The cross burner wasn’t MAGA. Yet Chicago’s political class rushed to blame Trump supporters before the facts were known
Chicago has become America’s capital of the premature conclusion. Something outrageous happens. A shocking image appears on social media. Politicians rush to microphones. Activists rush to the cameras. Reporters rush to deadlines. Before the police have completed an investigation, before prosecutors have reviewed evidence, and before the public has any reliable understanding of what actually occurred, everybody somehow already knows exactly who is responsible and exactly what it means. Then, all too often, the facts arrive and destroy the narrative.
We saw it with Jussie Smollett. Chicago was told racist Trump supporters had attacked a television actor on a freezing winter night. Politicians issued statements. National media outlets amplified the story. Celebrities expressed outrage. The city was portrayed as a hotbed of Trump-inspired hatred. Then, after enormous expenditures of police time and public resources, the story collapsed under the weight of its own falsehoods. Such a spectacular embarrassment should have taught our leaders to be more cautious in condemning an entire group of people. Apparently not.
Last week, a burning cross appeared in Grant Park. If someone were trying to design a symbol guaranteed to inflame racial tensions, generate national headlines, and provoke emotional reactions, it would be difficult to improve upon a burning cross. The image is inseparably associated with the Ku Klux Klan, racial intimidation, and some of the darkest episodes in American history. In a city with Chicago’s racial history, putting a burning cross in a public park is both literally and figuratively inflammatory.
Predictably, the political class immediately leapt into action. Governor JB Pritzker declared that the incident reflected what happens when the seeds of racism and fascism grow unchecked. Others quickly followed. The implication was obvious. The public was encouraged to conclude this was another example of right-wing extremism, MAGA hatred, and the dangers supposedly posed by Donald Trump and his supporters.
Then reality showed up.
What makes this episode particularly interesting is one of the strongest critiques of the rush to judgment did not come from conservatives. It came from the Chicago Tribune. In a remarkably sensible editorial, the Tribune essentially told Governor JB Pritzker, Mayor Brandon Johnson, Cardinal Blase Cupich, Reverend Michael Pfleger, and others to slow down and let the police do their jobs before issuing public declarations. The paper specifically recalled the Jussie Smollett fiasco and asked whether Chicago’s leaders had learned anything from that embarrassment. Judging by recent events, the answer appears to be "no."
The Tribune noted politicians were once again making sweeping declarations based largely on images circulating online. Then NBC Chicago interviewed the man who admitted setting the cross on fire, and suddenly the entire story looked different. According to his own statements, 21-year-old University of Illinois Chicago student Merlin Lu was not supporting Donald Trump. He was protesting Donald Trump. He was not promoting MAGA. He was opposing MAGA. Lu stated he even placed a MAGA hat on top of the cross as part of his protest. In other words, if his account is true, the alleged cross-burner was motivated by hostility toward Trump supporters rather than support for them.
As the Tribune correctly observed, that would mean his motivation was the precise opposite of what Governor Pritzker publicly claimed the incident represented. That is exactly why responsible public officials should wait for investigations before issuing declarations. Nobody knew the truth when the outrage machine started spinning. Nobody knew the truth when the headlines began flying. Nobody knew the truth when politicians began lecturing the public. Yet many behaved as though the case had already been solved
This nut job deserves to be crucified on a burning cross for pulling such a literally and figuratively inflammatory stunt in a city as racially charged as Chicago. Mr. Lu should face the maximum penalties the law allows if prosecutors determine crimes were committed. Not because of his political opinions, but because of the reckless nature of his actions. A burning cross is one of the most inflammatory symbols in American history. To erect one in the middle of Chicago was guaranteed to provoke outrage, fear, and potentially even violence. Deterrence matters. Publicity stunts of this sort should carry consequences severe enough to discourage copycats from attempting similar acts in the future.
