Leading up to the tragic events that took place in Brussels on the morning of March 22, 2016, national security issues had been placed on the back burner of most campaigns. It wasn’t the main attraction in any of the debates and when it was mentioned Candidates typically produced a vague statement such as Donald Trump’s, “Paris Happened” remark, because the issue did not follow their rhetorical strategies at the time. Now that Brussels has “happened” and the campaigns head to Arizona, the time for political discourse regarding terrorism has never been more urgent.

Incompetent Hillary, despite the horrible attack in Brussels today, wants borders to be weak and open-and let the Muslims flow in. No way!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2016

Donald Trumps Rhetorical Appeal to Fear

Many voters, who may not believe in Trump’s campaign or agree with his brash approach to life, support his stance on national security. The narrative has now changed from that of a bucket election to that of a pyramid design. Constituents are more concerned with one issue that they consider to be so important that they are willing to forgive a candidates position on other issues. This terror attack will only enhance Donald Trump’s ability to capitalize on the fears of undecided voters. He has perfectly set up the narrative of his campaign to convince voters that terrorism exists as a function of the Obama Administration, while his plan to build a wall will “fix everything”.

“Hate Donald Trump all you like, but at least he seems to recognize the magnitude of the threat and at least he has firm proposals for how to try to defeat it” – Piers Morgan

Obama, and all others, have been so weak, and so politically correct, that terror groups are forming and getting stronger! Shame.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2016

How will this affect the general election campaign?

What if Donald Trump does win the Republican nomination for President? Will his coalition of supporters stand a chance against those voters who are concerned about his sanity in regards to national security? The majority of the American public seems to either be in favor of Donald Trump or very much against him, including a Super PAC within his own party with the sole purpose of funding campaigns against him.

Muslim Americans: this is your country, too. These kinds of proposals are dangerous, hateful, and beneath us. https://t.co/kcj1ltvNWa

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 22, 2016

When it comes to national security, Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic Nominee, is the most qualified for the job on paper as she has the most experience. Serving as the Secretary of State under the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton sat in on the ordering of the killing of Osama Bin Laden and many other national security briefings. She will use this experience rhetorically to comparatively illustrate the differences between her experience and Donald Trump’s lack there of.

We can be strong and smart without advocating torture or bigotry. We will not let fear dictate our foreign policy.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 22, 2016

Iran – the biggest threat to our National Security?

With so many different groups that threaten to our national security, it is hard to decide which is the biggest. With ISIS continuing its attack on the free world, and countries like Iran and North Korea ramping up their military power, there are so many different factors that the next commander-in-chief needs to worry about. Iran’s recent and suspicious testing of their missiles has raised a lot of eyebrows, especially with the GOP candidates, as to just how big the nuclear threat is.

Since Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known informally as the Iran Nuclear Deal, was put into place in July of 2015, members of the Republican Party have voiced a lot of opposition. GOP candidate Ted Cruz shared his strong opposition on Iran and the threat of their nuclear stockpile, despite agreeing to a deal, with BallotPedia bluntly stating “If you vote for me, under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. And if the Ayatollah doesn’t understand that, we may have to help introduce him to his 72 virgins.” Cruz continued with his strong rhetoric regarding Iran and their nuclear arms by saying, “If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.”

Donald Trump shared his opposition for the Iran Deal with his normal criticizing rhetoric saying, “It was amateur hour for those charged with striking this deal with Iran, demonstrating to the world, yet again, the total incompetence of our president and politicians.” Trump has expressed that it was such a bad deal, that it almost seems as if there was something behind the scenes going on to influence this deal.

Why Iran’s nuclear capabilities are so threatening

The threat of Iran breaking the rules of the Iran Deal and developing their nuclear arms is a multi-dimensional threat. Not only is it a threat in that they could launch those missiles at the US, but there is also the threat that they supply other organizations like ISIS with those nuclear weapons. According to adl.org, “Iran is one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to the United States and the West.”

With the backing of a nuclear powerhouse such as Iran, ISIS becomes a much bigger deal than it is currently in the United States. The threat against our national security would reach heights that we haven’t seen since the attacks on 9/11. For that reason, the recent missile testing in Iran is something that the United States government should not be taking lightly at all.
With the election coming up, the rhetoric surrounding these threats to our national security should start to heat up and be a much more highly debated topic. Our next commander-in-chief will have a lot to think about when it comes to how we deal with the threat of Iran and ISIS.

Less than a year after the Iran nuclear deal finally solidified, missiles have been launched by Iran in what they have deemed a defensive test. Other powers in the region, Israel primarily, have called out the missile launch as a violation of the nuclear deal and a definitive call to action for the U.N. Security Council and the United States.

