal tactics of ISIS outside its home regions: this is why we hear of "ISIS-inspired" terrorists, who had no particular funding, backing, or material support from the organization, but who were simply acting on a call to arms put out by the terror group to go out and kill infidels. (Or other Muslims, or whoever else ISIS feels like killing that day)

It's not a legal concept, and in fact our laws have no good mechanism to handle it. "Vague threats" are deliberately not threats, under the law; you can't be imprisoned for saying "I'm gonna kill that son-of-a-bitch," or for "Someone oughta do something," unless one can show that in the context it was said, that's something that would cause someone to fear for their life. (It's actually even more complicated than that, but that would be a whole long article in its own right. +Ken Popehat wrote a short summary relevant to today's news here: https://popehat.com/2016/08/09/lawsplainer-no-donald-trumps-second-amendment-comment-isnt-criminal/)

In general, this sort of narrow law is wise; we don't want people being rounded up and imprisoned for anything that sounds vaguely angry. However, it creates an opening for groups like ISIS to actively try to radicalize people around the world.

In the specific case of ISIS, of course, there's a workable solution, one which involves the liberal application of high explosives. However, not all terror threats so conveniently live in places where we feel free to engage in open warfare.

All of this brings us to today's news. Remember that just a few days ago, Trump "suggested" that the election was rigged, and that if he loses it, people should reject its legitimacy. Today, he took that a step further, "suggesting" that, if elected, Clinton should be murdered. That is to say, Trump has rather pointedly rejected the most fundamental principle of democracy: that elections should be the mechanism which decides who is in office.

(People often say that elections are the basis of democracy, but that's not quite true. Syria has had elections for decades, in which you could vote for anyone you wanted, so long as it was Hafez (or later Bashar) al-Assad. The crucial thing which defines a democracy is that after an election, the losers step down. The preconditions for people to feel safe doing this are complex, and have a lot to do with why democracy is working better in some places than others)

Beyond the obvious problems of an American Presidential candidate openly preaching against democracy is the issue we just discussed: this was not merely a thinly veiled call to overthrow a potential US President, but a textbook example of stochastic terrorism.

As this article put it:

Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable."

Let's break that down in the context of what Trump said. Predicting any one particular individual following his call to use violence against Clinton or her judges is statistically impossible. But we can predict that there could be a presently unknown lone wolf who hears his call and takes action in the future.

Stated differently: Trump puts out the dog-whistle knowing that some dog will hear it, even though he doesn't know which dog.

h/t +Lev Osherovich.

Trump’s Assassination Dog Whistle Was Even Scarier Than You Think
Donald Trump engaged in so-called stochastic terrorism with his remarks about “Second Amendment people” and Hillary Clinton.

View on Google+