Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'll have to admit that I'm just long past being outraged by anything Donald Trump has to say. He's like one of the Geico commercials: He's a bombthrower. That's what he does.
When he talks, he aims to evoke a response, good or bad. It doesn't surprise me at all that Trump has ratcheted up the rhetoric on violence in the wake of the canceled rally Friday. Anyone who has been paying attention to Trump should know that's what he does: When he's challenged or attacked on something, he doubles down on it. So now, instead of the references to violence at his rallies just being one-liners, basically being used as a way to brush off the oddball protesters who occasionally disrupt one of his rallies, his calls for violence have gone front and center in his campaign!!!!
If people on the left and other protesters ratchet up their response, we could quickly get into a vicious circle of ever-increasing violence at and outside Trump rallies. NO. This is unacceptable. Trump won't take the lead against the violence, but that's not what he does. Other people can and should do so, and just pointing the finger at Trump isn't going to do any good. The violence needs to be stopped from other sources as well.
So sure. Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio and John Kasich should condemn Trump all day long. But Sanders also should be admonishing his supporters to act like adults and not play into Trump's hands. That's right, there is a very real chance that this could actually make Trump a STRONGER candidate.
Then you just have the mindless people who act on emotions, like a woman screaming *F--KING RACISTS* at a family leaving a Trump rally in Kansas City Saturday night. Those kids will probably be terrified of black people the rest of their lives. That improves race relations?
Or the criminals who nearly beat to death a few members of the Ku Klux Klan who tried to peacefully protest at a park in California a few months ago. It's hard to find a way to make the Klan sympathetic figures, but they managed.
When the reaction to a message is worse than the message itself, something is seriously wrong.
I suspect there is nothing we can do to reach those people, but I think many people can be reached. It's up to ALL sides to try to do something about it. It's EVERYBODY'S problem, not just Donald Trump's.
True story here, from when I was a college student and about the same age of some of Bernie's supporters. A group of friends and I knew about an article upcoming in the college paper that we disagreed with on political grounds. So we thought wouldn't it be funny if we did something about it. We got up early that morning and dumped all of the college papers in the trash before students arrived for class. It was a prank (and WAY before the advent of YouTube and Instagram). Probably not unlike the idea many had Friday: Wouldn't it be great if a whole bunch of us infiltrated Trump's rally and in the middle of it held up Bernie signs and shouted Vote for Bernie!!!
I didn't consider the bigger picture then, and they aren't now: An act of political vandalism that silences your opponent not only denies that opponent their First Amendment rights, it denies people the right to hear that opponent, and demeans you, too. This is a teaching moment that Bernie could use to great effect if he would have the political courage to do so.
And it would be a lot more meaningful than just saying Donald Trump is a liar. That's been said so many times, who would expect anything else? Sure Donald Trump lies. That's what he does. Merely pointing that out over and over and over again isn't going to accomplish anything except to reinforce people's feelings of outrage. And that's the last thing we need to be doing right now.
But I won't hold my breath. And BTW, that article was eventually reprinted anyway:)
BTW, on Sanders' young supporters who choose to attend Trump rallies: They would only be criminalized if they do it to themselves. If they go and behave, they don't have anything to worry about. (Except that now, I'd be concerned about going to a Trump rally even if I were a Trump supporter, much less a Trump protester. Who knows what might happen?)
However, if they don't behave, then, yeah, what you do does have consequences. That's something a lot of kids don't understand, I think. If this kind of activity were to continue to happen, I would hope Bernie would eventually discourage it.
But on the protesters -- look, we are all responsible for our own actions. If a protester beats someone up, throws a brick at a police officer, fires a shot, etc., saying Trump made me do it isn't likely to cut them any slack, and shouldn't. Similarly, if you go to a Trump rally, stand up in the middle of it and start yelling something, or do something really dumb like the guy who rushed the stage, you can expect to be led away from the rally, possibly cited for something, or in the case of the guy who rushed the stage, be arrested. You shouldn't expect to be beaten up, but if you go to jail, it is the result of your own choice and your own actions. Whatever Trump says is not an excuse to break the law. If protesters do that, it's their own choice and they have to accept the consequences that accompany that choice. We have the right to protest peacefully. That doesn't include violence, disturbing the peace or other law-breaking activity.