This event not only creates an international issue between many different players in the U.N. and in the region, but it jeopardizes the credibility of a nuclear deal that is already widely opposed by a large faction in U.S. Congress. It creates a more fragile rhetorical situation for those who pushed the deal passionately to its existence, and it also creates a situation that Republicans can assert a loud verbal attack in the coming months to attempt to repeal the deal.

In response to the missile launch, Vice President Joe Biden attempted to diplomatically settle the issue and ease Israel’s concern, saying during his trip to Jerusalem that “we are united in the belief that a nuclear-armed Iran is an absolutely unacceptable threat to Israel, the region and the United States.”

While not directly linked to the more pressing matters—hello, ISIS—regarding terrorism at the moment, the Iran nuclear deal has been a very divisive issue in the presidential election, especially in the Republican debates. Republican candidates vary on the condemnation scale for the deal, but it is uniformly abhorred in the Republican party. Comparatively, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders do not disagree on the subject either, with both candidates supporting the deal.

The nuclear deal will be even more hotly discussed when debates between the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates begin in the general election stage. When one side enthusiastically supports the deal and the other vehemently opposes it, it will be become a recurring critical point in rhetorical strategies for garnering support from voters.

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has said that “this deal is a really problematic deal, and it reflects a pattern we’ve seen in the Obama administration of negotiating with terrorists and making deals and trades that endanger U.S. safety and security.”

Alternately, candidate Hillary Clinton said the deal was lesser of two evils; that the U.S. had the option to “move forward on a path to diplomacy or turn down more dangerous path leading to a far less certain and riskier future.”

In anyone’s point of view, however, these recent events will make the justification of this deal more convoluted and become a larger player in the presidential election to come.

With a smaller GOP field and the conventions nearing, lets take a step back and revisit the Candidates stances on prominent issues facing the nation.

Donald Trump:

Donald Trumps Website doesn’t provide any available information regarding his policy positions on national security. Characteristic of Trump’s campaign, his website instead features a list of six policy positions that offer a short, vague blurb about his “stances” on issues he finds important. What is important to Donald Trump? Anything that will win over the most votes for his campaign. He claims to not be a politician, yet he effectively employs enthymemes in every aspect of his campaign.

John Kasich:

Governor Kasich’s website includes eleven subsections to his issues tab, including a section on national security. The page is titled, Making America Safer and Defeating ISIS, this appeals to his conservative establishment supporters who believe in strong national security policies and are extremely fearful of ISIS. Kasich’s “Comprehensive Outline for American Security in a Chaotic World,” is quite extensive and provides clear examples of his experience regarding national security policy. He also provides visitors of his website with a list of members involved in his “National Security Advisory Group.” This page is an extension of the rhetorical approach he has taken in the debates; playing the policy advocate and suggesting fair play.

Ted Cruz

Similar to Governor Kasich and following traditional party norms, Senator Cruz provides an outline for defending the nation in addition to eight other conservative policy concern pages. He illustrates his plan very simply in a six-step graphic:

His plan is a traditional, vague, explanation of what is already obvious about national security, however, it says the right thing to the right people, the conservative right.

Hillary Clinton:

Secretary Clinton’s list of issues is quite extensive, following the democratic party cliché of supporting big government. With 29 subsections outlying her stances on different issues, it becomes more difficult for the voter to understand what issues are most important to her agenda. Her outline, despite its numerous company features a comprehensive explanation of her experience as Secretary of State. Although, like many of her opponents, most of her outline states the obvious when it comes to national security, claiming we must defeat ISIS because they provide a major threat to our safety but not going into any depth of plans and implementation.

 “I believe the future holds far more opportunities than threats if we exercise creative and confident leadership that enables us to shape global events rather than be shaped by them.” – Hillary Clinton 

 Bernie Sanders

With 26 policy issues linked on his website, it becomes tedious to sort through all of them, as two of his subsections could have been combined to cover all national security questions. Instead he provides two tabs, one titled “War and Peace” and the other titled “War should be the last option: why I support the Iran Deal”. Like Secretary Clinton, it provides a disadvantage for the voter by inhibiting their ability to understand the core issues of their campaign in a simple read-over. The advantage, however, is that the reader quickly understands his position regarding starting a war.

Campaign Themes

One overwhelming issue among national security outlines for the candidates was their opinion of the Iran deal. In addition, most websites, including Donald Trump’s, featured a section on helping the nations veterans. Most webpages, however, looked very similar and left the reader with little understanding of what their true stance on national security is, making it harder for the undecided voter to make an educated choice based on who shares their ideals.

