It has been argued that Donald Trump’s rash statements regarding the ISIS movement has actually helped and aided in recruitment of terrorists.  Hilary herself has made these very claims.  In this article, I would like to take some time to discuss the rhetoric behind this claim.

The Issue

Here’s the big issue: By claiming that Donald shouldn’t be saying the things that he is saying, and by accusing him of aiding in the act of terrorism itself, Hilary is essentially insinuated that free speech is not important and it is not an inherent right in our society.  By making statements saying that Trump has “given aid and comfort” to terrorists, Hilary is by definition accusing him of committing treason, which is punishable by death.

Here’s the Big Picture

Hilary and most of the liberal side would like to place the blame for increased terrorism on Trump’s head.  Despite the fact that Trump has never held public office and despite the fact that they say he is totally unfit for ever doing so, they give him an extreme amount of credit for the influence that he holds over people.  The root of the issue is this: Hilary has chosen to blame outside sources for the cause of terrorism which ultimately comes from a source within.  Terrorism is a belief set, an ideology, a way of thinking, and a way of life.  While it might be tempting to blame guns, freedom of speech, or even Trump’s own words, these are all merely (if at all) tools that are used by people who already believe in the terrible acts that they commit.

In Conclusion

Finally there is no real proof that Donald Trump has increased enlistments in the battle lines of the terrorist armies.  It is a strategically chosen narrative and it “has the benefit of being impossible to prove.”  It could just as easily be argued that he has increased the numbers willing to fight against the war of terrorism, however the evidence would be just as lacking.  Ultimately, every time a statement is made in the political realm, it should be fact checked, and it should be evaluated from a rhetorical standpoint.  If the statement doesn’t make the cut for a solid and plausible argument, throw it out! Therefore, what should we do with the statement concerning Trump’s act of high treason? Throw it out.

Many Americans despise terrorism which is very understandable. Terrorist attacks have skyrocketed over the last couple of years and people are becoming more fearful and paranoid of when it will happen next. But what will put an end to all this violence and bring world peace?

Donald Trump did not hold anything back when proclaiming his opinion in regards to ISIS and Muslims, he as you could say “Threw a hail marry on the first play of the drive.” He wanted the people to understand his thoughts on terrorism but may have “out kicked his coverage” by doing that. By announcing his stand point on such a matter, he has given the ability to others to reference him as “unstable” which could be devastating to this country.

Following the debates, Donald Trump has started to pull back or be more “conservative” about his choice of words and thoughts on the muslim population and ISLAMIC individuals. At one point during his debates and speeches he really demoralized the muslim population by saying ,”Islam hates us”, which he was later asked if he meant the whole population of Islam and he refined his answer to, “I mean a lot of them.”

Through out the debates and speeches he has had to redeem himself when it comes to his rhetoric devices used to exhibit his thoughts on terrorism. His process of explaining his attack of terrorism or ,” Five point plan to defeat terrorism” has turned around because people thought of him as unstable and not able to make good decisions on that kind of stuff but now he accumulated a plan to try to persuade his audience that he can form a plan and stick by it.

During the second presidential debate, Hillary Clinton repeated the accusation that Donald Trump’s rhetoric has been used as a recruitment tool for the Islamic State, or ISIS. Trump has previously denied this allegation, but proof emerged earlier this year (see evidence here and here) that the GOP presidential pick has, indeed, been featured in terrorist recruitment videos.

 

Trump’s Rise to the Spotlight

Trump notoriously speaks about terrorism in an Islamophobic and divisive manner, often attributing the problem of terrorism not to fringe radicals, but to the Islamic religion:

“I would bomb the shit out of them. I would just bomb those suckers and that’s right… Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shut down of Muslims entering the United States…”

And while Trump’s rhetoric might excite his primary audience of the American voters, he does not seem to be considering the effects of his remarks on a secondary audience: Muslims overseas and in the States.  Indeed, worlds over, Trump’s words inspire a different, more important group: ISIS.

PR Boost of the Century

According to Foreign Affairs magazine, which conducted interviews with ISIS supporters and recent defectors,

“Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric plays into ISIS’ narrative of a bipolar world in which the West is at war with Islam.  ISIS hopes that Trump will radicalize Muslims in the United States and Europe.”

ISIS’ stated goal is to “eliminate the grey zone,” or the peaceful coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims throughout the world. To achieve this goal, ISIS must substantiate its claims that the West fundamentally hates Islam.

Validating that narrative is not difficult when a leading contender for United States president advocates for taking out Muslims’ families and spying on Muslims in mosques. Trump’s secondary audience (ISIS) can use his words in ways he never intended.

