The Circus in Chicago

The circus that took place in Chicago last night was depressing, for a lot of reasons, but watching the coverage of it today I realized it was part of a larger political strategy that involved coordination among numerous disparate participants.

It began with a WaPo article that "raised the question" of whether or not Trump could be held legally responsible for acts of violence at his rallies. Having had the stage set, the professional protesters appeared on cue to create incidents that they hoped would lead to violence.

Cable TV, unwittingly or otherwise, played its role by televising the "event" as if it were a riot, repeatedly playing, over and over again, clips of the few violent incidents that did occur. They also brought in all manner of pundits and politicians to discuss the subject that had been so obviously teed up for them: "Does Trump's rhetoric incite violence?" His opponents were invited to comment and, surprise surprise, they expressed the opinion that to some extent it does and to some extent he is responsible. Even on FOX the commentators who stressed, what is undeniably true; that this was a staged incident with professional actors designed to raise the very question being asked, were largely ignored so that everyone could return to the juicy questions of "Is Trump to blame?" and "Can he be held legally responsible for any injuries that might have occurred?"

Megan Kelly, who I usually find to be fairly evenhanded despite making it clear on which side of an issue she falls, was hell bent on making the story all about Trump. I guess all the **** he's given her got through the skin she tries to make everyone believe is so tough.

And of course Cable TV is today talking about nothing but Chicago and Trump which is usually what he wants, but not this time I think. Democrats are on every show warning America of Trump and his brown shirts, even though this time around the brown shirts were carrying Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, and MoveOn.org signs.

It was a punch that Trump could see being thrown a mile away and it was as transparent as a pane of glass but it was brilliant in its conceptualization and execution. Trump is an excellent counter-puncher but last night he was limited solely to defense. His decision, ostensibly to protect lives, to cancel the rally was the only option available to him. It was a loss, but it prevented a much greater defeat. Thanks to this move and the restraint of the lingering Trump supporters and the Chicago Police the incidents of violence were minimal in number and intensity and the riot the agitators sought, never happened, but it's still nothing like a victory for Trump.

Certainly he will make hay about "Paid thugs depriving me and my supporters of the First Amendment right!" and those who prior to last night supported him will do so even more strongly, if that's possible, but it wasn't a good night for him overall. He ended up seeming more weak than responsible. This is a problem with insisting on being the bombastic, tough guy. Reactions based on rational wisdom can easily be interpreted as "backing down" by people who want their guy to always be swinging.

I do think that some Republican who didn't support Trump before last night will be moved by the disgusting circus to reconsider. It had me thinking.

Overall, I don't think the results will be anywhere near as grand as the designers hoped and planned for, but they pulled it off and the fact that is was so utterly contrived will probably not make a difference with voters either.

It's tempting to consider last night as evidence that the Left is less honorable and more capable of subterfuge and deceit than the Right, but this would be a mistake to the extent that while the Left may be more skilled than the Right with the tactics on display here, the Right has always had a set of its own to employ. The problem is that the Left's is more effective in this day and age and the Right either can't or won't learn how to use them.

The Left's roots have always been in revolution and although Democrats have been in power in the country for extended periods of time, their strategists have learned from revolutionaries. When the Left uses these tactics to rise above the Right it has had no problem what-so-ever in using the enormous power of the State (whether here or in places like Russia or China) to consolidate and expand its power, but Leftists never forget what got them there.

The Right on the other hand has largely always had the power of the State as its foundation and while they are quite good at using it to get what they want, they have not had to develop the tried and tested tactics of insurgency and guerilla warfare. The Left's weapons of choice are the dagger, the Molotov cocktail and the garrote, while the Right has relied on broadswords, canons, and inexhaustible resources.

The wars of today's world are, largely, being fought with the strategies and tactics of the Left and governments empowered by the strategies and tactics of the Right have had great difficulty winning them convincingly. In the political battles of the US, the strategies and tactics of the Left are better suited to achieve victory, and the Democrats are much better positioned to use them.

When conservative have employed the tactics of the Left, they have been effective (Case in point the destruction of Acorn), but no strategy or tactic is 100% effective (Case in point the failure to take down Planned Parenthood). Still the Right needs to employ these tactics to a much greater degree if they want to win.

Again, it is a case of tactics not moral standing or principle. For whatever reason, John McCain and Mitt Romney were not comfortable with the street fighting that was required when they ran against Obama. One of the reasons that Trump is so popular among a large segment of the electorate is that he is not only comfortable with brawling, he's good at it. However a willingness to get bloodied and, more importantly, to bloody your opponent is not enough. Republican strategists need to learn from their rivals.

There has never been a Republican or Tea Party rally where the participants were so obviously directed from elsewhere as the "protesters" in Chicago were last night . Virtually every one who was asked by a reporter why they were there or what they hoped to accomplish answered "I don't want to answer that question." One protester giving that answer is astounding. When do they ever pass up the opportunity to rant about their cause? However multiple protesters in separate places giving the same answer? If you don't think they had marching orders, you are delusional.

Watching the circus was fascinating from a political science perspective, but it was depressing. Obviously the Left has decided that it is a very successful tactic to do what it takes to stop speech they don't agree with or like. We've seen this used on campus repeatedly and it was even used with Bernie Sanders by BLM, but now we are seeing it deployed on a much grander scale. The circus last night was successful enough that we are guaranteed to see it repeated in the days ahead and eventually the agitators will get what they want, there will be serious violence.

I have a very strong feeling that we are witnessing a major shake-up in our political scene, and that political scientists and historians will be talking about 2016 for many, many years to come. I have no idea how it's all going to sort out, but I have no confidence or hope that it will be done in a good way and that we will be led to a better place.