 

National Security and Terrorism in the 2016 Election

Some of the most animated and heated exchanges in during this presidential election have been related to the topics of national security and terrorism. With attacks popping up all over the world, the American people want to know how they will be protected and kept safe from such threats. USNews.com says, “National security and terror-related issues will likely remain atop Americans’ list of concerns into 2016 and through the presidential election season, especially if there are other high-profile attacks.” For that reason, these two topics hold much more importance than they have in past elections.

The candidate who communicates their stance on national security and terrorism in the best, most powerful way will gain the most support of voters. Each frontrunner from their respective parties has taken a firm stance on how they wish to communicate their views on fighting terrorism and protecting this country. Donald Trump has been adamant in his war-like approach, while Hillary Clinton has taken a much more diplomatic approach.

The Opposition of Views on Terrorism Between Party Frontrunners

Just like every other political issue, Democrats and Republicans disagree on how to handle national security and the threat of terrorism. While the threat of ISIS is increasing substantially, especially after attacks in San Bernardino, CA and Paris, this topic has been focused on throughout the election. The two frontrunners both agree that something must be done to keep Americans safe, and feel strongly about how to handle this group – only their views are on different ends of the spectrum.

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has been on record saying that his, “strategy to defeat ISIS is a simple one: ‘bomb the sh*t” out o
f them or ‘blast the hell out of them’” according to CBS News. He thinks that in order to get rid of the ISIS threat, The United States needs to ‘wipe them off the planet’. Trump’s approach to the threat of terrorism has been blunt and to the point, even going as far as saying he would like to have family members of ISIS killed as well.

In contrast, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton feels as though taking out ISIS is not the responsibility of only the United States. According to the same CBS News article Hillary doesn’t, “think that the United States has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself.” While we have a responsibility to help out and do our part, she believes ISIS is a threat to the entire world, not just America.

 It is apparent that each candidate wants to take steps that will further protect the American people. The rhetorical strategy that they use to convey their ideas has been much different, gaining different levels of support. I think that Donald Trump has been the most successful, rhetorically, in communicating how he wants to deal with terror groups such as ISIS. There has been a lot of support of his tactics to seek out these terror groups, and how he plans on taking them down.
Once we reach the general election, it will be interesting to see if either of the candidates change their stance or their strategy of how to keep the United States safe from terror attacks. But for now, this still remains one of the most highly debated topics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Role of Terrorism in the 2016 Presidential Election

Terrorism and national security are the number one issues for the 2016 presidential election, with terrorism being of most importance to the Republican Party. Terrorism has been on the forefront of America’s mind ever since 9/11, and the attacks that continue to occur on our land show how terrorism is a major concern for the voters. Which then of course ensures national security for the voters to be a major topic for this particular political campaign season. Ever since 9/11, America has been concerned with terrorist groups and attacks, strong national security, with the exception to freedom of privacy. With the rise of ISIS attacking their own and threatening others, the terrorist attacks in Paris, the increase of attacks in America like the Boston Marathon and the more recent shootings in San Bernardino, California, the issues of terrorism and national security could be what determines the outcome of this years Presidential election.

Happening Now

Due to the San Bernardino massive shooting that took 14 innocent lives, detectives wish to view content on one of the shooter’s, Syed Rizwan Farook, locked Apple iPhone 5c. Apple vs. FBI is now an ongoing court case where FBI wants the help of Apple to access the locked devices content because they believe there is significant evidence within the phone. Apple declined FBI’s overreached request because they believe this threatens the privacy of their costumers. Multiple public figures like Mark Cuban, Facebook, and Twitter support Apple’s decision noting this wouldn’t be a one-time request, and Apple is doing the right thing by protecting their consumers. However, GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who strongly supports national security, decided to use this issue as another outlet for ensuring the voters of the importance of national security. He offered his standpoint from his Twitter account posting a tweet (via iPhone) calling for a boycott of Apple products. Trump is rallying “security over all.” Would allowing the FBI access to Apple’s (or any other company) costumer’s locked phone, based on the idea the phone’s content could assist in a investigation, be considered an invasion of privacy to the voters?

Houston GOP Debate

The Republican GOP Debate in Houston last Thursday barely covered policy issues of terrorism or national security. Instead of debating each others standpoints, Rubio took the stage this time and attacked Trump religiously leaving zero room for the other candidates to leave an impression.

What’s Next?

Republican forefront candidate Donald Trump has bluntly and aggressively engraved his view on war on terror, terrorism, and national security within the voters and the polls are showing so. Regardless of how he performs in a debate, his supporters have not swayed. The Republican Party needs to take into consideration Donald Trump is their only future (for a Republican President to win) because of his strong standpoints on policies like terrorism and national security that continue to lead to more supporters.