What makes the incident particularly troubling is that it bears many of the characteristics people associate with a political false-flag operation. Lu now says his purpose was to protest President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. If that is true, then he deliberately employed one of the most notorious symbols of racial hatred in American history while associating it with his political opponents. Whether his goal was to frame MAGA supporters, embarrass them, or simply attract attention at their expense, the practical effect was the same. For several days, politicians, commentators, and much of the media were encouraged to draw precisely the conclusion he now claims was never intended.
To me, that sounds less like a political protest and more like a severe case of "Trump Derangement Syndrome." We live in a political culture in which some people have become so consumed by their hatred of Donald Trump they are willing to engage in increasingly bizarre conduct to express it. Burning a cross in Grant Park to protest a president hundreds of miles away is not rational political discourse. It is attention-seeking theater conducted with one of the most explosive symbols imaginable.
Unfortunately, this fits a broader Chicago pattern. Consider the notorious dead-rat incident perpetrated by Alderman Andre Vasquez that generated headlines and accusations of political intimidation. Whether that episode was exactly what it was initially portrayed to be remains a matter of debate, but it followed the familiar Chicago script: Sensational allegations, immediate outrage, extensive media coverage, and a rush to conclusions before all the facts were known.
Now BS-L is suggesting an explosion outside his home may have been an act of political violence directed at him because of his political views. Yet video reports appear to show individuals lighting what police initially described as a suspected firework. There is a substantial difference between a politically motivated bombing and somebody setting off fireworks. Once again, the facts matter.
The larger problem is that Chicago has developed an unhealthy addiction to narrative-first thinking. Too many people see a (or create) a story and immediately ask, “How can I use this politically?” Too few ask, “What actually happened?” The result is a recurring cycle of outrage, embarrassment, correction, and collective amnesia. Then the process begins all over again.
One of the more astonishing moments in Lu’s interview came when he appeared to suggest he did not fully appreciate the significance of a burning cross. At age 21, after attending college in America, that explanation requires more faith than I possess. A more plausible explanation is that this was an extraordinarily foolish political stunt committed by somebody seeking attention and publicity. If so, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. For days, Chicago and much of the nation were talking about him. The only problem is that the facts did not cooperate with the preferred narrative.
The Tribune made another excellent point that deserves attention. Whenever a shocking image begins circulating online and instantly goes viral, that should be a signal to become more skeptical, not less skeptical. Social media rewards outrage. Algorithms reward outrage. Cable news rewards outrage. Politicians reward outrage because it generates publicity. Everybody profits from outrage except the truth. The truth tends to arrive late and leave quietly through the back door.
The lesson here is that responsible leaders should resist the temptation to treat assumptions as facts. Jussie Smollett should have taught everyone that lesson. Apparently, it did not. That’s because our leaders are cravenly irresponsible.
Contrarians should remember that whenever a story arrives perfectly packaged to confirm every stereotype about conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, or MAGA voters, caution is warranted. Wait. Investigate. Verify. Then speak. Not the other way around.
Because once again, Chicago finds itself explaining that a highly publicized incident initially portrayed as evidence of right-wing extremism appears to have been committed by somebody protesting the political Right. Once again, the people who were most certain at the beginning appear to know the least at the end. Once again, a sensational story that generated headlines around the country looks very different after the facts emerge.
The next time a sensational story erupts — and there will be a next time — our leaders should follow the Tribune’s advice. Take a breath. Let the police do their jobs. Find out what happened before deciding what it means. That would save everybody a great deal of embarrassment. More importantly, it might save Chicago from once again becoming the punchline.
And if prosecutors conclude Merlin Lu violated the law, they should pursue the case vigorously. Chicago has enough real racial tension, enough real political division, and enough real public safety challenges without aspiring political activists running around Grant Park setting fire to symbols historically associated with racial terror. Whether motivated by attention-seeking, ideology, immaturity, or a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, this stunt served no legitimate public purpose. It inflamed passions, generated misleading narratives, consumed law enforcement resources, and further poisoned an already toxic political environment. That is exactly the sort of conduct that deserves consequences, not excuses.
The city has had enough manufactured outrage. It is time to start demanding facts first, not politically-motivated narratives.
