inconsistent hate speech

525px-Speech_balloon.svg

The story seemingly gaining greatest steam in the wake of ongoing atrocity is the perceived hate-filled rhetoric of Donald Trump. I get it. He is a bold, straight-talker who says what he means and means what he says — sadly, unlike so many engaged in political narrative; the challenge is that some of what he says is ugly and disrespectful.

On one hand, so much of what Trump has said is not good nor true nor right; on the other hand (albeit a distinctly smaller hand at that), there is something refreshing about unfiltered straight talk.

Let us first be clear in regard to exactly the message that Trump has articulated that has currently dominated the news flow (yes, even more than Time’s interesting selection of Angela Merkel). After the San Bernardino killers’ identified connection to militant Islamic ideology, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S., a proposal the Wall Street Journal labeled as one “that taps into voter anxiety about the recent spate of terrorist attacks yet likely runs afoul of religious freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.”

While his goal seems to be to eliminate the terrorist threat, few leaders of any partisan persuasion have embraced or endorsed Trump’s words. A resounding most have denounced his averred approach.

Trump proclaimed, “It is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why, we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

I do appreciate recognition of the threat that adherence to militant Islamic ideology poses. The Intramuralist, for one, has been concerned about the unwillingness of some to specifically acknowledge the origin of the current terror, as it’s hard to root out the problem if one is unwilling to acknowledge what the problem actually is. Some (uh, not Trump) water the root down; some compare it to irrelevant organized religions; some make it about “extremism.” If we are going to solve the problem, then we must wrestle with the motive for this particular manifestation of extremism. Hence, while I will not affirm the use or encouragement of any hate speech, I will also not affirm the watering down of terror.

So about this hate speech — or shall we say — hateful, divisive speech…

Some words seem definitely hateful; some are more subjective; all is divisive. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders seemingly addressed it well…

“Throughout our history you have had demagogues trying to divert attention away from the real issues. This country faces some enormous problems… And somebody like a Trump is trying to divide us up… That kind of crap is not going to work in the United States of America.”

Ah, “divide us up.” Amen, Bernie… if only that kind of “crap” didn’t work; unfortunately, it’s already in play. Yes, too many, from too many supposed sides, already attempt to divide us up…

Trump advocated banning Muslims from America (note: people in the audience cheered)…
Hillary Clinton named Republicans as her number one “enemy” (note: people in the audience cheered)…
Then there are the examples of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, calling law student Sandra Fluke a “slut”… Obama senior advisor, John Podesta, calling the GOP “a cult worthy of Jonestown”…  and Organizing for America, which actually compared Republicans to “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists”…
Such an incomplete account still omits the plethora of bipartisan comparisons to Adolf Hitler…  [Sigh…]

My point is that too many are too ok with division when it serves their purpose. Trump went too far; he forgets our commitment to being the land of the free and home of the brave. He, also, sadly joins the ranks of those who justify ostracizing an entire people group — when the entirety is undeserving but the rhetoric is self-serving. Such is intentional, divisive speech.

Divisive speech is common, deliberate, and disappointing. We are thus often inconsistent in our offense… and in our cheers.

Respectfully… always…
AR