Venice, Trump, and Political Violence

Our view from the Hotel Danieli in Venice.

As many of you know, Liz and I just returned from eight days in Venice. The Venetians did not disappoint. Everyone was warm and welcoming. The views were epic and the food was truly special. However, even in Venice, while tucked away in Harry's bar enjoying a bellini, we could not escape Trump. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has captivated global audiences with his presidential campaign. For some, it's like watching a slow motion train wreck - you know you don't want to see it, but you can't look away. For others, Trump is a serious response to decades of political elitism and unrestrained globalism. Regardless of your view of him, his political fate is now of global significance. 

As Liz and I sipped our cocktails, French President, Francois Hollande, and Italian Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, were meeting in the Doge Palace, just 500 feet from Harry's. The streets were blocked off and there was only one way in and out of St. Mark's Square. Security was tight, but as one local told us, when President Obama traveled to Venice, the city was forced to shut down for 11 hours. Ambassador of good will, indeed. Venetians remember that day as a bad one, especially for business. In any event, part of the French delegation was dining at a table close to us. They were an eclectic group and we could tell that they were not all native French speakers. Our very excellent Italian hosts could not hide their disdain for the French delegates or the EU, Renzi, Italian taxes or the "stupid" Euro. They also exhibited genuine admiration for America and Americans. Many Venetians have lived in America and can speak from experience, especially about the difference between European micromanagement and American free enterprise. 

Enter Trump into the conversation. Everyone was curious what we Americans thought of him. He's obviously a celebrity and has 100% name recognition, even in Venice. However, unlike here at home, there wasn't a single foreigner who expressed any emotionally driven vitriol towards the man. Liz and I had at least half a dozen conversations with different people from different countries about Trump. We did not initiate these conversations, but as Americans, Europeans thought we were somehow responsible for explaining Trumpism. So, the explanation was (in as neutral a tone as possible) that Americans were fed up with "politicians" and political corruption. Americans are now looking for someone who at least sounds genuine, and has no previous tie to the Washington establishment. To a person, this explanation was an epiphany. It prompted responses like "Yes, we hate our government too," and "So Americans feel the same as us!" 

American politicians have joined the global elite over the last two decades as the line between power and wealth has completely disappeared. American politicians leave office and become extremely rich, peddling influence and political favors for money. They sit on boards of international companies with interests that are contrary to those of their own country. It's not that it hasn't always been this way, it's just that the cycle of corruption has reached a new zenith. Whether it's Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, Americans want to burn down the Washington playhouse, and it is a global sentiment.

Which brings me to the issue of political violence. To begin with, disrupting a semi-public political rally is not protected free speech. In fact, disrupting a political rally in which Secret Service protection is engaged, is a felony. The Supreme Court has long recognized time, manner and place restrictions on free speech. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example. When leftists like Bill Ayers use the First Amendment as an excuse to stifle others' political speech, they are doing so illegally. The Constitution recognizes both the right to speak for and the right to speak against a particular issue or candidate. No one group's right to free speech trumps another group's right to that same speech, even if their position is 100% correct or moral. When one group uses "protest" or "occupation" to stifle the free speech of another group, they have used force. Physically occupying rented space, shouting and refusing to leave is the use of physical force. When one group forcibly infringes on the Constitutional rights of another group, they should expect to be met with equal force. While violence should not be condoned or encouraged by either side, it is naive to not expect it when you trample on rights. 

For years now, we've seen violent protests erupt in urban centers over issues ranging from police brutality to economic conditions. Police have been shot, cars have been set on fire and private property has been destroyed. Part of the Trump phenomenon can be directly attributed to a large segment of the population being fed up with this kind of behavior. "Your rights are not more important that mine," has become the central theme for the silent majority, which is why Trump appears to be an irresistible force. That theme is both legally and morally correct; as correct as any theme on the left, be it racial inequality or social justice. This silent majority has managed to eviscerate 15 highly qualified, articulate, powerful Republican presidential candidates. Donald Trump is an imperfect messenger, but the message has been transmitted to the political elite in unmistakeable terms.  

This election has become one of the most interesting and important in history. Barring some kind of Establishment misconduct, a political outsider will be the Republican nominee. He will be running against Hillary Clinton, who is the embodiment of political elitism. Americans will have to choose between their rage towards the Washington Cabal or a more comfortable status quo. It's a terrible shame, frankly, that it has come to this, and I mostly blame the Republican party for ignoring the will of its voters for more than a decade. Democrats are at least partially transparent about their thirst for big government, taxes, social spending and political power. Republicans decry such things then get elected and conduct themselves in a substantially similar manner, hoping no one will notice. Hence the rise of Trump. Perhaps he's a fool and a liar. Perhaps he's not "really a true conservative." Perhaps he's going to change his positions when he's elected. But I ask you, how is that any different than what we have now?