False equivalency argument trivializes violence..

So I am openly stealing the premise of this argument from Scott Adams, who by the way spends way too much time on a video explaining his concept in way too much detail. But his long winded approach aside, he generally makes sense, and this time is no different. 

The argument is fairly simple. The politically approved manner in which our leaders are supposed to respond to a problem is by doing so in descending order of importance. In the case of Charlottesville, the appropriate response would have been the following:

• Reflect on the tragedy that someone died
• Offer best wishes for the family and friends of the victim
• Chastise the individual who committed the act responsible for the death
• Officially condemn the white supremacists for being white supremacists 

Then, and only then, the argument goes... would a leader be free to then call out (to a lesser degree) any other players who had a hand in what went wrong. In theory (and in all honesty) those who could be called out would be and antifascists, the actions of the police standing down, and perhaps even the local politicians who seemed very disinterested in heading off violence. 

The problem, however, seems two fold. 

First, the President apparently didn't offer harsh enough words for the individual (in the minds of some), and he pretty much skipped step four and went directly to calling pretty much everyone and their brother for what happened. In other word, he didn't follow the normal political script. 

Second, there was an obvious concerted effort on the left to push back on any sort of blame being pointed in "any" direction other than the white supremacists. The liberal talking points argument (as they generally are) appeared to be well coordinated, and was quickly launched by nearly everyone on the left. The argument being that any such attempt to blame anyone "other" then the White Supremacists was a "false equivalence". 

Now logically, the false equivalence accusation might make sense, if you were talking about whether or not you are comparing "ideology" and only "ideology".  For nearly all Americans, there is nothing lower than being a white supremacist in 2017. As much as the antifascists might have an appalling viewpoint, for most it would not rise to the level of being a White Supremacist. When you consider that about half of Americans don't know who the antifascists really are, then it's a no win proposition to compare ideologies. 

However, the President was not comparing ideologies and never brought up ideology. He was simply comparing the actual "actions" of the people involved. This seems to be what fuels the disconnect between those who believe the President's response was totally inappropriate, and those who believed it was entirely appropriate. If you believe he was comparing ideologies, you probably thought he not only missed the boat, but was miles away on dry land. But if you believe he was comparing the actions, then the facts suggests that his response was at the very least accurate. 

So where is the trivializing of violence?  Well, it's obvious. 

By demanding that there was no moral equivalence to the "actions" of those involved... you are making an obvious argument that violence is appropriate, as long as it is directed at the right (or wrong) people. To make the argument that the action of swinging a baseball bat is somehow a morally "different" action to take depending on whether you are wearing Nazi army fatigues or a antifa black mask... absolutely trivialize the action in question. 

If you were being careful "not" to trivialize violence, you would simply argue that swinging a baseball bat at someone you disagree with politically or socially is wrong one hundred percent of the time. You wouldn't demand that there is a "degree" to how wrong it is to commit this sort of violence, depending on whether or not you agree or disagree with the underlying ideology of the person committing the action. 

So the real question becomes... is there a such thing as justifiable political violence?  Are we really ready to throw out the first amendment, and allow someone (politicians, judges) to make choices as to who actually does and does not deserve a bat to the side of the head because their political views are offensive? 

Because that appears to be the argument the left is pushing here.