Violent scenes in Chicago March 12, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
The GOP front-runner is facing a well-funded #NeverTrump movement that’s built on the idea that he isn’t just a Democratic sheep in Republican wolf’s clothing; he’s a Democratic sheep in Republican wolf’s clothing who is also insane.
Well, if the hat fits. Thoguh of course he’s not in the slightest bit insane. He’s a shrewd and canny operator who is well able to manipulate the Republican party and its members and broader support base, or sufficient of same to offer him a remarkably large bloc of support.
The piece continues:
Trump needs to counter that narrative in order to protect his delegate lead—and to make it more difficult for the GOP establishment to use a contested convention to block him from the nomination in the event he doesn’t win a majority of delegates by the time he gets to Cleveland this summer. He got help with that before the debate began Thursday, when Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus took the stage and told the crowd: “I want to get something completely clear because there’s been a lot of talk about this. This party is going to support the nominee—whoever that is—100 percent. There’s no question about that.”
But while the line above is entertaining the dynamics unleaded by Trump are anything but. Actual violence at a rally was pretty much waved away by Trump during the debate last Thursday. That violence could actually break out seems to trouble him remarkably little. That his own comments might have fuelled it ditto.
And now, and now we have the latest scenes in Chicago. What is interesting to me is that Cruz, Kasich etc have, for once pointed the finger for generating an environment where they could occur firmly at Trump. And rightly so too. His indifference to (or in some instance seeming support for) a low level of violence at his own events has been key to this.
There is, without question, something extremely ugly about what is happening in and around his campaign. To argue that it is fascist, at least in the programmatic sense, is clearly incorrect. But it is something and something that has been largely unseen in recent times. Is this a result of social and class tensions, economic uncertainty, a changed media – perhaps all those and more.