After the brief arrest of a senator, a different explanation followed from both political camps

The incident – the short -standing arrest of an American senator – only takes short, but the fall-out The confrontation remained felt all day afterwards in political Washington and on social media. Like the most power measurements between the government and the opposition, both parties had a diametrically different explanation. It is precisely the use of violence that is crucial.

On Thursday, the American Minister of Interior Security Kristi called a press conference in Los Angeles. She spoke about the reaction to the riots that arose last week because of the random arrests of the aliens police that operate under her responsibility. On A recording of her press conference You can see how she says: « We are not leaving here. We will continue to free the city from the socialist and annoying administration that the governor and the mayor have forced on this country. »

At that moment – out of the picture – it is audible how someone tries to make himself understood. Images that bystanders have shot make it clear that it is Alex Padilla, one of the two democratic senators for California. He is pushed with force out of the room by security guards, they do not respond to his objection that he is a senator and only wants to ask the minister some questions. He is pushed to the ground in the corridor and fascinated by an FBI agent. It is – « or all -Peys”, Says Padilla-Alzem’s adviser and seasoned Trump supporter Corey Lewandowski who calls the agents: » Let him go! Let him go!  » It only takes short, a little later Padilla is talking outside the press again.

It was a political skirmish in the sidelines of the riots in Los Angeles and the deployment of soldiers against civilians. And here too, the question and effort of the discussion is: who is actually violent against whom?

Peacefully

« If this is how the government, if this is how the Ministry of Interior Security responds to a senator who asks a question, try to imagine how they deal with farm workers and day laborers in Los Angeles County, » Padilla told the journalists. « I was there peacefully. »

That is not as the Ministry of calling it explained, nor how politicians from the Republican Party saw it. On x The ministry’s official account That Padilla made « a scene » that he « disturbed » the press conference and that he « jumped » to the minister.

The Republican President of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson Sharpness that formulation that same day even further as if Padilla had ‘stormed’ and had fought ‘physically’ on the minister. « The Democratic Party defends people who violate the law and now they act as violators. »

For example, it was narrative about an incident pressed into a familiar mold: that President Donald Trump must act hard because his opponents are violent. Even if they are not, the message is that they are.

Profitable

At first glance, throwing over with the question of guilt is a simple case of ‘you started, no you started’. But the question of who uses violence and why is indeed of essential political meaning. Thursday published Reuters/Ipsos A poll that illustrates that it is profitable to identify the use of government violence by stating that the other party started. In the poll, several questions were asked about government action against migrants and protesters. Of the respondents, 49 percent think that the government is ‘too far’ in the arrest of migrants. Among partyless respondents, that percentage is even slightly higher: 52 percent. A minority agrees with Trumps hard exposure policy.

The performance of the federal government- including the use of the army- is also approved by more people. A third of the respondents support the government’s approach, half not. But the perspective changes when the question is asked whether it is good that Trump uses soldiers to get ‘violent protest’ under control. Then suddenly almost half of the respondents are positive: 48 percent. Also among Democrats (17 percent) and party boxes (44 percent), support for Trump is greater than other questions.

In that light it is logical that the government and the sympathizing media have been hammering the violence of demonstrators since the start of the protests in Los Angeles. For example, the government legitimizes its actions, in the context of a policy of which an earlier survey of CBS News showed that a majority supports the objective, but the hard version is not.