Trump supports the idea of ’one really violent day’ to reduce crime

It is not unusual for Donald Trump’s campaign to describe the former president as a “law and order” candidate, despite his criminal background. But in practical terms, what exactly is the Republican’s view on implementing a law and order agenda?

It turns out the GOP nominee shed new light on this at his latest rally in Pennsylvania. Politico reported:

Former President Donald Trump on Sunday called for “one really rough, nasty” and “violent day” of police retaliation to stamp out crime “immediately.” … ‘In a heavy hour – and I mean really heavy – the word will get out and it will end immediately, you know? It will end immediately,” Trump said.

After the event, a Trump campaign spokesperson, referring to the radical idea, said the former president was “clearly just pushing it around for fun.”

Perhaps, although there is reason to believe otherwise. For starters, he’s made comments like this before: It was exactly one year ago this week when Trump proposed combating shoplifting by having police shoot shoplifters. This would, he said at the time, “immediately put an end to all looting and theft.”

For another, when he watched a video clip of the reactions, it didn’t seem like he was joking.

During the same event, the Republican even supported the idea that police departments “extremely rough“As a way to fight crime.

Why should voters care? There is no prima facie evidence that “extremely rough” police officers, who engage in “nasty” and “violent” behavior, will actually reduce crime.

Equally notable is that, as the Politico report noted, “Trump has a long history of condoning police brutality.” It adds some necessary context to the campaign of the Republican candidate who recently claimed this Democrats are the ‘party of violence’.

But let’s not lose sight of the broader conversation: As Election Day approaches, Republican officials are practically begging the former president to focus less on personal attacks and more on public policy.

The candidate’s comments about “one really violent day” served as a timely reminder: Trump can’t talk about public policy, and when he tries, the results are ridiculous.

There are several explanations for this, but at its heart is an unfortunate assumption: as I argued in my first book, Trump seems to sincerely believe that every challenge can and should be addressed through unexamined, overly simplified answers that appeal to his version. of common sense.

Is the immigration system broken? Build an ineffective wall. Hurricanes approaching American soil? Fight them with nuclear weapons. Are there too many shooters killing children in schools? Put more guns in the hands of school officials who might fire back. A virus kills hundreds of thousands of Americans? Try injecting people with disinfectants.

Russia is waging a brutal and unnecessary war in Ukraine? Place some Chinese flags on American fighter jets and point them towards Moscow. Are there social justice protesters outside the White House? Shoot them in the legs. Are there drug cartels in Mexico? Launch missiles at our allied neighbor. Was there a terrorist attack on American soil? Impose “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the heck is going on.”

Drugs destroy communities? If we simply executed drug dealers, the problem would go away. Some companies struggle with shoplifters? “One very rough, nasty” and “violent day” would “immediately” put an end to such crimes.

Drugs destroy communities? If we simply executed drug dealers, the problem would go away.

According to Trump, there is no such thing as a complex challenge that requires a complex solution. Everything is easy. Every question has a simple answer and every problem can be solved with a simple solution.

It’s post-politics at its most obvious: Trump doesn’t want to be bothered with analyzes and pertinent details that only confuse him. He wants to trumpet bumper-sticker-style “proposals” that will draw applause at rallies.

The next time you hear complaints about Kamala Harris not going deep enough into the details of her policy proposals, keep this in mind.

This message updates our related previous reporting.