Donald Trump and Salah Abdeslam have something in common
Donald Trump is definitely NOT the same as Salah Abdeslam. I find the Hitler comparisons of Trump over the top and insulting (and also counter productive if you are trying to win over his supporters). Virginia Hume's article is a tad too alarmist, although the mechanics of what she describes Trump does in winning followers are spot on.
Salah Abdeslam and ISIS are murderous terrorists. They want to start an apocalyptic war. Anger and feeling of inferiority drives the process of radicalization. European appeasement is not working and is probably counter productive.
Trump for all his crassness is not that, but Trump and ISIS leaders like Abdeslam are are trying to draw in followers. To that extent these two share something. Trump and ISIS play on feeling of anger and disenfranchisement in the groups they are seeking to seduce. And it works.
It is not just Trump and ISIS doing this. Barack Obama seduced a lot of people when he ran for office (how did that mostly turn out--certainly not as promised). Hillary wishes she could do it. Bernie Sanders manages to do it with Democrats, just not as much as Obama did and Bernie has been unable to do so with black voters. The Trump phenomenon is he has managed to win a sizable percentage of Republicans and a smaller chuck of dissatisfied Democrats, enough to give him a plurality with the GOP. That may not hold (Wisconsin looks like it may go to Cruz) but it is enough to make him the likely favorite to get the nomination.
ISIS has far limited success (it recruitment numbers are far more limited), but who they recruit are either dedicated hard core jihadis or sympathizers giving them cover to operate. It is enough to allow them to cause mayhem.
Trump supporters are not ISIS or terrorists. Not even close. But they are angry (for mostly good reason) and Trump is playing into that. These voters feel like they have been (mostly economically) abandoned by the Republican and Democrat parties (and that much is absolutely true). Trump to them is the alternative (and they recognize his flaws). The unknown part is what Trump is offering as an alternative. Trump is not particularly strong and certainly not clear on what policy or economic theory he will pursue--other than being mostly against illegal immigration. We are not even sure he will do that.
Chances are Trump (if he won) would be an American Berlusconi or like that other Austrian. That would probably not be as bad as some think, but that would definitely not be a good thing. Democrats winning the White House is not good either. Media pundits and some of our politicians say they can't tell what prompts terrorism (or some try to blame poverty or even more incredulously climate change). This is complete nonsense and the left engaging in its own form of cravenness.
Which is why the left will come down hard on any person who has the temerity not to bake a pizza or sell flowers to a gay wedding on religious grounds (or even threaten a state), or completely lose their minds over transgendered bathrooms, but look the other way when homosexuals are murdered openly overseas. Democrats appease Iran while Iran continues to do what they do.
Meanwhile, ISIS continues its efforts to seduce in Europe (and here too).
H/T:
This, by @virginiahume, will change your life. I'm not kidding. A masterpiece of analysis. https://t.co/490om9hA2Q— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) March 31, 2016
Instapundit: How Belgian prisons become breeding grounds for Islamic terrorism and Trump is the effect, not the cause of gutter politics
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome all legitimate comments. Keep it civil. Spam will be deleted. Thanks.