Ken Berwitz
Conceptually, this is the non-violent equivalent ofterrorists overtaking a building, demanding that workers recite verses from theKoran, and killing the ones who could not.
Once the event got started, Trump was repeatedlydisrupted by hecklers, whose purpose was to either shut him down or, atthe very least, insure his speech was so disjointed that people got as little aspossible from it.
Thisis the equivalent – not conceptually, the actual equivalent – of academicbrownshirts who do the same at campuses when someone whose views they don\’tlike is speaking (i.e. an Israel supporter, a political conservative, etc.).
The onlydifference – and it is a huge one – is that, instead of a pusillanimous schoolpresident acquiescing to the brownshirts and shutting the speaker down, thespeaker was having security toss them. And out they went, apparently still notcomprehending that it is impossible to break up a “speech” which, inreality, is a collection of short, blunt commentaries on a myriad of differentissues.
So what do we have here? Wehave Donald Trump, a presidential candidate who acted like a tin pot dictator, by pre-emptivelyremoving as many people who disagreed with him as possible, then spouted out histwo-liners while security tossed hecklers from the premises (to the great joyof his supporters), and we have loudmouthed brownshirt wannabes, trying to shut Trumpup so no one could hear his views, and too dense to realize they were playingright into his hands by doing so.
Theyreally do deserve each other.
