When a car apparently intentionally plows into a group of people participating in a counter-protest to the Nazi shindig in Charlottesville, it should be pretty obvious that you should call it terrorism, and disavow it, and condemn that sort of thing. Many politicians recognized at once the enormity of the situation, and called for the event to be treated as the terror that it was intended to be. This was the obvious response, the necessary response. Bigotry and violence are a bad and unnecessary combination in a diverse nation where we value free speech. The counter-protestors had all the same rights as the so-called "alt-right" protestors (although I prefer to just think of them as Nazis, because, well, what they do, say and think).
Our president, though, decided to make a comment condemning violence "on many sides". How utterly inadequate of the man. As if there was a movement that somehow used violence against white supremacy on the regular. None such exists. And yet, look at what the Trump Administration has stood for--they choose to ignore right wing extremism in favor of Islamic terror, even though RW extremism is more of a threat. Recently, Sebastian Gorka, a guy whose functional White House position is not entirely clear and who might not even have a security clearance, held forth on the idea that maybe we shouldn't be so hard on white supremacists and that the idea of "lone wolf" terror ops was mostly bullshit. Every bit of that couldn't actually be more wrong.
Trump's weird use of the term "on many sides" makes it seem like anti-racist or anti-fascist groups also were indulging in violence. He attributes the counter-protestors' existence as provocation enough for what happened to them? He blames the people standing up to hate as being also biased? His flabby response heartened the so-called "alt-right" (Nazis) by letting them believe he loves them too much to attribute blame to them.
President Obama was regularly accused of appeasement. I have always maintained that this was a word deployed by people who did not understand the nuances of power, and would not know "appeasement" for "détente". But I have no problem seeing Trump as appeasing the white racists who helped elect him, in much the same way as I see appeasement in his stance on Russian sanctions, and his supposedly sarcastic "thanking" of Putin for the supposed reduction in his State Department staff in Russia.
Trump is a stupid weakling who supports bias and hate, domestic terrorism, and entertains delusions of us making nice with a foreign power who means to undermine us. And any person who ever used the "appeasement" line regarding Obama, but supports Trump right now, is shit. (This would also include people saying the exact right things about domestic terror and against the Nazis gathered in Charlottesville. Say the exact right things all you want--but what are you doing about the birther your party made happen to our country? What standard do you even hold him to?)
The rise of Trump, the so-called "Trump Effect", is definitely a factor in reinforcing racist bias and emboldening hate groups to believe they can operate without fear. We need to call it that. We need to see an end to Trumpism. And that means ending Trump.