The Politics of Division
The responses of the Republican presidential candidates and right-wing pundits to recent terrorist attacks in our country have been instructive. There is a clear distinction between what they say about the San Bernardino attack and what they say about Planned Parenthood attack. Rupert Murdoch's New York Post came out with a large headline that said "Muslim Murder" after San Bernardino. Donald Trump touted his proposal to institute racial profiling targeting the Muslim community, and going after the families of Islamic attackers. Ted Cruz was quick to declare that the attack should be considered "radical Islamic terrorism" before the facts of the case were in, and investigators at that time were still considering the possibility that it was a case of workplace violence.
What did Cruz have to say about Robert Dear after the Planned Parenthood attack? He castigated the media for trying to "blame him on the pro-life movement when at this point there's very little evidence to indicate that". Cruz went on to repeat unsubstantiated rumors from right-wing internet sources that called Dear a "transgendered leftist activist". Donald trump has refused to blame the Planned parenthood attack on the anti-abortion movement, but instead attributes it to mental illness.
There is a clear pattern among right-wing punditry and politicians of playing up the Islamic aspect of terrorism committed by Islamic terrorists, while denying the Christian aspect of terrorism committed by Christian terrorists. President Obama has wisely refrained from placing blame on any particular cause until the investigations have brought in enough facts to justify it. He was reluctant to call the San Bernardino attack a case of terrorism until the facts were known, but has since acknowledged that it was terrorism committed by Muslims. Trump castigated the president for not using the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism".
My question for the Donald is: Why do you refuse to use the phrase "radical Christian terrorism"? Could it be that you are afraid of alienating the Christian community? Could it be the case that you think there are many Christians who are on your side, and you don't want to turn them against you? Could it be that you have enough sense to understand that it's not really a good idea, because it doesn't help you to achieve your goals?
In an earlier post, I discussed the issue of turning away Muslims, when the real threat we face is religious extremists, which might just as well be Christian as Muslim. Not only is it against our American ideals to turn away those in need of help, not only is it against the ideals espoused by most Christians, but it's not in our interest to do so. This is something that these right-wing buffoons don't seem to understand. If we alienate the Muslim community, we lose powerful allies in the battle against Islamic terrorism. For it is members of this community that have proven to be invaluable in bringing to light various activities and plots by terrorists or would-be terrorists. Not only would we stand to lose their support, but we would run the risk of turning those who are now friends and allies into enemies.
Trump, Cruz, and other Republicans sound tough, and promise to quickly end all of our problems with terrorists by taking drastic and indiscriminate measures against Muslims. This rhetoric is appealing to low-intelligence Republican voters, but it is a recipe for disaster. Not only does it completely ignore the problem in this country of Christian terrorism, but it is practically guaranteed to make the problem of domestic Islamic terrorism greater, not smaller. All the tough talk in the world isn't going to make the problem go away, but it can make it worse.
I am thankful that president Obama understands this issue. Let us hope that the American people are intelligent enough not to put someone like Cruz or Trump into office in the next election. I don't relish the idea of another cowboy president who thinks that taking a hard-nosed stance and bombing them all into oblivion is the correct approach. It was just that kind of thinking that was largely responsible for creating the horrific situation that the world is facing now.
After I wrote this article, I heard that trump has proposed banning all Muslims from entering the country. People from both the left and the right have labeled this as fascist, and I must agree. Many Republican candidates (with the notable exception of Cruz) have denounced Trump. However, it is worth noting that they still hold positions that are damaging to the interests of the US. Rubio, for example, has proposed shutting down mosques and other venues where Muslims gather. While not quite as extreme as Trump, his position is nonetheless fascist. And he's not alone among Republicans. The big danger here is that their somewhat less radical positions will start to seem acceptable by comparison to Trump. But somewhat fascist is still fascist.
ReplyDeleteDid I mention that Trump appeals to low-intelligence voters?
ReplyDeleteHere's proof.
Trump has preyed upon the fears of the stupid all along.
And then there's this.
And then there's this.
ReplyDeleteHow is this conversation indicative of low intelligence on the part of Trump voters?
First off, of the three participants, only one is a Trump supporter. The other two label him either a "Bad Man" or a "shit stain". Hardly the descriptives a Trump voter would use.
