Been reading a book on the period recently so it was fresh in my mind and hit me right away. Some of the stuff the author describes (Stanley G. Payne) is kind of eyebrow-raising:

Although the great bulk of the political violence under the Republic had always come from the left, the Azana government reasoned that the abolition of the Falange - the one categorised fascist-type movement in the country - would only improve public order and reduce the provocation and excuses of the leftist revolutionaries.

The phrase, "They need to disavow the violence they created by existing!" comes to mind. This comes right after a description of socialists, emboldened by the elections, going on a spree of political murders, bombings, and Church-burnings. This also is gold:

When Azana was replaced as prime minister in mid-May by... Casares Quiroga, the latter officially declared that the government was "belligererent against fascism." Had he specified the Falange alone, that might have been justifiable, but Casares well knew that the rhetoric of his Popular Front allies extended the term to anything right of centre. He thus announced a policy of hopeless sectarianism, in which civil rights would increasingly become a dead letter.

Sound familiar? I'm Not trying to whitewash Spanish fascism here, btw just find these parallels kind of interesting considering the political violence & radical climate in the US right now. Plus, I was always taught at school that the Spanish Civil War was all about fascists overthrowing a peaceful democratic republic; turns out that peaceful republic was just as authoritarian and repressive as the regime which replaced it.