Regrettably, there is misplaced fault finding and sides being drawn by conservatives regarding disruptions at Trump campaign rallies. The disruptions are clearly by leftists intended to foment fear in general and provoke Trump (and his supporters) in order to garner adverse publicity about Trump’s candidacy. That should be clear to all objective observers and political rivals. But one issue is whether Trump “has it coming” or even whether he is inviting such protests and is living off of them politically. In that respect here are some links to backgrounder articles, keep in mind the sources.
Why Protesters Help Donald Trump (Time)
Trump supporters, protesters clash after Chicago rally postponed (CNN)
After months of playing protesters to his advantage, Donald Trump is overpowered in Chicago (Washington Post)
Cruz, Rubio and Kasich criticize Trump for creating ‘environment’ for Chicago protest (Washington Post)
Those that think free speech has anything to do with this other than Trump’s being denied should keep in mind that Trump’s campaign events (indeed all such events by the various candidates) are held at rented venues and are subject to invitation (to come and to leave). No one has a right to be there and disrupt the purposes of the event. They can protest in non-reserved public access areas but they do not get to claim the event grounds for themselves anymore than you get to bump people from a picnic table that they reserved at a local public park because you feel like it.
Regarding our own disappointment toward Ted Cruz regarding this matter, for not being heavier on the criticism of the leftist agitators, and even being bone-headed about the politics . . . no doubt some wise person first said, “nobody’s perfect.” It is our firm conviction that he remains the only realistic choice if the future of our relatively free republic is to be preserved.
“Nuanced” takes on all of this from other conservative commentators.
Excerpts from the American Thinker article by Thomas Lifson
Let’s apply the Trump Standard of rhetoric fostering violence to Obama
On June 14, 2008, the Wall Street Journal published this:
Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?
That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
Lifson also provided this little reminder:
…doesn’t President Obama’s rhetoric about “get in their face” and White House advice to “punch back twice as hard” justify disrupting Obama’s public events?
From Nate Jackson at Patriot Post
Thanks Obama. The insanity of the 2016 election boils down to that phrase. Want to know why the GOP fielded one of the most impressive and accomplished presidential candidates in memory? Barack Obama. Want to know why that field was decimated by Donald Trump, as he became deeply popular with many Americans? Barack Obama. Want to know why political rallies now feature threats and violence? Barack Obama.
As Mark Alexander wrote last month, “Seven years of Obama’s repressive regime has fomented despair, delusion and division among the ranks of Republican voters — so much so that some are willing to take leave of their senses and join a cultish movement with a self-promoting charlatan as its head. History is replete with examples of such movements, and the tragic result — the suppression of Liberty.”
The news that a Trump rally was canceled Friday night because of clashes between his supporters and protesters is a microcosm of the angst in the political arena. Trump’s rise is, again, due in part to the Left’s fascistic efforts to silence dissent, be it on climate change, same-sex marriage, or proposed gun confiscation, just to name a few. All of that is part and parcel with vast expanse of government and abuse of power.
It’s to Trump’s credit that he canceled the Chicago rally. The leftist protesters clearly came ready for a fight, so things likely would have gotten even uglier, and more people would have been hurt. The blame for that lies squarely on the protesters planning their attack.
But it shouldn’t be surprising that Trump’s people are itching to punch someone in the face, too. (Some of them actually have.) Especially when Trump is saying things of protesters like this in Las Vegas: “I’d like to punch him in the face.” Or what he said in Missouri: “There used to be consequences to protesting. There are none anymore.” Or there’s this gem from an Iowa event: “So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ’em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise.”
People believe everything else he says. Why not the promise to back them up for punching a leftist’s lights out? Really, is it any wonder that Trump’s ace of anger affirmation would be followed at rallies by the jack of clubs?
Back to Obama, who has an authoritarian streak. Given his heated and petulant rhetoric over the years, he clearly views his opponents as evil and deserving of jail, exile or some other form of punishment. Often, the reaction to such authoritarianism is violence.
So it’s interesting that Trump is also an authoritarian. He advocates everything from loosening libel laws to the detriment of the First Amendment to violence to suppress dissent — in-kind retribution for the Left’s tactics. His campaign manager allegedly manhandled a reporter for a friendly publication. But the overarching point is that Trump says he can fix all of the ills of the Obama era by making “better deals” — i.e., using his great authoritarian power to make government great again.
People who put their faith in big government — whether Obama’s or Trump’s version — are probably more likely to resort to violence and other tactics of suppression.
All of this said, Americans have a history of rowdy political displays, so this recent escalation isn’t entirely new. Indeed, it’s a bit much for Friday’s news to have commentators looking for the nearest fainting couch. The original Boston Tea Party featured the destruction of private property. And the War for Independence began as a reaction to the British violently suppressing dissent — the colonists took up arms to stop them. This is a nation that split into two and fought a war over political disagreements. The 1968 election brought riots and two assassinations.
What is new, however, is a leading presidential candidate essentially turning an “eye for an eye” into a major plank of his platform. Will that fix what ails our nation?
Gary Bauer writing at Campaign for Working Families opined this:
Of all the counterproductive things that have happened in the campaign this year, perhaps the most troubling took place Friday night. A left-wing mob organized by MoveOn.org, activists from the Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street movements, and a dozen other radical groups, sent thousands of people into the streets of Chicago and inside an arena where Donald Trump was scheduled to speak. Bill Ayers even showed up, too.
The predictable confrontation that followed resulted in the cancellation of the rally and violated the free speech rights of the candidate and thousands of average Americans who came to hear and see him.
People leaving the rally had to walk through a mob of protestors shouting obscenities. The American flag was defaced. Palestinian and Mexican flags were proudly flown. Hundreds of families who had to retrieve their cars from a parking garage were literally prevented from leaving for over an hour because the left’s street troops blocked the exits.
I have a very simple question to pose: What would the reaction have been if thousands of conservatives filled an Obama rally in 2008 or 2012 and the inevitable riot ensued? They would have been called bigots and Nazis. Everyone would have condemned the conservative protestors.
But this weekend, the condemnation was reserved for the candidate and his supporters, not the disruptors.
I expected this from big media and left-wing politicians, the Clinton campaign and, of course, the Sanders campaign. What was so demoralizing was to hear some GOP candidates and commentators joining the cascade of criticism.
Some people claim it was provocative for the Trump campaign to even try to hold an event at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Are we going to buy into the left’s idea that WE are the problem?
Surely they understand that the same mobs are shouting down conservatives on college campuses. The same students flying Palestinian flags Friday night are harassing Jewish students, while campus officials look the other way.
These are the same people who physically threatened me at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, and who nearly ruined the 2008 convention in Minneapolis. Cleveland, which is hosting this year’s convention, will be an armed camp.
But while these examples are in the past, I have no doubt the same kind of mob will torment any Republican who is nominated this year. They will attempt to disrupt the inauguration and they will take to the streets, if necessary, to prevent a conservative president from reversing the damage of the past seven years.
Sadly, in their desire to stop Trump, good people who ought to know better just empowered those mobs by suggesting that what a conservative candidate says at a rally justifies stifling free speech. Surely we know by now that the left thinks everything we say is “hate speech.”
This fuzzy thinking undoubtedly contributed to a 22 year-old fanatic rushing the stage at a Trump event in Dayton, Ohio, on Saturday. He is already out of jail and being interviewed by CNN.
Tolerating this behavior puts every candidate of both parties in danger.
Related reading and later articles regarding the matter:
Trump to be charged with inciting riot? ‘The plan is to shut Donald all the way down’
Breitbart hit by two high-profile resignations over handling of Michelle Fields incident (updated)
DLG and R Mall
