Trump is for some reason reluctant to identify hate groups as being the causal agent of the problem, instead resorting to "What Aboutism."
At an impromptu press conference Tuesday at Trump Tower, President Trump suggested that white supremacists and counter demonstrators were both to blame for the deadly violence that broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend.
Trump's not wrong that the violence committed by a small fraction of the counter-protesters is a problem. Any pacifist would agree and many have already cited such tactics as both unethical and ultimately counterproductive.
What was striking, however, was that he couldn't even articulate that clearly without throwing in a completely random "fake news" epithet at the reporters gathered at the press conference.
The press conference leaves 3 takeaways.
1. Trump is for some reason reluctant to identify hate groups as being the causal agent of the problem, instead resorting to "What Aboutism." He didn't mention that the torch-carrying neo-Nazis encircled a church where clergy were praying on Friday night. He didn't mention that on Saturday, the same clergy peacefully marched in direct, nonviolent protest against machine-gun toting neo-Nazis.
2. Trump's "What Aboutism" only reinforces the need for those protesting against neo-Nazi's to remain nonviolent. Had the small fraction of counter-protesters that used violence in Charlottesville INSTEAD behaved like the rest of their compatriots who used nonviolent direct action, Trump wouldn't had have any incidents to use for his equivocation.
3. Trump once again looked inept as president. He appears unable to articulate basic statements about basic truths that are held about democratic society by a vast majority of U.S. citizens. He has thus far lacked the appropriate seriousness and care in his wording for crisis situations such as the death of a demonstrator in Charlottesville. He appears to have little impulse control and an inability to consistently act presidential.
This leaves one to seriously question whether he is at all qualified for the job and whether or not he is fundamentally ill-suited for what it requires. In this instance and others, he has appeared to be in way over his head.