"Until today, we've never had much of a problem." Thus spoke Donald Trump to CNN's Don Lemon last night, as months of immensely problematic populism inevitably slithered their way to a virtual riot.
Second Friday, March, Chicago 2016 was fascinating television, but scarce enlightenment. Nary an American soul nor any world observer had, before last night, failed to perceive what populist Trumpism would someday ignite: factional ferocities, street swarms, reflexive hostilities, fists flying, mobs and counter-mobs.
Their long-laboring instigator was, in successive phone interviews, altogether innocent. "His" people were angry because of mass trade-inflicted joblessness and leaderless stupidity, as he told it. What we were witnessing last night was, in Trump's always objective view, merely the outpouring of years-long, snowballing, and, most of all, understandable fury at what's become known as the traitorous "Establishment." Trump's thuggish, overt encouragement of brownshirted violence had nothing to do with last night's brawl of a rally, because, as his surrogates fanned out to proclaim, Trump has never encouraged any such thing — not even on undeniable video tape.
In a kind of "See It Now" panel discussion, CNN's Lemon also listened to professional pundit Bob Beckel reveal some real insider knowledge. The brawls, the protests, the rally's cancellation would only excite and propel Trump supporters to even higher levels of excited support, intuited Beckel. To which, Don Lemon gazed and replied, "Of course — of course they will." I half-expected Lemon to add: What drooling, lowest-of-information moron wouldn't know that? Nonetheless, we will no doubt hear other such profound declarations today, and into next week.
The battle lines are already drawn and the only question worthy of debate is not how Trump's brownshirts will react, but how the anti-Trump protesters should react. As CNN reports, the characteristic mood of Trump's supporters was that "We just feel as if the protesters have taken over." Which was true, for the "protesters, meanwhile, shouted 'We shut shit down.'"
Should they shut down Trump's shit and that of his supporters? Are the latter to be denied their First Amendment right to assemble, however despicably? Are they to be stripped of their right to parade in Skokie? I would argue: Let 'em be.
Protest the beasts — from afar — all you like, but avoid their violent belly. The speech they are free to embrace may indeed be absolute "shit," and by now, in the 21st century, it may fairly be characterized as "unAmerican." But it is more and lastingly unAmerican to shut down speech, any speech, even shitty speech — including speeches by shitheads like Donald Trump.
If the philosophical reason for "letting 'em be" fails to convince, perhaps physics will be more persuasive. (Please pardon this temporary lapse).
There are, or so it is rather well known, inescapable reactions to all actions. And like Bob Beckel, I'm about to state the bloody obvious in relation to that physical law: At some uncomfortably near point, the Trumpeteers will decide that what's "good" for them is equally good for the gandering gooses at, say, Sanders rallies. And knowing, as we do, the Trumpeteers' violent emotions, they may come armed with rocks, bottles, and their beloved Second Amendment.
And that is something I'd rather not watch next Friday night.
You may Like my Facebook page, or follow me on Twitter.