My Donald Trump rally
Reflections on the one that I attended in 2016. It was, to echo Kamala Harris's debate observation, "a really interesting thing to watch," though for different reasons.
Four days ago, Vice President Kamala Harris encouraged Americans to attend a Donald Trump rally, calling it “a really interesting thing to watch.”
“He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer,” she said. “And what you will also notice is people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about, is you.”
Harris’s remarks were part of a debate performance so dominant that even conservative media observers (such as those on Fox News) had to acknowledge the Democrat clearly won the night.
In 52 days, on Election Day, we’ll see how much of a difference that makes in a race generally seen as a 50-50 toss-up at the moment.1
But Harris’s commentary on Trump’s rallies, one of numerous ways she got under her opponent’s skin, brought me back to March 2016. That’s when, entirely out of curiosity and with an eye on writing about the experience, I attended my first Trump rally. Well, I showed up, anyway.
This was during his first run for President as he picked up steam toward the GOP nomination. On that night at Chicago’s UIC Pavilion, he didn’t talk about fictional characters or windmills—and nobody had a chance to leave early.
That’s because Trump didn’t talk at all, canceling the event when it was clear that too many vociferous critics would disrupt the rally.
After taking the train back to my office, I immediately wrote about the experience. You can read that column here. Below is a condensed version:
Take-aways from the Trump rally in Chicago
Earlier tonight, a friend and I were among the thousands of people who journeyed to the UIC Pavilion for the Donald Trump rally. Clearly, the event meant different things to different people: rally, speech, protest, performance art, commercial enterprise.
And all of those activities—and then some—transpired. Only Trump didn’t take part in any of it, as security concerns raised by a large number of protesters prompted its postponement.
While Trump didn’t show up, there was plenty to engage the senses. Here are this recovering journalist’s Trump Rally Take-Aways:
1. You’re Right, Ben Carson: Donald Trump is ‘Shiny’
Shortly after he dropped out of the race, Ben Carson was asked by TV personality Katie Couric to offer one-word descriptions of the candidates still in the fray for the Oval Office. Of Trump, he said, “Shiny.” Elaborating for a puzzled Couric, Carson explained that people can’t help but look at shiny objects.
I am aghast at the support Trump has received. It seems we are in some surreal (bad) dream that has him playing the Presidential front-runner for the Republicans. Yet, I halted my work early on an otherwise-mundane Friday afternoon to hop on the train and stand in line for more than two hours to see this train wreck with my own eyes.
Shiny, indeed.
2. Attendees Were Wildly Diverse, Mostly Well-Mannered
When I showed up 90 minutes before the scheduled 6 p.m. start, the line was at least a half mile long. Not only have I never been in a line this long, I didn’t believe lines of this length could exist.
A minority of people declared their support for Trump through buttons, shirts, hats and other items. Another, relatively small number of people declared their opposition through similar means. Most, like me, were hard to “read.”
In the two-plus hours that I was outside the Pavilion, I witnessed no physical confrontations and fewer than five verbal jousts.
3. After the Event Was Canceled, A Sort of Muted Chaos Reigned
I cannot speak to the activities or vibe inside the Pavilion before 6:30 p.m. But in the immediate aftermath of the event’s cancellation, a sense of muted chaos permeated.
There were pockets of tension, celebratory chants among Trump foes, some physical altercations involving shoves and punches, and police leading a small number of individuals out.
A young man stormed the stage, was pulled off…and then the same individual, a few minutes later, created another sort of disturbance that led to his being escorted out by officers. Most simply observed, with hundreds of smartphones dotting the landscape and capturing video and photos.
4. Even When Divided Politically, There Are Ties That Bind
While standing in line with my friend, he mentioned a time in his life when he served in the military. This piqued the curiosity of the man in front of us, a Trump supporter who entered the conversation.
Turns out they both served in the Air Force. Handshakes and stories of various posts and experiences ensued between this fellow citizen and my friend, a non-Trump supporter. They didn’t discuss politics—their common experience, years of service to country, and mutual respect easily trumped that.
“You know,” said the other man, pointing to a contingent of anti-Trump demonstrators who vocally walked past us. “We served so that they could have their freedom of speech. And I can disagree with their speech, too.”
