It appears that leftists are finally realizing that the antics of the pro-Hamas crowd could contribute to helping former President Donald Trump win reelection in November. Of course, anyone who isn’t a die-hard leftist already knew this. But better late than never, I suppose.
Over the past few weeks, high-profile members of the chattering class on both sides of the aisle have speculated that the pro-Hamas demonstrations could damage President Joe Biden’s chances of serving a second term in the White House.
Most recently, New York Times columnist David Brooks penned an op-ed in which he discusses this issue. He brings up the “millions of young people” who “were moved to protest the war in Vietnam” and how Republicans like Ronald Reagan “were quick to use the excesses of the student protest movement to their advantage”:
In 1966, Ronald Reagan vowed “to clean up the mess at Berkeley” and was elected governor of California. In 1968, Richard Nixon celebrated the “forgotten Americans — the nonshouters; the nondemonstrators” and was elected to the presidency. Far from leading to a new progressive era, the uprisings of the era were followed by what was arguably the most conservative period in American history.
The author points to other protests that seemed to produce outcomes opposite of those for which they were fighting.
Brooks identifies the decentralized nature of the demonstrations being held at college campuses across the country as their primary weakness.
This horizontal, anarchic method enables masses of people to mobilize quickly, even if they don’t know one another. It is, however, built on the shaky assumption that if lots of people turn out, then somehow the movement will magically meet its goals.
The author also points to those “who would never attend [a pro-Hamas rally] and are quietly disapproving” and argues that those who fall into this category would likely support the candidate they believe would oppose the protests.
Others in the anti-Trump camp have also suggested that the protests are only helping the Orange Man What Is Bad™ pull ahead of his opponent. Comedian Michael Rapaport, who loves Trump as much as mice love cats, recently filmed himself in a profanity-laced tirade against the pro-Hamas activists causing trouble on campus.
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough also intimated that the demonstrations will help Trump.
“Let’s see if they’re now going to elect Donald Trump for, I don’t know, maybe the last election in American history. If so, good job. Way to go.
Way to go, by not being able to discipline students that violate your rules. You either have rules or you don’t have rules. You either have standards or you don’t have standards. And if you can’t live by them, leave!”
There can be no doubt that Trump is benefitting from the anti-Israel protests. But there is another aspect of this that has flown under the radar. Those supporting and engaging in this protest can’t possibly think this will somehow help Biden get reelected. But the fact of the matter is that they don’t care.
Those on the hard left despise Trump and Biden. The Marxist crowd views them both as the enemy. The pro-Hamas crowd has been highly critical of the Biden administration. However, they don’t have the political power necessary to win the White House. Also, their priorities are different.
Folks on the far left are more concerned with exercising influence over America’s institutions – including academia, a fact that has been apparent to conservatives and libertarians for years. The aim of the pro-Hamas protests is to crybully universities into divesting from Israel. In at least one case, they could actually succeed.
Brown University recently agreed to consider cutting ties with the Jewish state as a result of the demonstrations.
Brown University reached an agreement on Tuesday with students protesting the war in Gaza that would see them remove their encampment from school grounds in exchange for the institution considering divesting from Israel.
The move represents the first major concession from an elite American university amid relentless student protests that have paralyzed campuses across the country, divided public opinion and led to hundreds of arrests.
In a statement, Brown president Christina Paxson said students had agreed to end their protests and clear their camp by 5 p.m. local time Tuesday and “refrain from further actions that would violate Brown’s conduct code through the end of the academic year.”
In turn, “five students will be invited to meet with five members of the Corporation of Brown University in May to present their arguments to divest Brown’s endowment from ‘companies enabling and profiting from the genocide in Gaza.’”
The board will vote on the proposal in October.
Student protesters jumped for joy upon hearing the news of the deal and chanted “with love not fear, divestment is getting near” before beginning to remove their tents.
Of course, it is entirely possible that Brown might decide to continue its relationship with Israel. But the fact that they were cowed into making this concession suggests that the protests might be having an impact. If the protests continue, the pro-Hamas element could begin winning more victories. The bottom line is that the White House is of little concern to the activists and those pulling their strings. However, pressuring American institutions to bend to their will could produce the outcomes they are seeking.