On the other side, those voting for Trump will do so, in very many cases, not because of his personality but in spite of it. They are not blind to the crude, rough edges, and the sometimes crazy or inappropriate statements, to put it mildly. They see all that – they simply don't care.
Or rather, they care about it much less than the issues that really matter to them – the border, crime, foreign wars, the economy, traditional values and so on – issues that Trump has made his own, whether or not they were his own to begin with. It's precisely because they are focused on these issues and not on personality that they are voting for Trump.
There are, of course, those who actually love Trump, rough edges and all. And they are not a small group. There is a real cult of personality surrounding the man. No doubt issues are part of the reason why. But issues alone don't move people to stand in a queue for hours to attend a political rally, only to happily stand and cheer for yet more hours. For better or for worse, the enthusiasm hasn't faded after more than eight years of this.
In any case, whether because of intense hatred or intense love of Trump, the issues often get lost in the largely irrelevant sideshow of personality. That's one reason I was intrigued when I heard about a rather unusual political rally that was to take place at the end of September in Washington DC.
Trumpsters' without partisan T-shirts
The rally, dubbed "Rescue the Republic", was billed as a "unity" event and thus not explicitly in support of either candidate. Implicitly, however, it was – many in the crowd and a number of key speakers were clearly Trump supporters. Nonetheless, the candidates themselves were seldom mentioned.
Instead, it was focused on a number of disturbing trends in the Western political sphere that are widely felt to be especially dangerous. These include, among other things, America's "forever wars", state-sponsored censorship, and the political weaponising of the law, or "lawfare" – all of which, they would urge, have been intensified under the Biden administration.
The announced speakers included such luminaries as Robert F Kennedy Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand and Matt Taibbi, to name a few. Both Kennedy and Gabbard, of course, have made news in recent months as former loyal Democrats who – having left the party not long ago – have now unexpectedly come out in support of Trump, for reasons directly related to the issues just mentioned.
I decided to go, and was glad I did. The mood among the crowd was warm, unpretentious and upbeat, despite the gloomy weather which no doubt kept some people away. It was later reported that the event had broken all records for a livestreamed rally on Twitter/X, with about a million watching. The speakers themselves, whatever one thinks of their politics, certainly knew how to work a crowd – especially the headliners. Very engaging stuff.
The speakers were united by the government's attempt at censorship
As mentioned, not all who spoke were Trump supporters – or, if some of them have cautiously moved in that direction (for example Bret Weinstein, who organised the event), they've done so rather reluctantly, mainly because they continue to trust people like Kennedy or Gabbard who have "switched sides", and because they respect their reasons for having done so. What many of the speakers did have in common, however, despite their holding widely different political views, is that they have all been burnt, for one reason or another, by government-led efforts to silence their voice in the public sphere.
It seems hard to deny that Western governments, with the US in the lead, have in recent years become increasingly engaged in "controlling the narrative", particularly in regard to politically sensitive issues like the current foreign wars and public health controversies, most notably the Covid response. Recent statements by key Western establishment figures – as well as coercive measures taken by Western governments – seem clear indicators that the powers-that-be are growing increasingly impatient of talk of "free speech", and increasingly strident in their condemnation of "misinformation". Just a few prominent examples:
- Former US Senator and Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking at a recent World Economic Forum event, stated that "it's really hard to govern today," especially in terms of "building consensus around any issue" – which is why there's "a lot of discussion now" about "how to curb" the sources of disinformation. "Our First Amendment", however – which guarantees free speech – "stands as a major block to being able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence." What is needed is for establishment candidates to "win the right to govern" by getting enough votes to be "free to implement change" – in particular with respect to online speech.
- In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton suggested that Americans who are engaged in "propaganda" in order to influence the outcome of a US election "should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged" as an effective "deterrence".
- Former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard – who after leaving the party became one of the Biden administration's fiercest critics – was recently, and unbeknownst to her, placed on an official US "terrorist watch list". This resulted in her being pulled aside and questioned by Federal agents every time she was about to board a plane. She had no idea why, until her placement on the list became public knowledge.