I'm a real journalist, and I DON"T think it's appropriate for journalists to inject personal opinions into a news report (as opposed to a column or opinion piece). Do we want all media to turn into Fox News?
However, reputable news media do affect public opinion in more subtle ways. The way stories are selected, how they are played, and how they are presented does indeed help mold public opinion. In fact, in the very thing we have been discussing -- violence at Trump rallies -- the media has played a major role in turning it into an issue by emphasizing it so much and playing Trump quotes, etc. I wonder though, if all the coverage has taken something that, while wrong, was not a major problem, and now turned it into something where large numbers of people are protesting and perhaps turning Trump events into something REALLY violent. In short, taking something that was a small problem and turning it into a BIG one. Only time will tell, and it's an example of how media choices are important and can have unintended consequences.
And for Trump, perhaps a very strong lesson that words matter too, and that they can have severe consequences. Until now, he's mostly escaped consequences for his often reckless speech. And if by some miracle, he were to be elected (I think whatever small chance there may have been of that before is virtually gone now), he should know that when a president says something, what he (or she) says DOES matter and have consequences.
"Many people are alarmed about the Trump tendency to lie and encourage violence, but it is difficult to know that by observing media coverage, where little journalistic alarm over Trump is expressed. That’s because the rules of large media outlets — venerating faux objectivity over truth along with every other civic value — prohibit the sounding of any alarms. Under this framework of corporate journalism, to denounce Trump, or even to sound alarms about the dark forces he’s exploiting and unleashing, would not constitute journalism."
"The debate over “objectivity” and “neutrality” in journalism has been, quite relevant and pressing since long before the emergence of Donald Trump."
"Regarding whether “neutrality” and “objectivity” are new journalistic concoctions, note that the two most revered figures in American broadcast journalism history — Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite — would have been fired from NPR and multiple other contemporary media outlets for their most notable moments: Murrow when he used his nightly news broadcast to repeatedly denounce Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and Cronkite when he did the same about the Vietnam War."
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/14/the-rise-of-t … eutrality/
An Open Letter to Donald Trump:
Mr. Trump,
I try my hardest not to be political. I’ve refused to interview several of your fellow candidates. I didn’t want to risk any personal goodwill by appearing to take sides in a contentious election. I thought: ‘Maybe the timing is not right.’ But I realize now that there is no correct time to oppose violence and prejudice. The time is always now. Because along with millions of Americans, I’ve come to realize that opposing you is no longer a political decision. It is a moral one.
I’ve watched you retweet racist images. I’ve watched you retweet racist lies. I’ve watched you take 48 hours to disavow white supremacy. I’ve watched you joyfully encourage violence, and promise to ‘pay the legal fees’ of those who commit violence on your behalf. I’ve watched you advocate the use of torture and the murder of terrorists’ families. I’ve watched you gleefully tell stories of executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood. I’ve watched you compare refugees to ‘snakes,’ and claim that ‘Islam hates us.’
I am a journalist, Mr. Trump. And over the last two years I have conducted extensive interviews with hundreds of Muslims, chosen at random, on the streets of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. I’ve also interviewed hundreds of Syrian and Iraqi refugees across seven different countries. And I can confirm— the hateful one is you.
Those of us who have been paying attention will not allow you to rebrand yourself. You are not a ‘unifier.’ You are not ‘presidential.’ You are not a ‘victim’ of the very anger that you’ve joyfully enflamed for months. You are a man who has encouraged prejudice and violence in the pursuit of personal power. And though your words will no doubt change over the next few months, you will always remain who you are.
Sincerely,
Brandon Stanton
My english is not good, but I am sure the is a word for it in the sense of political fire raising? That IS violence and he has to take the responsability for this.
Chapeau for those activists, who dare to 'fight' for what is right: the commonwealth of all people. And I am not sure of someone like Mrs. Clinton does want understanding and wellfare.