The Dilemma of Trump’s Relationship with Violent Groups: Why Denunciation or Strategic Silence?

The recent denunciations and strategic silence from Donald Trump regarding groups like the Proud Boys represent a complex interplay of political strategies and moral responsibilities. This article explores why Trump might choose to denounce these groups despite their continued support, and the inherent implications of this decision.

Interplay of Political Strategy and Forced Hand

For the same reason that Rudy Giuliani didn't need the Proud Boys after the 2020 election and the failed insurrection attempt, Trump may no longer find them strategically advantageous. Their continued support became a liability, particularly during a time of heightened scrutiny and accountability for divisive groups. After four years of demonstrating loyalty to nobody but himself, it is no wonder that Trump might now seek to distance himself from these groups.

The Lack of Coherence: A Moral Argument Ignored

From a pragmatic perspective, there is no compelling reason for Trump to denounce the Proud Boys since they continue to support him and serve useful purposes in his narrative. However, this argument fails to consider the broader implications of his actions.

A moral argument is dismissive of Trump’s cynical and amoral tendencies. His supporters either embrace this or consider it a non-issue. However, considering the ethical ramifications, it is crucial to question whether such behavior justifies his leadership. If we hypothetically imagine Hillary Clinton winning in 2016, the same argument could be made for her denouncing certain supporters. The question then becomes: would this be seen as a pragmatic move or a betrayal of moral values?

The Consequences of Non-Denunciation

By providing strategic silence, Trump is essentially dog-whistling—a tactic used to communicate to a target audience a hidden message. This message is that the group's support is valued, and they should stand by and wait for his signal. It creates a sense of importance and loyalty among these supporters, which they were likely to capitalize on by rushing to vote for him again. In doing so, he reinforces the idea that anyone who is not explicitly for him is against him.

Trusting in a 'for or against' dichotomy, Trump views his political opposition with such disdain that he easily forgets the utility of his fans. When the time comes for these supporters to no longer be of use, he discards them. Suddenly, they are labeled as "losers," “disgruntled,” or “fake news” purveyors, effectively silencing their voices.

Conclusion: A Call to Ethical Accountability

The relationship between Donald Trump and the Proud Boys, and other similar groups, highlights the need for political leaders to consider the ethical implications of their actions. While the short-term political benefits may seem clear, the long-term costs in terms of trust, social cohesion, and moral integrity are significant.

It is imperative to hold politicians accountable for their moral responsibility, and to question whether silent support for violent groups or strategic denunciations are justified. Trust in leadership is not just about political success, but about the values upheld by that leadership.