Secondly, the conversation itself is lively, erudite, and honest. None of the three agree totally with the either two (although all share various points in common), and spell out their respective cases both intelligently and spiritedly.
What's wrong with that?
Edgestow,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, of the three participants, only one is a Trump supporter.
Let's limit it to the comments that were present at the time I pointed them out. There were only the first two, and neither of them have anything intelligent to say. Certainly neither of them presents any kind of rational argument (at least until after Syllabus showed up with something intelligent to say). Please note that I do not base my assessment on the general opinions of Bob or crude toward Donald trump. I base it on the fact that both think it's a good idea to ban Muslims from entering the country, which is an incredibly stupid idea. Not only is it unconstitutional, and denies our deeply held American values, it is a repudiation of Christian values as well. It is objectively damaging to our interests in defeating radical Islamic terrorists, as those who are actually involved in the fight would tell you.
You are correct that the conversation took a turn for the better after Syllabus showed up, but that doesn't change the point I made that Trump expresses fascist ideas that appeal to low-intelligence voters.
Not only is it unconstitutional
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the wisdom or otherwise of the proposal, it is most certainly not unconstitutional. Non-US citizens residing outside the borders of the United States have no constitutional rights. That's why Guantanamo exists! And there is no constitutional right to enter the country, even for US citizens. This has been repeatedly upheld by the courts over the years.
Secondly, as to fascist ideas being "low intelligence", there indisputably are many things reprehensible about "fascist" ideas, but low intelligence is not one of them. Mussolini and Hitler were absolutely, definitely not nice guys, but they were both (unfortunately) persons of above average intelligence, as were most of Der Fuhrer's inner circle. There seems to be no correlation between intelligence and goodness. In fact, the reverse appears to be the case. I have yet to meet a person with Down's Syndrome who wasn't an absolute joy to be with.
Finally, labeling Trump's manifestly stupid proposal as "fascist" is simply a way to trying to end the discussion. I see this happening far too often by persons at the left end of the spectrum (as you appear to be). It's all too easy to just call your opponent a bigot, deluded, a hater, or a fascist, as though that actually says something intelligent. You want to talk about "low intelligence"? Name calling is a mark of such - it short circuits the thinking process and stifles any meaningful exchange of ideas.
Non-US citizens residing outside the borders of the United States have no constitutional rights. That's why Guantanamo exists!
DeleteYou are wrong about that. The constitution, and the bill of rights in particular, applies to everyone - not just US citizens. Right of entry is not governed by the constitution, but everyone is constitutionally entitled to freedom of religion and equal protection under the law. Guantanamo prison was established as an attempt to operate outside the jurisdiction of courts and legal authorities that might take issue with criminal activities such as torture.
Mussolini and Hitler were absolutely, definitely not nice guys, but they were both (unfortunately) persons of above average intelligence, as were most of Der Fuhrer's inner circle. There seems to be no correlation between intelligence and goodness.
You really don't listen to my words. I never said that fascist leaders or trump are not intelligent people. I said he appeals to low-intelligence voters, and I gave evidence to back it up.
Did you ever read Ann Coulter's How to Talk to a Liberal? I wanted to hear what she had to say, so I read it. After the first chapter, which consisted entirely of insults and ad hominem attacks, I thought, OK, she got that off her chest, now what arguments does she make? A few chapters later, I realized that she makes no arguments. All she does is appeal to low-intelligence readers who gobble up her books. She's not stupid. She just knows her audience.
Finally, labeling Trump's manifestly stupid proposal as "fascist" is simply a way to trying to end the discussion. I see this happening far too often by persons at the left end of the spectrum (as you appear to be).
I'm not ending the discussion. I initiated one. I noted that these labels of fascism are coming from both the left and the right. And this is certainly a matter worth discussing. If you don't agree, that's fine. State your case. Tell my why this man wouldn't be harmful or dangerous in the office of president.
Tell my why this man wouldn't be harmful or dangerous in the office of president.
ReplyDeleteOh, I think he would be. But that still doesn't give foreigners a constitutional right to immigrate to the USA. If we were to seal our borders against any and all comers, such an act would be 100% constitutional. There is no constitutional right to enter this country. If you think there is, please cite the Article, Section, and Clause granting such.
