John Lowell (12:58)
All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right mostly backs Trump's actions in Chicago and Portland, with many arguing that protests are out of control. Some say a dearth of local leadership requires federal intervention. Others suggest deploying troops won't fix the underlying problems fueling the protests. In the Daily Signal, Jarrett Stepman wrote Trump is right to clamp down on Portland's Jacobins. Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities have been besieged for months in the Oregon city, with little indication that local authorities will do anything to get control of the situation. It couldn't be clearer that Portland's leaders have little interest in getting the rioters under control outside of pressure from the Trump administration, Stetman said. The primary issue right now for Portland is not just an intractable problem with basic street crime, though that was a big one after the George Floyd riots when the city defunded the police. No, the problem is that Portland is returning to violence and chaos because organized agitators in their city, like Antifa and other similar groups want to stop federal immigration enforcement. They are throwing a continual violent tantrum because they aren't getting their way. Not only are the ICE facilities besieged on a regular basis, but many residents are fed up with having their lives disrupted while local officials officials do nothing, stepman wrote. Since Portland is clearly not willing to do its job to protect the lives of federal employees in their city, the Trump administration has a duty to step in and put the kibosh on Portland's Jacobins. NPJ Media Michael A. Lett said Trump is showing why order is needed in cities like Portland. Trump has done a great job in Washington, D.C. when it came to turning around their misfortunes because the leaders eventually worked with him to find that level of peace. But in Chicago and Portland things are not that easy and now I wonder just how long it will take for a resolution to be found, lutz wrote. A majority of the problem again comes down to leadership. For example, Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker has made it clear that he is not a fan of Trump, insisting that he is threatening to go to war with an American city when in fact the war is coming from within due to his own problematic leadership. Poor leadership is going to lead to the wrong kind of pushback and as a result the lack of any real progress within the state. And that's why Trump is doing what he can on his end in an effort to bring true law and order back to these fallen states, lett said. So here we are. Trump's trying to push for law and order within the states, and the combined efforts of these violent Antifa types and Democratic leaders are now creating a dangerous situation. In Reason, Catherine Mangou Ward argued deploying federal troops is not a sustainable solution to crime in American cities. An August Associated Press NORC poll found that 81% of respondents view crime as a major problem in America's large cities while 66% view it as a major problem nationwide, Mangou Ward said. But a military occupation of American cities is neither constitutionally sound nor fiscally viable legally and logistically. You can't solve deep social and policing problems with Humvees parked at intersections forever. These deployments tend to devolve into a high risk form of political theater, rewarding mayors and presidents who want to look tough while leaving communities no closer to a lasting solution and America one step closer to authoritarian rule. The idea of uniformed federal agents patrolling city neighborhoods as if they were appropriate for everyday law enforcement feels profoundly out of step with the spirit of America's founding values as we approach the semi quincentennial, Mango Ward said. The Constitution's architecture was designed to prevent just this kind of centralization where standing force functions not as a last resort but as a default mode. Letting soldiers or masked federal officers replace traditional policing undermines the boundary between citizen and subject. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying. Which brings us to what the left is saying. The left opposes the administration's actions in cities, saying Trump is grossly exaggerating the situation. Some call on protesters to resist Trump's attempts to antagonize them. Others say troop deployments will only increase the likelihood of violent disorder. In the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote, Mr. President, may we interest you in a naked bike ride? The National Guard troops dispatched by President Trump to fight domestic terrorists in this war ravaged city of Portland, Oregon, will face an unexpected naked bicycle riders. Cycling in the buff is a Portland specialty, and one organization has announced a naked ride in response to the militarization of our city. Such is the war zone here, kristof said. National Guard troops could help Portland if they rented office space, but the way Trump dispatches troops to fight a war from within won't solve the city's problems and may inflame them. Because I've spent much of my career covering authoritarian governments, I'm particularly alarmed by Trump's attempt to create, in effect, his own Praetorian Guard available to punish critics or Democratic cities. That is standard autocratic behavior, and in extreme cases such as in Tiananmen Square in 1989, I've seen such troops used to massacre protesters, kristof wrote. I don't think this will happen here. But Trump has long had an interest in marshaling military forces to suppress opponents, the Oregonian editorial board said. Keep proving Trump wrong. Portlanders love a good social media throwdown, and President Donald Trump's characterizations of Portland as war ravaged invited the onslaught. With their lighthearted humor, Portlanders are displaying the quirk and creativity so deeply ingrained in the city's culture while showing just how unfounded Trump's claims are, the board wrote. Amid the uncertainty, Portlanders must pause and recognize how much is at stake as the country heads toward the midterm elections, when voters will decide whether America is on the right path. This is not just about protesting inhumane immigration enforcement or defending Oregon from federal overreach. Trump's military ploy to suppress one block of protesters is yet another page from his playbook of bulldozing rights and norms. While insisting such action is justified, Portland's response must help show the rest of the country how wrong he is, the board said. The mayor and City Council must reinforce Portland police's authority to step up their presence at protests and quickly intervene if any criminal behavior occurs. They must understand that protecting public safety is not the same as supporting immigration enforcement. In the Chicago Tribune, David White argued Chicago is right to resist Trump's tactics. President Donald Trump told generals this week that cities such as Chicago are under invasion from within and must be crushed with force, serving as a training ground for American troops. History and science warn when federal police use force to suppress dissent, larger and more violent protests follow, White wrote. Consider two philosophies of policing. Escalated force means aggressive tactics tear gas, rubber bullets, baton charges, mass arrests, militarized gear meant to break up crowds and crush dissent. Negotiated management, by contrast, treats protests as political expression protected by the First Amendment. Yet Chicago has periodically returned to the hard knuckles approach, often with more harm than good. The George Floyd protests in 2020 showed the same pattern. Nationwide, escalated force was followed by greater unrest, while negotiated management saw fewer confrontations, White said. The role of law enforcement is to serve and protect, not enable federal escalation. That means rejecting militarized policing and standing between Chicagoans and outside forces who would inflame unrest. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his.
