By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Early Sunday morning, a radical Muslim born in the United
States murdered at least 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando. President
Obama, as he always does, downplayed the terrorist attacker’s connections to
Islam, instead vaguely ascribing the attacker’s radicalization to “various
extremist information.”
The next day, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican
nominee, went on Fox and Friends to
discuss President Obama’s statement. And there, as he always does, Trump stuck
his foot all the way down his throat. “Look,” said Trump, “we’re led by a man
that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind.” He
could have left it there — but once Trump has his teeth in something, he must
continue chomping:
And the something else in mind —
you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that
President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words
“radical Islamic terrorism.” There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable.
There’s something going on. He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody
understands — it’s one or the other and either one is unacceptable.
The implication, given Trump’s context, is that Obama is
a covert Muslim.
This would not be the first time Trump has made such a
suggestion. In 2011, as Trump called for Obama’s birth certificate (he said
Obama was probably ineligible and born in Kenya), he stated, “Maybe [his birth
certificate] says he is a Muslim.” In 2012, Trump tweeted, “Does Madonna know
something we all don’t about Barack? At a concert she said, ‘we have a black
Muslim in the White House.’” A significant number of Republicans agree with
this theory by polling data.
On Tuesday, President Obama retaliated. Obama, who
appeared visibly upset — far more upset than he was in his original statement
discussing the murder of 49 Americans by a radical Muslim terrorist in Orlando
— went after Trump directly. He explained that there was no need to use the
term “radical Islam” — that would simply make things worse:
That’s the key, they tell us. We
can’t get ISIL unless we call them “radical Islamists”’ What exactly would
using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL
less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is
there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the
above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a
political distraction. There is no magic to the phrase “radical Islam.” It’s a
political talking point; it’s not a strategy.
Ironically, this argument — “Would not terrorism by any
other name smell as sweet?” — is itself a political talking point, not a
strategy. Nevertheless, Obama’s not reticent to talk about radical Islam
because he’s Muslim. He’s reticent to talk about radical Islam because he’s a
leftist.
Obama believes, as doctrinaire leftists do, that human
beings do not derive meaning from ancient religious superstitions and
deep-seated ideas about how the universe ought to operate. Given relief from
material want and prevention of emotional distress, Obama believes, all human
beings would get along just fine — and would then be free to cultivate
themselves as they see fit.
Karl Marx wrote that “life involves before everything
else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing, and many other things.” In
this view, unhappiness derives from scarcity in these resources or from social
relationships created to guarantee these primary needs for some at the expense
of others. Religion, meanwhile, exists only to misdirect such unhappiness
toward the cosmic rather than toward one’s fellow man. Hence Marx’s belief that
abolition of religion is “the demand for their real happiness.”
If that’s the case, then there’s no reason for Obama to
mention “radical Islam.” It’s an opiate of the masses, just like Christianity
(“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns
in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years . . . it’s not
surprising then they get bitter”). To get beyond the threat of “radical Islam”
requires a real strategy, in the
Obama view — a strategy of material redistribution, of power equalization. Take
away the guns, centralize all the power in Washington, D.C., and then turn
human beings into materialist widgets in thrall to that centralized power — and
you’ll have peace. Don’t, and you’ll have chaos. That’s why Obama attributes
terrorism in Jakarta to shootings in Chicago: “I have seen the desperation and
disorder of the powerless . . . how narrow the path is for them between
humiliation and untrammeled fury; how easily they slip into violence and
despair.”
Of course, this is all wrong. Terrorists in Indonesia aren’t
just angry because they’re poor. Neither are kids in Chicago. Poverty and
violence do not correlate. But poverty of ideology and violence do correlate.
Trump understands that, which is why he blames radical
Islam for the Orlando terrorist attack. But meanwhile, Trump is blind to the
fact that American leftism is a
religion all its own. Ironically, Trump — supposed scourge of the Left —
believes that leftism can’t be the rationale for Obama’s soft-on-radical-Islam
perspective. He believes, instead, that Obama must be a secret Muslim. That’s
because he fundamentally misunderstands modern leftism, and the alliance
between the modern Left and radical Islam to tear down the gates of Western
civilization to make way for the new. Once the gates are down, of course, the
Left will find out soon enough that radical Muslims do exist, and that they can’t be bought off with a few material
concessions — the Europeans are finding that out daily.
But until then, Obama will call for gun control. He’ll
suggest that the real problem is hurt
feelings and lack of opportunity. And Trump, puzzled as ever, will continue to
misdiagnose leftism as radical Islam.
No comments:
Post a Comment