Yep... cracking down on mostly urban protestors in particular is likely a half-assed attempt to curry favor with educated white suburban voters. It's a demographic that's been bleeding away from the Republicans the last couple of years, either in terms of voting against them or just failing to turn out because many of them just plain don't like Trump. The thought is no doubt that worried, nervous suburbanites who hate disruption in any form may respond positively to tough talk about rioters. And Trump can't sell the idea that he's the man you want in charge during a national crisis. We all have seen how well that worked out.
I seriously doubt Trump actually wants a race war; bad for business after all. For the most part disruptions to the economy interfere with him making money, which I imagine is his first, last and only true love. He wants cover for his grifting most of all. He simply seems to be thinking no further than making whatever statements he guesses his supporters want to hear. I'm sure even he recognizes that his favoribility rating among people of color is something like what, 7%? Sure, go ahead and bash 'em, they're a writeoff anyway.
Trump panders to his supporting base every waking moment. He saw the protesters with guns demanding that states be reopened and loved that image. In his brain he sees those same guns being turned on the Floyd protesters, who were conspicuously unarmed. That's a win-win moment for him.
Remember that he has no sense of tomorrow. He doesn't care about consequences. He wants what he wants right this moment. And he wants "law and order." So did Nixon. We know how that turned out.
Agreed on all points. I will add, however, that he really doesn't want "law and order" per se. He certainly doesn't want to have to obey the law
himself. So I'd say it's more "order" than "law" which he desires. Order without law is called tyranny, where the tyrant is above his own "law."
Conservatives style themselves as rule of law people, until a republican, especially Trump, is breaking the law.
Further evidence of the insincerity of their "law and order" disposition is their tendency to support things like vigilantism (as with Arbury and Martin). Or, for that matter, the death penalty.
Here is what appeals to them about "law and order": punishment, especially the harsh kind. And especially for the kinds of people who aren't in the right tribe. The law must be administered dispassionately to work. It isn't about one's emotional need for retribution, to see people "fry" because it makes them feel better.
Sorry, I'm aware that last part was tangential to your excellent post.