- Here in Europe, the EU's Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton sent a public letter to Elon Musk in August, ahead of his planned live-stream interview with Donald Trump on Twitter/X. The letter threatened Musk with legal consequences – in line with the EU's recently adopted "Digital Services Act" – if the interview was unmoderated and contained "harmful content". Amid the backlash, EU officials distanced themselves from the letter.
Many more instances could be cited, and many were cited by speakers at the Rescue the Republic event.
Censorship, which by law is not censorship
One of those speakers was journalist Matt Taibbi of the famed Twitter Files articles. Taibbi, already a well-known veteran in the field, rose to prominence a couple of years ago when Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter/X, invited him to examine Twitter's internal correspondence, in order to learn just how extensive the practice of censorship had been on the platform under its previous owners, and to make this information public.
This kind of censorship – however problematic it may be – is perfectly legal under US law, so long as it's initiated by company employees and not by government agencies (the First Amendment applies only to state censorship). Taibbi, who has spoken publically on numerous occasions about the whole episode, says he initially expected to find – in addition to the company-initiated censorship – possibly "one or two letters from the FBI" suggesting that Twitter "stay away from this story or that story". This would have been illegal, but on a small scale.
What he found instead was "a very organized and extensive content-flagging operation where tens of thousands of social media posts had been picked out by various government organizations" – in particular by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security – and that these posts "had been sent to companies like Twitter, along with about two dozen others, through a pretty formal system of content management."
What's worse, he found attempts to suppress stories that were clearly factual but might produce an "adverse result" – for example, a story about somebody who died of myocarditis after taking the vaccine, since it "might promote vaccine hesitancy." They even coined a new term for this kind of true story – "malinformation" – since "misinformation" obviously doesn't fit.
In short, Matt Taibbi and his colleagues uncovered clear evidence at Twitter of state-sponsored censorship on a massive scale – a story that has been underreported in Western media, to say the least.
In his fiery speech at the Rescue the Republic event, Taibbi had ominous words to offer: The battle for the First Amendment, he began, is "already lost". "Our government has moved past censorship to the larger project of changing the American personality" – a personality which up to now has been characterised by "defiance" and a readiness to stand up to authority. What people like John Kerry (quoted above) want instead, says Taibbi, is "a more obedient, more timorous, more fearful citizen, and their tool is the internet."
How so? Because the internet "is a vast machine for doling out rewards and punishments – through likes and views, or shaming and de-amplification." The mechanics of how all this works are complicated, he says, but the "core concept" is simple: "you're up-ranked for accepting authority, you're down-ranked for questioning it."
What's our defence against this sort of manipulation? On Taibbi's telling – at least in the American context – it's precisely that American defiance which this "vast machine" is trying to kill. It's not only the First Amendment that Kerry and others are worried about, "but more importantly – us." "We are obstacles to consensus."
Speaking to a crowd of Trump supporters – who perhaps embody the spirit of defiance more than most – Taibbi then launched into a eulogy on this intractable American personality. "Defiance is in our DNA" – "there's a little bit of asshole in every American." About the Founding Fathers: "these guys stole a continent from the King of England and got away with it."
And his big finale: "And to all those telling us, day after day, that we must think as they say and vote as they say or else we're traitorous Putin-loving fascists and enablers of dangerous disinformation – I'm an American, [expletive]! That doesn't work on us!" It was good stuff – the crowd went wild.
It should perhaps be remarked here that Taibbi, who so effectively worked this crowd of Trumpsters, is no Trump supporter himself – his 2017 book about Trump is called Insane Clown President. Nonetheless he seemed right at home, not only with the crowd but also sharing the stage with the other speakers, with many of whom he has almost nothing in common, as far as the usual Left-Right issues are concerned.
What he does have in common with them – as he remarked in his opening words – is that "most everybody here has been censored. Now, the issues were all different, but pretty much everybody here has disagreed with authoritative voices about something." "I'm so proud," he added, "that we're on the same side now fighting for free speech."
