Trump has made a series of unfounded claims, variously blaming the violence on Democrat officials, Antifa and former Vice President Joe Biden. He has also called out Democrat governors and mayors for being weak in the face of crisis, and refusing to crack down with more militaristic measures. In doing so, he is creating a false dichotomy between the 'weak left' and 'strong right'. Many see his response as political opportunism in the lead-up to the 2020 election. Proponents including CNN reporter Marshall Cohen and Guardian DC Bureau Chief David Smith.
The argument
The current president of The United States has been weaponizing the ongoing crisis in America. He has been doing this by repeatedly using rhetoric such as describing protesters as “left-wing mobs’ and trying to pitch himself as the leader who will bring “law and order” Trump’s vice president Mike Pence stated “The hard truth is you will not be safe in Joe Biden’s America” as he is trying to pit American citizens against Biden. Trump has also blamed the swell in Covid-19 cases on protests, even though he has been repeatedly pushing to reopen the national economy. Trump has tweeted multiple times stating that the protesters are “thugs” and “scum” even labeling them as “terrorists” in one tweet. He has a history of tweeting harsh things about peaceful protesters, such as a series of 18 tweets through September and October 2017 complaining about the peaceful protest of kneeling during the national anthem, displayed by multiple NFL players. However, after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, where protesters chanted “Jew will not replace us.” and one of the protestors drove his car through a crowd of people, his response was “there are good people on both sides.”
Premises
Counter-arguments
President Trump is not the one weaponizing this crisis, because Joe Biden blamed Donald Trump for these riots, so he is the one weaponizing the protests currently going on in America. Biden also stated that these protests are “right and necessary” allowing these violent protests to continue.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The characterisations of protesters and the "law and order" appeal are on the record, but campaigning on public order is ordinary political positioning, and the premise needs the further step that the intent was personal gain rather than a genuinely held view of the unrest. Motive is being inferred from rhetoric alone. [Rejecting P2] Attributing the Vice President's campaign statement to the President compounds that inference, and an election-year attack on an opponent is what campaigns consist of. The premise does not distinguish weaponising a crisis from contesting an election during one. [Rejecting P3] The Covid-19 point may show inconsistency, which is not the same as exploitation. More importantly, the position holds that this murder exposes an ongoing political crisis, while the argument catalogues the conduct of a single officeholder — a durable crisis in the political system would need evidence reaching beyond one presidency, and none is offered.