It’s not uncommon for Donald Trump’s campaign to describe the former president as a “law and order” candidate, his criminal background notwithstanding. But in practical terms, what exactly is the Republican’s vision for implementing a “law and order” agenda?

As it turns out, the GOP nominee shed some fresh light on this during his latest rally in Pennsylvania. Politico reported:

Former President Donald Trump on Sunday called for “one real rough, nasty” and “violent day” of police retaliation in order to eradicate crime “immediately.” … “One rough hour — and I mean real rough — the word will get out and it will end immediately, you know? It will end immediately,” Trump said.

After the event, a Trump campaign spokesperson said, in reference to the radical idea, the former president was “clearly just floating it in jest.”

Perhaps, though there’s reason to believe otherwise. For one thing, he’s made comments like these before: It was exactly one year ago this week, for example, when Trump suggested combatting shoplifting by having the police shoot shoplifters. This would, he put it at the time, “immediately stop all of the pillaging and theft.”

For another, watching a video clip of the comments, he did not appear to be kidding.

In fact, during the same event, the Republican also endorsed the idea of police departments becoming “extraordinarily rough“ as a way of combatting crime.

Why should voters care? Right off the bat, there’s no evidence to suggest “extraordinarily rough” police officers, engaging in “nasty” and “violent” behavior, will actually reduce crime.

Just as notably, as the Politico report noted, “Trump has a long history of endorsing police violence.” It adds necessary context to the GOP candidate’s campaign recently claiming that Democrats are the “party of violence.”

But let’s also not lose sight of the broader conversation: As Election Day draws closer, Republican officials are practically begging the former president to focus less on personal attacks, and more on public policy.

The candidate’s comments about “one really violent day” served as a timely reminder: Trump can’t talk about public policy, and when he tries, the results are ridiculous.

There are a variety of explanations for this, but at its root is an unfortunate assumption: As I argued in my first book, Trump genuinely seems to believe that every challenge can and should be addressed through unexamined, overly simplified answers that appeal to his version of common sense.

The immigration system is broken? Build an ineffective wall. Hurricanes are approaching American soil? Hit them with nuclear weapons. There are too many shooters killing children in schools? Put more guns in the hands of school officials who might shoot back. A virus is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans? Try injecting people with disinfectants.

Russia is waging a brutal and unnecessary war in Ukraine? Slap some Chinese flags on U.S. fighter jets and point them in Moscow’s direction. There are social justice protesters outside the White House? Shoot them in the legs. There are drug cartels in Mexico? Launch missiles into our allied neighbor. There was a terrorist attack on U.S. soil? Impose “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Drugs are ravaging communities? If we simply executed drug dealers, the problem would go away. Some businesses are struggling with shoplifters? “One real rough, nasty” and “violent day” would end such crimes “immediately.”

Drugs are ravaging communities? If we simply executed drug dealers, the problem would go away.

In Trump’s mind, there’s no such thing as a complex challenge requiring a complex solution. Everything is easy. Every question has a simple answer, and every problem can be solved with a simple fix.

It’s post-policy politics at its most obvious: Trump doesn’t want to be bothered with analyses and relevant details, which only leave him confused. He wants to bark out bumper-sticker-style “proposals” that generate applause at rallies.

The next time you hear complaints about Kamala Harris not delving deeply enough into the details of her policy proposals, keep this in mind.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.