Trump, the law-and-order candidate?

It would be an act of political satire if Trump benefits from growing concern about civic disorder.

I have a sense that a broad concern about civic disorder is becoming an underlying issue in the 2024 election. If so, ironically and unjustly, it is likely to benefit Donald Trump in the president’s race.

There are numerous tributaries flowing into the potentially broader and more generalized issue. The country doesn’t really control which foreign nationals come here, when, and for how long. Getting into the country, and staying here, outside the legal processes is far too easy and common. 

Memories of the riots in reaction to the death of George Floyd are still fresh. 

Crime rates spiked. They have retreated some, but a heightened fear of crime has not. Large cities seem unable to stop the spread of homeless encampments and the lawless culture that prevails within them.

The protests on college campuses against the Israeli campaign to defang Hamas in Gaza is a potential contributor to the general sense of growing disorder. To Middle Americans, college is supposed to be a place where young adults go to get an education and acquire the skills to become a productive citizen, not a place to nurture and cater to protest politics. The generally slow and feckless response of university administrators amplifies the unease. 

In 1968, Richard Nixon won election in significant part as the law-and-order candidate, after a decade of race riots, violent anti-war protests, and political assassinations. 

The disorder taking place today pales compared to what was experienced in the 1960s. Still, people want to feel secure and have confidence that officials in charge are committed and capable of dealing with threats to their security. The sense of security has slipped, and confidence in the commitment and capacity of officials to deal with security threats has substantially eroded. 

This generalized concern about civic disorder may not fully blossom as an acknowledged and debated specific issue, in the way that illegal immigration is sure to be acknowledged and debated as a specific issue. But it may very well become an underlying sentiment that influences how people vote, consciously or subconsciously.

If so, Trump is likely to be the beneficiary. 

This is in part because Trump has successfully cultivated a faux tough-guy image. And in part because much of the disorder does find origins in the left. It was the left that wanted to defund the police. It is the left that litigates to prevent cities from taking action to mitigate the disorder of spreading homeless encampments. It isn’t conservative college students seizing university buildings and disrupting the ability of other students to get the education they are paying for.

As Nixon was the beneficiary of concern over civic disorder in 1968, to the extent it influences the 2024 race, Trump is likely to be the beneficiary. 

In 1968, there was little reason to believe that Nixon could do much as president to restore civic order. All Nixon really did was wait out cultural currents and stop sending draftees to Vietnam. 

In 2024, it’s almost an act of political satire for Trump to benefit from being regarded as the law-and-order candidate. Law and order ain’t his thing.

Trump attempted a coup to remain in office despite losing the 2020 election. There are credible reasons to believe that he committed crimes in the process. His supporters stormed Congress and threatened the life of his vice president. Trump praises these insurrectionists and suggests that he will pardon them if elected in 2024.

There is overwhelming evidence that Trump illegally kept classified documents and defied a lawful judicial order to produce them. 

Today’s GOP fails to understand and respect the elements that undergird the rule of law, which is the cornerstone of an enduring sense of security for a body politic. Neither do Democrats and the left. For both sides, the judicial system is just another political forum in which to engage in political combat. 

Take the pilgrimage of GOP congressmen to the Trump hush-money trial in New York, including Arizonans Andy Biggs and Eli Crane. 

Now, I think this case probably shouldn’t have been brought. Trump isn’t on trial for deceptively hiding and laundering the hush-money payments through his business accounts. Standing alone, those are misdemeanors whose statute of limitations has already expired. Instead, the allegation is that the deception was to cover up another felony crime. Hard to argue that the hush-money was an illegal political contribution when it wouldn’t be a legal campaign expenditure.

So, I think there is reason to believe that the prosecutor was politically motivated in bringing the case. And I think it fair for Trump’s supporters to make that case in the public arena.

However, they are also going after the judge. In a talk-radio interview, Biggs, a lawyer by training, called the judge “left-wing” and “crazy”.

The judge didn’t bring the case. The judge won’t decide the case; a jury will. Perhaps he made some wrong calls along the way, which is what an appeals process exists to remedy if consequential. 

Biggs denouncing the judge as “left-wing” is no different than the progressives going after Arizona Supreme Court justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King for their abortion decision in their upcoming retention elections. Bolick was, and is, one of the nation’s most prominent libertarians. King was a key figure in Doug Ducey’s gubernatorial administration. 

Denouncing a judge strictly for his political views and affiliations, or for the outcome of a decision rather than the legal reasoning undergirding it, undermines the rule of law.

Concern about growing civic disorder is valid and important. Viewing Trump and MAGA Republicans as the solution is to confuse fool’s gold for the real thing. Unfortunately, neither party is offering the real thing. 

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.