Trump's ambiguous words have unambiguous meaning

Donald Trump said last weekend at an Ohio rally, “ … if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath …” Initial reports about what the former president said were based on a clip made by a pseudonymous journalist from a left-of-center website and the words were widely taken as a threat of violence and as evidence that Trump is alarmingly unfit for the presidency. Then came the corrections: The fuller clip showed Trump was talking about a “bloodbath” for the auto industry, and even some staunch Trump foes argued that taking his words out of context was not only unethical but stupid, since it gives Trump supporters an excuse to dismiss all negative publicity as “fake news.” But there’s also another view: that the true context of the disputed remark makes it even worse.

The “bloodbath” line itself was part of a rambling statement that certainly could be seen as hinting at violence. Discussing his proposed 100% tariff on cars built by Chinese companies to help the U.S. auto industry, he went on to say, “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”

Leaving aside the tariff’s likely effects on the economy, “that’s going to be the least of it” sounds like a threat of something far worse than a beating for the auto industry. Does it mean a “bloodbath” for the whole economy or a more literal “bloodbath” of violence? Given that Trump has repeatedly talked about “riots,” “violence in the streets,” “potential death [and] destruction,” etc., if he is denied a victory or treated unfairly, one could certainly argue that he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.

This is particularly true considering that at the same rally, Trump lavished praise on the rioters currently serving time or awaiting trial for storming Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021 in an attempt to stop the election from being certified. He hailed them as “unbelievable patriots” who have been “treated terribly and very unfairly.” The rally itself opened with a recording of the national anthem sung by a choir of people jailed for Jan. 6-related crimes — now standard procedure at Trump rallies — and the announcer asked people to rise for the “January 6th hostages.”

Then, Trump vowed to pardon the rioters “the first day we get into office.” And he made numerous claims about the 2020 election being “fake,” “rigged” and “crooked” — claims that have been repeatedly shown to lack substance.

On his blog, Yale University historian Timothy Snyder, who has written extensively on the history of fascism, argues that Trump’s Jan. 6 rhetoric is meant to coach his supporters to riot again if he loses and that the “bloodbath” line is a coded call for violence. Such a reading may overestimate Trump’s strategic thinking. But even without such strategy, the glorification of violent rioters who tried to overturn an election should certainly make Trump an unfit candidate. Conservatives often accuse liberals of condoning the 2020 riots against racial injustice, but one cannot imagine President Joe Biden praising the rioters at a rally. 

The clip with the “bloodbath” line can still be considered ill-advised: Soundbite politics always generate more heat than light. The squabbling about the meaning of Trump’s words have overshadowed a completely unambiguous outrage: his full-throated endorsement of the rioters who tried to steal the last election for him.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.