From Newsweek:
RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS ARE A BIGGER THREAT TO AMERICA THAN ISIS
Hum, any chance we can get Trump to ban right-wing extremists in America?
Naw, he just wants to ban travelers from those 7 Muslim majority countries and let right-wing wingnutz free range...hum, has Trump even condemned the Trump admirer that murdered those 6 Muslims in that Quebec City mosque?
Oh, yeah...this is what the White House said: "We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday afternoon. "It's a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be pro-active, rather re-active, when it comes to our nation's safety and security."
Trump did tweet "A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S." on Feb 3 but has yet to tweet about that Quebec City mosque.
The tragic events of Quebec City are a stark reminder of the effect that divisive, xenophobic politics and policies can have
anywhere in the world. In terms of
actually improving homeland security, many agree that the effect of the travel ban will be
miniscule. However, a number of security experts point out that it certainly plays into the narrative used by terrorist recruiters. And it further emboldens the alt-right, white nationalists, and violence-prone lone-wolves. It makes them feel "safe and supported" in their bigoted convictions, to hear and see the President and his administration's
rhetoric and actions. While I fully support a nation's right to security and defense, I firmly believe that to focus on division, play upon fears, and use tweets to justify it, is simplistic and counterproductive.
When the President seems to routinely use canards as a rhetorical strategy, it makes one wonder what the real purpose of the Executive Order might be. Some would suggest that Trump is simply following through on his campaign promises and, on the surface, this would seem to be the case. But there may be much more to it than that.
a) It seems to be a trial balloon to test the President's power, particularly with respect to orders that segment society based on religion and culture (tempered by economic interests, of course).
b) It plays consistently to the narrative that terrorists are only Muslim. It fits lock-step with the President's rhetoric that Iran is the seat of terrorism. One wonders what would happen if
that confrontation were to become more active? I wouldn't be surprised to see alt-right calls for Muslim internment camps, as was done with the Japanese during World War II. "You know, folks, you just can't trust them". Interestingly, Iran is one area where Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin seem to be at odds.
c) It perpetuates the fear that America is under attack, and infers that the current intelligence and security communities are incompetent and in need of help from Trump and his team who "know better". I think Trump and Bannon want
firm control of the intelligence apparatus, to set their own agenda and priorities. "WE will tell YOU where the danger lies, who to keep tabs on, who we want you to mess with." The question is, do you trust them?
d) It infuriates and unhinges social liberals, causing a few to lash about in regrettable and ineffectual ways. While cooler heads organize legal challenges and retrench for longer-term vigilance and effective change, the President tweets to belittle and bully the opposition, and to preemptively lay the blame for any future terrorist acts at its feet.
e) It makes the guileless feel safer. "Trust me. Believe me. Don't worry about it. The world's a bad place, but we're going to fix it. That's what I do. I fix things. We'll make it better. Believe me. It's true." Years ago I worked for a company with a VP who said stuff like this. I was immediately skeptical. He turned out to be a sociopath (or maybe NPD?) who attacked and undermined colleagues, and sabotaged operations so he could play the saviour. He exhorted his sales staff to lie to customers. He was instrumental in destroying that company. Fortunately for me, I worked for a different VP and never came under personal attack, but we ALL lost out in the end. Now, this kind of patter gives me the "willies".
f) It distracts from other items that are (or seem to be) on the administration's agenda:
- scale back consumer protections
- scale back environmental protections
- scale back health care assistance for the most vulnerable
- claw back women's rights
- claw back LGBT rights
- claw back worker's rights
- work toward "corporatizing" education
- give massive tax cuts (which disproportionately advantage the already rich)
- claw back funding of social programs (which diminishes the standard of living and quality of life of the poor and lowest economic strata)
In my own country, I'm following the debates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's interesting (alarming?) to watch what some of the candidates have "learned" from the U.S. election, and the strategies that some employ to differentiate themselves. Some want to focus on whether or not public employees can wear the niqab. Some want additions to the citizenship process and/or oath. One seems to implore us to outsource our interests to the "economic elite". This is the same individual who posted a video of himself gleefully firing a series of automatic weapons at a Miami gun range on the day of the funeral for three of the Quebec City shooting victims. Oops! Personally, I hope that this dark and disturbing world vision and brand of politics makes little headway here. For my friends and (distant) relatives in the United States, I sincerely hope for the best.