“Trumpism” has become the new enemy for the anti-Trump movement.
To those in the movement, the term is viewed as an ideology that encompasses Trump’s bigoted remarks in a broader political way that reinforces widespread anger and alienation, thus fueling racial hate crimes or state immigration laws.
Activist groups across the country have felt an urgent need to fight this ideology, coordinating protests to silence Trump at his speeches.
These protests are forceful, using tactics that attempt to marginalize the “enemy” by vulgarly interrupting Trump’s message during his rallies.
In an arena filled with Trump fanatics, this creates a heated and polarized scenario with violence ready to erupt on both sides.
Interruptions have only increased in a more incremental fashion: as one protester gets kicked out, the other commences the protest, then the next, and so on, giving Trump the least possible amount of speaking time. More than 35 disruptions were reported in less than an hour at some of Trumps rallies.
These protesters get violently thrown out while Trump fans zealously cheer on; as more and more protesters join the disturbance, violence erupts.
In Chicago, the Trump rally was forced to shut down; violence escalated to such a degree that security became a concern. Multiple scuffles broke out, ending with two opposing teams at each end of the arena.
And for some reason, the anti-Trump movement still thinks these are good strategies to counter the rise of Trump.
Activist Andrew Willis Garcés calls for continuing the confrontational and divisive approach to defeating Trump: a forceful approach that further polarizes and disassociates the American people.
In his recent article titled “We need both compassion and confrontation to defeat Trump,” published in wagingnonviolence.org, Garcés sees this polarization as a positive, a recruitment tool in a way, to galvanize those who would otherwise be silent – particularly white people.
Garcés states, “However imperfect our protest have been… they are offering an alternative to the story of white silence, and are galvanizing many to act.”
While constant media coverage of protesters getting kicked out has expanded the anti-Trump movement (thus motivating more young white activist to be interrupters), it has also turned off others to such a degree that they actually begin siding with Trump.
A poll conducted by Monmouth University asked likely Republican voters whether the clash between the pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces at the Chicago rally made them more or less likely to support Trump.
Just 11 percent said they were less likely to support Trump because of this act. Another 22 percent said they were actually more likely to back Trump, and 66 percent said their views were unchanged.  
Almost a fourth of likely Republicans voters are now more likely to back Trump because of the protest.
And while the anti-Trump movement turns moderate voters closer to Trump, their antics devalue the lifeblood of our democracy: freedom of speech.
Thirty-five interruptions in less than an hour makes them appear childish and incapable of refuting and listening to another’s argument.
When asked why these protestors shut down Trump, the response is virtually the same: “He’s a fascist! A racist! His statements are dangerous and offensive! He must be silenced!”
While Trump has never actually held political office to influence or implement racist and fascist policies, the protesters still feel that silencing Trump’s words is the correct choice.
The fact of the matter is that millennials are caring less for the principles of free speech. A recent Pew poll found that 40 percent of millennials believe government should prevent people from publicly making offensive statements about minority groups.
Millennials don’t seem to understand the predicament of having to legislate the kind of speech allowed. Favoring restrictions on what you are and not allowed to say only comes back to bite you when a restriction gets implemented that you don’t agree with. 
When specifically asked how Trump’s statements are offensive, the protesters have a difficult time making their case. Rather, it seems they are following a trend within the left, an inciting trend of bashing Trump supporters and sloppily throwing around the racist card for debate leverage. Their aims that are more concerned with political correctness than anything.
One might be weary of saying it, but I will: I don’t think these protesters are actually offended. It seems they are rather enjoying the spotlight a little too much.
Nowadays, the power one gets from claiming offense on the lowest possible setting is both invigorating and overruling.
Many millennials are seeking for ways to get offended–a cheap rebuttal method used to silence the other, bypassing discussion, and winning brownie points for pointing out the offensiveness.
One might ask how or why this started. The answer is simple: social media
These attention-grabbers can now easily claim offense by using the power of the internet as leverage.
They can get together, create social groups, and collectively bash those that are not in line with their way of thinking and political correctness, thus creating a generation of easily offended adolescents, unable to refute someone’s argument, as the rest of us quietly stand back, scared to criticize.
The term regressive left was first coined by philosopher Sam Harris. It is a derogatory term used to describe elements within the so-called “progressives” that are actually quite anti-progressive, or even regressive–it derives from college campuses betraying free speech for political correctness.
Having divided the American people, antagonizing the Right, escalating violence, and turning their back on the principles of free speech, one can clearly say that the anti-Trump movement is the regressive left. 
If they want to stop the rise of Trump, they need to really rethink their strategy; abandoning their confrontational tactics is one way.
However, if they continue with their forceful and childish approaches, they are only going to hand over the election to Trump with open arms.