On the morning of May 25, I awoke to a message from a colleague with whom, in spite of our decided political differences, I\u2019m friendly.<\/p>\n
His question pertained to the riots\u2014he referred to them as \u201cprotests\u201d\u2014engaged in by anti-Trump thugs\u2014he called them \u201cprotesters\u201d\u2014outside of a Trump rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico the evening prior.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf his [Trump\u2019s] rhetoric wasn\u2019t as controversial as it I,\u201d my fellow professor asked, \u201cif he said NONE of what has garnered his rise to the top\u2014would these violent protests happen?\u201d<\/p>\n
Chris is a good guy. However, implicit in his question are assumptions that are as dubious as they are concerning.<\/p>\n
(1)For starters, we should remind ourselves of what exactly it is that Trump has said that \u201chas garnered his rise to the top\u201d of the GOP presidential field.<\/p>\n
(a)Given the legions of Mexican <\/em>flags under the banner of which the rioters in Albuquerque (and elsewhere) have spread their reign of terror, it\u2019s safe to say, I think, that Trump\u2019s remarks regarding the criminal underclass that Mexico has exported to the United States and the need to deport those who are in America illegally is one piece of \u201crhetoric\u201d that my colleague finds so \u201ccontroversial.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s undoubtedly true that on this score, Trump struck a chord with unprecedented numbers\u2014millions and millions\u2014of Americans from across the political spectrum. <\/em>And given the displays of outrageous, indeed, the criminal, <\/em>conduct of Mexicans assaulting police, destroying property, violating Americans\u2019 right to peacefully assemble, and self-identifying as illegals, it\u2019s just as undoubtedly true that Trump\u2019s observations were spot on.<\/p>\n As for the deportation of illegals, from whichever country of origin, this is what the law requires\u2014<\/em>even if craven and greedy politicians refuse to enforce it.<\/p>\n Of course, Trump also promises to construct a wall along our southern border for which he\u2019ll make Mexico pay. Yet unless one is for the erasure of a border between Mexico and the US, why should any American <\/em>regard the proposal of a wall as any more \u201ccontroversial\u201d than the proposal for one to lock one\u2019s doors at night?<\/p>\n And why should anyone whose allegiance is to America <\/em>be in the least upset by an arrangement that would insure that a foreign government subsidizes an expensive mechanism that may not have existed but for its<\/em> abuses?<\/p>\n (b)Trump has \u201csuggested\u201d for consideration a temporary ban on all Muslim immigrants. Considering that Islamic jihadists murdered nearly 3,000 Americans on a particularly infamous day some 15 years ago, and given that ever since America has had to contend with the most brutal of jihadists of various sorts from Islamic lands, this too has struck the ears of millions of Americans from diverse backgrounds\u2014including Nation of Islam minister and black separatist, Louis Farakhan<\/a>\u2014as a commonsensical plan.<\/p>\n There are other \u201ccontroversial\u201d things that Trump has said, but I suspect that it is principally his comments on these immigration-related matters that my colleague has in mind when he uses the word \u201ccontroversial\u201d in connection with the violence of anti-Trump thugs. And this brings us to his next questionable presupposition.<\/p>\n (2)You can take it to the bank that if a person refers to another\u2019s views as \u201ccontroversial,\u201d it is almost always going to be views with which he or she disagrees<\/em>.<\/p>\n In other words, it is always the other guy (or gal) <\/em>who speaks controversially.<\/p>\n As for the views of oneself and one\u2019s ilk, not so much.<\/p>\n In reality, though, the word \u201ccontroversy\u201d should be reserved for reasonable <\/em>disagreements, i.e. conflicts between informed<\/em> individuals. That there is disagreement between, on the one hand, folks who insist that the moon landing of 1969 never happened and, on the other hand, the rest of us, most definitely does not <\/em>mean that the event in question is \u201ccontroversial.\u201d<\/p>\n But setting this point aside, we need only acknowledge this much: Given that the presence of different political parties, religious denominations, ideologies, and so forth represent differences <\/em>in viewpoints, virtually any such perspective is bound to sound \u201ccontroversial\u201d to those who don\u2019t share it.<\/p>\n Bernie Sanders\u2019 and Hillary Clinton\u2019s plans to militarize society via their socialism is, at a minimum, \u201ccontroversial\u201d to roughly half of the country that plans on voting against them.<\/p>\n And yet there are zero<\/em> reports of their <\/em>\u201ccontroversial\u201d views provoking political opponents into attacking the property and person of others.<\/p>\n (3)My colleague seems to assume that mob violence<\/em> against innocents is an understandable, if unjustified, reply to \u201crhetoric<\/em>.\u201d To this I offer two responses.<\/p>\n First, as in the case of the \u201ccontroversial,\u201d it is always the other guy\u2019s \u201crhetoric\u201d that is \u201cdivisive,\u201d \u201cpolarizing,\u201d \u201cincendiary\u201d\u2014i.e. provocative of bloodthirsty retaliation.<\/p>\n Had it been hordes of, say, white Southerners with Confederate flags who visited destruction down upon the heads of attendees at an Obama, Black Lives Matter, or even a Nikki Haley rally, you can bet dollars to donuts that my colleague never<\/em> would\u2019ve inquired into the connection between the \u201ccontroversial\u201d \u201crhetoric\u201d of the latter and the \u201cprotest\u201d of the former.<\/p>\n Second, the only time that violence is defensible is when it is defensive\u2014when it is unavoidable in order to protect oneself or innocents. Decent parents teach their children this from a young age: \u201cSticks and stones may break my bones,\u201d and all that.<\/p>\n As one lifelong martial artist and former New York City detective put it, for a civilian to use violence for any reason other than self-defense or the defense of a loved one from \u201cimminent danger,\u201d is for that civilian to be \u201cpart of the problem<\/a> [.]\u201d<\/p>\n