In November, students at a historically black university in New Orleans led a massive protest against a speaker heavily supportive of Donald Trump.

Socially engaged Dillard University students, the group organizing against the speaker, wrote an open letter.

They said, quote, his presence on our campus is not welcome and overtly subjects the entire student body to safety risks and social ridicule.

This is simply outrageous.

The speaker's safety was guaranteed by

the university, and he proceeded to explain, quote, I will be Donald Trump's most loyal advocate.

The protesters were of the political left. They chanted no KKK, no fascist USA.

Protesters were hit with pepper spray, and two of them were arrested. So, here is the question for you.

Did this make inviting the speaker worthwhile? The answer should be obvious. From this account of events, you don't have enough information to say. The speaker could have been Sheriff David Clark or Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich or Milo Yonopoulos. It wasn't. It was David Duke, who also said at the same event, quote, there is a problem in America with a very strong, powerful tribal group that dominates our media and dominates our international banking. I'm not opposed to all Jews. If you did not answer that, the story provided too little information for you to judge, it's time for you to check your biases. Did you decide that the speaker was on the right because the protesters were on the left? Did you decide the speaker had something valuable to say if he ticked off the left enough, if he melted enough snowflakes? Unfortunately, many conservatives have embraced this sort of binary thinking. If it pisses off the left, it must be virtuous. Undoubtedly, that is a crude shorthand for political thinking. It means you never have to check the ideas of the speaker. You merely have to check how people respond to him, which is dangerous. It leads to people supporting bad policies and bad men. The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. Sometimes he's your

enemy. Sometimes he's just a dude sitting there minding his own business. You don't have enough

information to know. The logic of if he melts snowflakes, he's one of us, actually hands power

to the left by allowing leftists to define our friends.

It gets to choose whom we support.

This isn't speculative.

It actually happened during the 2016 primaries when the media attacked Donald Trump incessantly,

driving Republicans into his outstretched arms.

The media's obvious hatred for Trump was one of the chief arguments for Trump from his advocates.

They said, if, as his detractors claimed, he wasn't

conservative, why would the leftist media hate him so much? Now, to be fair, after Mitt Romney was bludgeoned at the hands of the media, there was at least a shred of justification for this logic. Romney wasn't to hardcore conservative. He wasn't to personal shambles. He got savaged by the media anyway, simply for the sin of having an R after his name. The same thing happened John McCain, a maverick Republican, the leftist media, had openly praised for years.

If the media opposed Trump with all their heart and all their soul, that must have been some sort of reaction to Trump himself. It wasn't really, though. It was a combination of factors, including the fact Trump was amazing press, and the press thought Trump was really weak. More honest leftist commentators openly preferred Trump to more conservative candidates like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. But Trump's war with the media

carried him to the president. Trump was really weak. More honest leftist commentators openly preferred Trump to more conservative

candidates like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. But Trump's war with the media carried him to the nomination

...