Many tell us what to think. I ask my readers to be skeptical. Question me and others. 
Donald J. Trump lost in the court. It might swing some voters and energize others. Nevertheless, does it matter?
Correctly or not, Americans feel that their nation’s greatness is fading. So, they seek a leader who can bring it back. In 2016, Trump was elected after he promised to drain the swamp. He meant limiting the influence of big money in Washington, D.C. Four years later, the lobbying business was as strong as ever; Trump lost.
It was not the first and probably not the last election where a losing party suspected some voting irregularities. Our legal procedures for handling cases like that did not find any fraud. Even if that could be imperfect, we have frequent elections, so the losing politicians usually try in the next election.
Trump was the first to try using non-parliamentary measures. America was lucky because, in his attempt to overrule official election results, Trump was as inept as he was in making America great again during his presidency. Despite that, about half of Americans still could vote for Trump. Many might do it just because they are disappointed with the current president.
The art of avoidance
Dissatisfaction with the current administration is insufficient to convince a rational person to vote for Trump. However, the core of Trump’s presidential campaign seems to be a critique of the current president. There is nothing more besides vague promises. Trump’s presidency did not have any spectacular successes, so giving him one more term might be like getting out of the rain straight under the gutter.
One might expect journalists to grill Trump on the details of his presidential program. No, everyone seems to be preoccupied with the past. For a practical person, Trump might be unlikable, but if he can stimulate the economy, he might be worth the vote. Trump opponents cannot even imagine that option; Trump supporters see it as unnecessary to talk about it.
Trump himself has mastered the art of avoiding tough questioning. He dodges interviews with potentially unfriendly journalists, and his rallies are one-way talks to the devoted supporters. During the 2016 election campaign, we all could see security removing hecklers from Trump’s meetings with potential voters.
The canceled rally in Chicago
On March 11, 2016, Trump had scheduled a rally in Chicago. I signed up because I was curious if there was anything that supporters of Trump saw that I was missing. As advised, my spouse and I arrived three hours earlier. The line to the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavilion was about a quarter mile long. After about two hours outside on that chilly afternoon, we went inside. We decided to sit in the balcony, selecting seats that allowed us to see most of the ground floor.
We soon noticed that in the center section, there was a cluster of hecklers not supporting Trump. Someone pulled out a small banner every few minutes, and security tried confiscating it and expelling the offender. So, that was the only action there for over an hour. I noticed that a few thousand people in the hall were the captive audience that could be informed about Trump’s political agenda. None was provided.
Protesters and skeptics like me could learn what Trump intended to do and how. Trump had no message for us. For him, Americans not supporting him are security threats. So, when he canceled the event, he confirmed my opinion that he had no idea what he would do as a president. It was only about his ego. However, his intolerance of the opposition made him dangerous to the freedom of expression in America.
A few questions Trump needs to answer
Elon Musk announced that X will stage a town hall with Donald Trump. Who will be the moderator? Will it be someone kissing Trump’s ring and asking questions when on their knees? It is about time for Trump to face interlocutors from the crowd he usually kicks out of his rallies. Will Musk uphold his claim of being the free speech absolutist and bring someone forcing Trump to answer tough questions?
The questions are old and many. Let me bring only two examples from my August 2015 article, claiming that on immigration, Trump was “The leader of the deceived.”
Trump needs to tell us why we need the immigration policy as we now have it, in particular: “Will the businessman Trump hire good Mexicans or those who are rapists, gang members, and drug dealers? Can the presidential candidate Trump trust the businessman Trump that the foreigners he hires are desired in our country? Who can make a better hiring decision, the businessman Trump, who puts his money on the line, or an anonymous bureaucrat in Washington, instructed by — let us say — President Trump, with both knowing very little about your business and the applicant?”
Then, assuming that Trump is right and we should double or triple down on enforcement of our immigration policy: “The government will need to hire thousands of officers chasing, catching, and expelling illegal immigrants. If, let us say, within a short time, all illegal immigrants are deported, will you dismiss this new government apparatus of oppression? With the illegal immigrants gone and no one else to blame but Americans, against whom will that apparatus of oppression be used?”
The town hall at X could decide Trump’s chances of becoming president
Will Musk bring tough moderators? The dominant tone at X is pro-Trump, with Musk as the leading facilitator. Selecting an interviewer who is a devoted Trump supporter will turn a town hall into one more rally. But it would be a harmful disservice to Trump. If he is worthy of becoming president again, the town hall can help him if he faces an interlocutor representing skeptics and his opponents.
Interestingly, Musk’s choice of the panel will tell us if he really is a free speech absolutist or if he should retract all his bragging about the freedom of expression on X.