**********
A P.S. to that chaotic night in Chicago
Over the past 8 1/2 years, our nation has endured severe traumas, such as the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. A recurring blight is Trump’s continued attacks on democracy—witness his continued lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
Even so, here in September 2024, the scene that concluded my column in 2016 is the one that sticks with me the most. It still resonates as the most fundamentally accurate and important truth of all: There is more that unites us than divides us.
That’s why, every time I hear Harris note that Americans on opposite sides of the political spectrum have more in common than what divides us, I flash back to that scene in the long rally line.
She’s right. We must not allow extremists on either end of the spectrum—those relatively small, but boisterous voices—succeed in drowning out reason, mutual respect and hope.
Emphasis on “at the moment.” I don’t envision Trump picking up new voters, while I see Harris gradually building momentum and winning by a comfortable margin.
Well I disagree. There is more that divides use than unites us. In fact if you know anything what is going on in our top universities and law schools you would know that our foundational beliefs - like free speech the very heart of our Constitution - is under attack ... mostly from the left (the Right and Republicans essentially do not exist on our present day campuses). This attack started a long time ago - when I was a young "firebrand" - led by a scholarly former German Jew (Oh the irony) none other than Herbert Marcuse. You really should look him up Matt. It will give you some historical perspective.
The Democrats moan and groan about attacks on our Constitutional structure sure. No doubt Jan 6 was a disgrace. Yet they ignore their own major attempt over the years to effectively deconstruct our Constitutional structure of "seperation of powers" and "check and balances.":
Supreme Court: Limits of Executive Power (2023 – 2024)
Relentless v Dept’of Commerece: Overturned Chevron deference. (Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council). The judiciary – not the agency – ultimately interprets the laws of Congress.
Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo: Overturned Chevron deference (Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council): “The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.”
Securities And Exchange Commision v. Jarskey et al: the 7th amendment applies to administrative agencies. Agency tribunals do not satisfy the 7th amendment. The issue of “non-delegation” (Article I, Sec I) not decided.
Garland v Cargill: Bump stocks by definition do not turn a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun (as per the definition of a machine gun). As such, only Congress can outlaw bump stocks not the ATF.
Ohio v EPA: Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: the six-year time limit to challenge agency regulation starts when an injury or harm occurs, not when the regulation is promulgated. This potentially opens up decades old federal regs to court challenges
2021 – 2023
Alabama Association of Realtors v Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC does not have the authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium. Only Congress does.
National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Congress created OSHA to set workplace safety standards. As such a covid vaccine mandate to private business goes well beyond that and is effectively a broad public health measure. OSHA needs to stay in its lane. Only the Congress – or the states - can issue such a mandate.
Joseph R Biden, POTUS v Nebraska et al.: Does the student-debt relief program exceed the statutory authority of the U.S. Secretary of Education? Yes. Only the Congress can cancel such loans as that is an express power of the Congress (Article I, Sec VII). Actually cancelling $431 B debt is not cancelled. It is merely transferred to others. That clearly falls within the purview of Congress and not the executive.
West Virginia v EPA: EPA claims broad power to regulate green house gases. The court says Congress never authorized such broad powers (“major questions issue”) and such powers must explicitly come from the Congress and NOT the agency.
The fact is our Founders if somehow via time machine came back to the US they would not recognize the government we are now under because it is not the one they envisioned. The government we are now effectively under is that of the vision of Wilson and Goodnow: supremacy of the Administrative state. Wilson believed that the Founder's vision - including that of the "father" of the Constitution, James Madison - was obsolete and not suited to running a modern nation state. He believed it could only be run effectively by impartial "experts" isolated from the wind and furies of politics. The resulting "independent" and vast federal administrative estate was his vision and was built by FDR (with a later major assist for LBJ). Attempts to reign in this unconstitutional anomaly via the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 or the Congressional Review Act of 1996 has been largely - until recently - unsuccessful.
:
I'm currently reading Walter Lippmann's "Public Opinion." I'm afraid to drift off for one paragraph, I think it is so important, and there is so much in it. He says that James Madison belived humans were by nature factionalists (he used that term or one similar in the Federalist Papers), but the whole point of the constitution was to overcome that and do something "federal" -- to bring us together. Hence, Trump's disdain for the constitution is particularly telling.