Contrasting reactions
The statements of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton about the Orlando murders contrast dramatically. Trump calls the perpetrator a “radical Islamic terrorist” and claims credit for predicting something like this attack would happen. Clinton does not. She defines the murders as an act of terror and hate but does not use the I word. She also questions whether a “weapon of war” should be available to criminals and terrorists.
I imagine the Islam and gun control issues will dominate the political debate over this mass murder. Republicans will say we can’t defeat the enemy if we are unwilling to define him clearly. Democrats will say “assault” weapons should not be sold legally. How should you and I react?
Personally I have no problem with naming Islamic extremism as the enemy. But I have some sympathy with politicians who don’t want to do that. They are listening to advice from the Islamic community, whose cooperation is vital to countering the extremists. Many Muslims don’t want to credit the terrorists with a connection to Islam, fearing that will taint the entire community. Trump is exhibit number 1 in that regard.
I also have no problem with banning “assault” weapons, which to a non-aficionado like me means rapid-fire weapons with large magazines. I have some sympathy with politicians who want to defend the right to bear arms, which in rural areas are useful. But you can hunt, kill an animal predator or defend your family with something a lot more modest than the AR15 the Orlando shooter used. A line has to be drawn somewhere. We don’t allow people to drive around town in a tank.
But neither of these issues will be resolved in the aftermath of this shooting. The tug of war will continue. As Trump correctly says, there will be more.
We need to learn to react in ways that minimize future risk.
The objective of terror is to sow fear. Trump helps the Islamic radicals to do that. Take this sentence from his statement:
Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.
Is this true? Is it judicious? Including Orlando, ten “homegrown extremist” attacks had killed 95 people since 9/11. No more than a couple of dozen people planned and executed these attacks. I suppose Trump might also be counting the dozens more implicated in plots that were foiled. Hundreds?
In the same time period, eighteen far right wing attacks killed 48 people, more until Orlando than radical Islamic terrorists. I haven’t noticed any agitation against this slaughter on the right, which of course thinks Muslims should control their own, against this slaughter. Trump has carefully avoided offending his white supremacist supporters and throws them the occasional bone of ambiguous prejudice to chew on.
Trump also emphasizes the terrorism risks arising from immigration, including the second generation. The killer was born in the US. His family appear to have been legal Afghan immigrants to the US. Are we going to hear a proposal not only to block Muslims from entering the US, not only to deport undocumented immigrants, but also one to expel those already here, including those who are natural born citizens?
Sure, Hillary Clinton’s reaction is far cooler and less passionate than Trump’s. But if I want the US to be safe, that is the far better reaction when terrorists are trying to scare the country into doing counterproductive things.
RSS - Posts
