The Democratic debate last Saturday night naturally included a lot of issues that separate the Republican and Democratic parties.
The one issue raised during the debate that almost every Republican candidate felt the need to address was not, however, a matter of policy or economy, but instead one of vocabulary.
Almost immediately after Hillary Clinton made a point not to “paint with a wide brush” in reference to Islam and jihadists, the leading Republican candidates came out against her as they almost raced to see who could say “radical Islamic terrorism” on Twitter first.
For most of the Republican candidates — Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump, to name a few — this was the only comment worth making about the Democratic debate — besides, of course, the “carnival barker” Trump taking some cheap shots.
Despite their fervor, they seemed to have missed the point. Hillary didn’t shirk away from naming the enemy; she was just more accurate.
She called for action against jihadists and Islamists but refused to use the broad and incorrect term “radical Islam” in order to avoid incorrectly labeling the enemy. She didn’t refuse to name the enemy; she just refused to do it poorly.
The frenzy of debate that followed from the Republican party was a sham.
The most important thing about dealing with real threats is not what we’ve decided the code names will be, especially when the name singled out by Republican candidates lends itself to extreme islamophobia that is constantly being stoked by discussions like this.
Islamist refers to the ideology Islamism, which promotes a global politically Islamic state under Sharia law, according to clarionproject.org. Islamic refers to the religion of Islam.
Only one of these thing is a threat to the United States when practiced, and only one of these terms should be labeled as the enemy.
By harping on that one term, the Republican candidates show an insensitivity to one of the most pressing foreign policy issues our country is facing.
Not only have recent events renewed the U.S. people’s concern for our safety, but we continue to face a refugee crisis that shows no signs of solving itself.
Many of the Republican candidates would have their followers happily believe Islam is the root of terrorism.
That would solve the refugee crisis by implicating refugees as dangerous terrorists to whom asylum should not be given.
It would help with the War on Terror if it were only so easy to determine who was a terrorist. It would be so convenient to have a clear-cut enemy of millions to use to fear-monger the American people into complacency and win their votes.
That isn’t the reality. Refugees aren’t terrorists but victims of terror. Islam is not an evil religion, but, just like any other religion, it can be misused by evil people. Refusing to acknowledge the intricacies and nuances of the modern world, and the people in it, only serves to divide us and liken us to the very ideologies we fear.
Hillary Clinton is not always the epitome of tact, but a Republican candidate, or any candidate, who uses tragedy to promote fear and uses victims as scapegoats shows a lack of understanding and intelligence that it takes to govern.
jordrile@indiana.edu
@riledupIDS
