Prodding the Bear with a Red-Hot Poker: When Provocation Meets Backlash in American Politics, By Paul Walker and Chris Knight (Florida)
In this post we are weighing in on a metaphor that's been buzzing in conservative circles: the Left "prodding the bear with a red-hot poker, then demanding the bear be shot when it swipes back." It's a vivid way to frame what we see as a cycle of instigation and indignation, policies or rhetoric that create chaos, followed by outrage when the other side pushes back. Drawing from recent commentary, like Kevin Finn's piece on Leftist actions leading to violence against conservatives and law enforcement (link below), let's unpack this theme. We'll stick to verified facts where possible, acknowledge the partisan heat, and explore if these dynamic holds water in today's polarised landscape. Spoiler: Political violence is a bipartisan poison, but the bear-prodding analogy highlights real tensions worth dissecting.
The Metaphor in Action: Immigration as the Hot Poker
At the heart of Finn's argument is immigration, a policy arena where actions (or inactions) have real-world ripple effects. Under the Biden administration (2021-2025), U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded over 10 million encounters at the southern border, including unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers from around the globe. Critics, including Trump, argue this influx was "unvetted," straining resources and fuelling crime waves. Enter the "bear swipe": Trump's second term kicks off mass deportation efforts in 2025, aiming to reverse the flow.
The backlash? Reports of a sharp uptick in assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. DHS claimed a "1,000% increase" in attacks since June 2025, tied to inflammatory rhetoric from Left-leaning figures. However, independent outlets like NPR and CPR News have pushed back, noting a lack of public data to substantiate the figure, requests for evidence went unanswered. Still, incidents are documented: A vehicle-ramming attack on CBP agents in Chicago in October 2025, and bystander videos showing tense, sometimes violent encounters during raids. Protests, including by veterans, have led to arrests, with some escalating into clashes.
From the bear-prodding view, the Left's open-border policies (or perceived laxity) invited the mess, overburdened systems, cultural clashes, then decried enforcement as "fascist" or "inhumane" when agents faced pushback. It's a classic setup: Poke the system into overload, then villainise the cleanup crew.
Broadening out, Finn catalogues a "rising tide" of political violence targeting conservatives, law enforcement, and institutions since 2016. Data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) confirms a spike in Left-wing terrorism, particularly post-2020. Over 200 documented acts? Sources like PBS and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) track hundreds of incidents.
Key examples hold up:
2016 San Jose Riot: Anti-Trump protesters assaulted rally attendees, throwing eggs and rocks; police reported dozens injured.
2016 NC GOP Firebombing: A Republican office was torched with graffiti reading "Nazi Republicans leave town or else."
Post-Dobbs Attacks (2022+): After the Supreme Court's abortion ruling, over 100 pro-life centres and churches faced vandalism, arson, and bombings. The Religious Freedom Institute and Family Research Council documented hundreds of church incidents through 2023, with echoes in 2025.
Antifa and ICE Clashes: 2019 saw an armed attack on a Tacoma ICE facility; 2025 reports include ambushes and charges against radicals.
High-Profile Targets: The 2017 congressional baseball shooting by a Bernie Sanders supporter nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise. Rand Paul was assaulted in 2017; Brett Kavanaugh faced a 2022 assassination plot. Trump's two 2024 attempts (Butler, PA, and Florida golf course) led to Ryan Routh's 2025 conviction. The September 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a Utah college campus amplified fears of Left-wing escalation.
The theme here? Provocative rhetoric — "Trump is Hitler," "conservatives threaten democracy" — allegedly stirs lone wolves. From a truth-seeking lens, yes, heated language correlates with violence; recent data shows a notable uptick in attacks on conservative figures, fitting the "swipe back" narrative.
This cycle isn't just about violence, it's about eroding trust. Finn warns of "chaotic no-go zones" like Portland's 2020 CHAZ, or economic sabotage like Tesla arsons linked to Musk's Trump ties. If unchecked, it could spark a "conservative backlash": Armed groups, collapsed institutions, civil strife. Foreign Affairs notes America in a "new age of political violence," with threats rising decade-long.
Hypothetically, if the Left's "poking" (e.g., defund police movements) leads to crime spikes, then demonises law-and-order responses, it mirrors the metaphor. The White House's 2025 executive order on countering domestic terrorism is a step toward de-escalation.
The "prodding the bear" trope captures a frustrating dynamic: Create the problem, then rage at the fix. From immigration enforcement to cultural battles, it's a recipe for division. The solution? Dial down the rhetoric, prosecute violence equally, and reclaim civility. As Finn puts it, douse the flames before they consume us.
Comments