A Media Riot

In 1968, demonstrators took to the streets of Chicago to protest the Democratic National Convention.   The Viet Nam War was at its height and the marchers wanted the eventual nominee to understand the immorality of the war.

The police, who were called upon to contain the activists, were equally appalled by these scruffy and foul-mouthed young people.  Let us say the authorities became a bit too enthusiastic in their efforts to restore order.  They undoubtedly utilized unwarranted force to carry out their duties.

Afterwards there was no question that the public considered the police actions excessive.  Almost immediately, their truncheon wielding tactics were condemned as a “police riot.”  The law enforcement agents, not the protesters, were thus said to have gone out of control.

On August 15^th of this year, a similar demonstration of unbridled power was on display.  This time, it was not the authorities, but journalists, who lost their heads.  They attacked the president of the United States with a viciousness that has seen few parallels.

Most Americans were unaware of the degree of hostility.  On the nightly news, they only saw Trump’s response.  As a result, they never realized that reporters, who were shouting questions that were vile accusations, dominated the event.  Time and again, the president had to call for restraint just to be heard.

This was a media riot.  What is more, its vituperation was representative of the disrespectful antagonism of the national press corps.  Night after night, on TV we see talking heads berating Trump.  Morning after morning, we read newspapers slandering him.

The central accusation is that Trump is immoral.  He is purportedly a racist clown who must be removed from office so that he can do no more harm.  Journalists regard themselves as heroic guardians of our national honor.  Most do not realize that they are following in the footsteps of Mussolini’s black shirts when they toppled the Italian democracy.

What was Trump’s sin?  Why, he was alleged not to have satisfactorily condemned the Nazis and White supremacists who marched in Charlottesville Virginia.  Then he made the more egregious error of saying that there were good people on both sides of the conflict.

This was intolerable!  The president of the United States was obviously equating fascist bullyboys with peaceful demonstrators.  In doing so, his fundamental racism had finally shown through.  This was irrefutable evidence of his totalitarian tendencies.

Nevertheless, it was no such thing.  Had the uber-liberals been listening, they would have realized Trump was, in his own inarticulate way, trying to be conciliatory.  Had they not been rioting, they might have understood that he was commending the moderates on both sides.

Those on the left—and members of the national media are virtually all on the left—had long been looking for proof that conservatives are fascists.  Groups, such as the Tea Party, did not, however, oblige.  They were too restrained to serve as racist bogymen.

Torch carrying Neo-Nazis chanting anti-Semitic slogans were another story.  They were more than a counterweight to leftists vandalizing college campuses or shooting Congressmen.  If they were denounced with sufficient vehemence, this could make the public forget liberal transgressions.

But make no mistake, the Antifa and Black nationalists were every bit as violent as the KKK and white supremacists.  Both factions deserved to be condemned.  Both sides came looking for a fight.

What happened in Virginia reminded me of what occurred on German streets nearly a century ago.  Back then ferocious gangs of Nazis and Communists confronted one another with hatred in their hearts.  The Nazis won.  But had it been the Communists, they would have been just as brutal.

Almost no Americans—including Trump—want the neo-fascists to win.  Why then should we root for the neo-Marxists to do so?  Both groups are antithetical to our democratic traditions.  Each intends to destroy its foes so that its pseudo-utopian vision can prevail.

Trump was not being immoral.  He was standing up for moderation.  The rioters who believed otherwise were blinded by their animosities.  They are the ones seeking to suppress free speech.  They are the ones who would force us into lockstep ideological conformity.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University