And as for religious freedom, that applies ONLY to persons residing within the United States. The constitution grants no such thing to foreigners. In fact, the constitution doesn't grant anything to non-US citizens living outside the country. Period.
And before you bring up "no religious test", I'll preemptively point out that the clause quite specifically and explicitly applies only to qualification for holding public trust or office - nothing else. ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States") Immigration is neither of those things.
You really don't listen to my words. I never said that there is a constitutional right to entry. But the constitution requires that laws be applied equally, and without regard to religion. The things Trump has proposed are unconstitutional. And please read the paper I cited about who has rights under the constitution. In general they apply to everyone.
DeleteYou don't seem to have read the very paper you asked me to. It quite specifically is referring only to foreign nationals residing or otherwise located upon US soil. It says nothing about people located in territories outside of US jurisdiction. So yes, you can treat foreigners living/located elsewhere quite unequally. To this day, we have immigration quotas based on country of origin, and such laws are completely constitutional, despite their demonstrably unequal treatment of person from differing countries.
ReplyDeleteThere is no constitutional requirement to treat foreigners not living/located within US jurisdiction equally. None. You only need to look here to see how unequal the system is.
But the constitution requires that laws be applied equally, and without regard to religion.
One last time. It says no such thing, when speaking of non-US citizens located in areas outside of US jurisdiction.
I fail to see what point you are trying to make besides mindless quibbling. Of course, people who are outside US jurisdiction or who have no dealings with the government are not subject to being treated fairly or unfairly by the government, so there is no issue of what rights they have. Immigrants by definition don't live in the US. But they are subject to US law in the process of immigration. In that regard, they have the same rights as anyone else, as required by the constitution.
DeleteAnd Trump has still proposed things that are unconstitutional.
In that regard, they have the same rights as anyone else, as required by the constitution.
ReplyDeleteHow many times do I have to say this? You are wrong, wrong, wrong! The US government has no obligation whatsoever under the constitution to treat immigrants equally - none. How else could there be such things as immigration quotas? If we as a country decided tomorrow that only left handed redheads who spoke Japanese were to be allowed in, and everyone else must stay outside, there is nothing to prevent its doing so - at least, nothing in the constitution.
And my point? Trump's immigration proposal may be wise or it may be stupid, but one thing it ain't, and that's unconstitutional.
I personally see some merit to his proposal (as long as you tweaked it a bit to be not an outright total ban, but just something that discourages Muslim immigration, and/or makes it more difficult), but I also believe it to be completely unworkable in its present form. Even if Congress went along (which they'd have to do, and there's zero chance of that happening), there's no practical way to enforce the policy.
You obviously listen to all the right-wing pundits that are desperately trying to rationalize this odious proposal. Their main basis for its justification is the plenary power doctrine that has withstood constitutional challenges in the past to give congress (not the president) wide leeway on who to allow entry to the US. But it has never been used to exclude people on the basis of religion. Constitutional experts are doubtful that exclusion on that basis would survive a Supreme Court challenge. It is a blatant violation of the first amendment.
DeleteThis article gives a more unbiased perspective on the issue.
You never learn, do you? Once again, prospective immigrants, prior to their setting foot on US soil, have no First Amendment rights, so they cannot be violated.
ReplyDeleteNow some of Trump's other ideas, such as a Muslim registry requirement for persons residing within the US, are of far more doubtful constitutionality. But you know what? I can no longer predict if and when the Supreme Court is even going to pay lip service to the constitution any more. It certainly ran roughshod over it in its Obergefell decision. A hit and run verdict without a backward glance in the rear view mirror. So I can easily see it approving of Trump's database.
You never learn, do you? Once again, prospective immigrants, prior to their setting foot on US soil, have no First Amendment rights, so they cannot be violated.
DeleteYou don't even know what the constitution is for, do you? It sets out the powers and limitations of the government. it's not about who's covered and who's not, except in regard to certain rights that are specifically limited to citizens, such as voting. It covers what the government does. if the constitution says that the government shall apply due process of the law, that is true for everybody. It doesn't call out exclusions for people outside the US.
That said, the constitution has been violated throughout our history. There is not one word in it that would justify discrimination against gay people getting married. The Obergefell decision finally put an end to that. The fact that four justices voted against it only goes to show that they have no appreciation for the constitution, and they read it through the lens of their religious beliefs.