The Importance of Audiences

From the analytic model of speaker-message-audience, GOP candidate Trump is attempting to deliver a message of strength to his conservative audience. But for an entirely group, GOP candidate Trump is delivering a hate-filled message of “them-versus-us” to ISIS and many Muslims across the world.

A Trump presidency, sure to be filled with more vitriolic rhetoric, would make it easier for ISIS to justify its anti-American, Anti-West narrative. And while at least some of the American electorate is happy to cheer at the mention of torturing terrorists, Trump should consider the effect of his words on his secondary audiences.

 

 

 

 

It occurred to me today, that while I felt as if I had a fairly good idea of what Hilary Clinton’s stance on National Security is, I had never actually taken the time to look at her official campaign webpage to specifically learn about her views in her own words.  Immediately, I decided to do some research.  I found that the very first sentence on Hilary’s National Security page reads, “With policies that keep us strong and safe, America will lead the world in the 21st century.”  In such few words, Hilary has used entire textbooks worth of knowledge on rhetorical strategy.  Particularly, she has stated an argument, framed the issue, and made multiple assumptions within her statement.

What is the Argument?

The Argument that is made through her statement is this: By choosing Hilary, we will have a strong and safe country and America will be a world leader in the 21^st century.  The argument continues to emphasize the overarching argument of the campaign: that Hilary should be the next President. Therefore, though it is never directly stated, the audience clearly reads “Vote for Hilary” between the lines of the message.

How has the argument been framed?

The art of framing an argument has been skillfully included in Hilary’s statement. She has framed the argument to infer that it is HER policies that will make America strong and safe, and the new world leader.  This is never directly stated, but it is a clever underlying rhetorical ploy.  The reader can’t help but assume that it is Hilary Clinton’s National Security stances on terrorism and the like that will save the future of America.

What are the Assumptions?

There are a few key assumptions that Clinton makes in her opening statement on National Security.  First, she assumes that everybody wants to live in a strong and safe country.  Second, she assumes that everybody wants America to be a world leader in the 21^st century.  She is able to assume these things because strength, safety, and strong leadership are all a part of the American ideal, but in turn, she is assuming that everyone embodies the same American ideal that she does.

The Battle Cry

And then it hit me.  Policy is not the primary fighter against terrorism.  It is the Rhetoric behind the policy that is the true battle cry.

 

During the mass shootings in Orlando that targeted gays, it is interesting to view how the media responded to these individuals, in particular Hillary and Trump. Trump approached this topic in what is my opinion, and the opinions of many others, as incredibly foolish. I understand where he wishes to knock the incumbent’s current policies and blame current national issues on Obama’s lack of judgement, but Donald’s insensitivity “trumps” the rhetorical strategy of bashing the incumbent, as the challenger typically does during the election cycle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-orlando-shooting_us_5764102fe4b015db1bc90b43

The correct move here was to extend condolences to the gay community and express concern for America’s safety, and instead chooses to respond negatively instead of positively. The rhetorical strategy of the challenger proving the incumbency’s policy as ineffective is what Trump is attempting to accomplish through this situation, and it is a foolish decision. He comes off as entirely insensitive and offensive, angering many prominent Republicans on Capitol Hill. Trump needs to quit utilizing what he perceives to be rhetorical methods, and appeal to the masses’ pathos, instead of attempting to put so much emphasis on logos and ethos. It will be his undoing. His inability to put aside his own pride and even ATTEMPT to even APPEAR presidential in his actions and words will cause him to lose this election. When terror strikes our nation, the goal of our leader should never be to place blame on anyone, but instead to unite the people against terror through messages of unity and rhetorical strategies of hope and security. Even Bush, often inadequate throughout both terms as president, succeeded in this during the 9/11 attacks.

Although last Sunday’s presidential debate was intended to be an open discussion about the concerns of all American citizens, one faction was clearly disillusioned by the discourse: Muslim-Americans. By the time Donald Trump had finished his response to a question regarding Islamophobia, Muslims had immediately taken to Twitter to express their disgust with the answer.

Disembarking the Trump Train

After being asked how he would combat Islamophobia, Donald Trump began by saying that Muslims needed to report “hatred” from other Muslim-Americans to prevent attacks like the one in San Bernadino. His enthymeme betrayed a clearly Islamophobic implication: even if Muslims themselves do not commit terrorist attacks, they are still to blame for terrorism because they know about terrorist plots and do not report suspicious activity.

This accusation is of course false, but it served to galvanize and humor the GOP base, which was Trump’s primary goal for the evening after he began losing republican support following his sexist comments to Billy Bush. Utilizing demagogic speech and painting all Muslims as terrorists allows Trump to claim that America has been losing, that it has been unsafe, and that it deserves change. Indeed, Trump has made this implication before and will likely continue with his demagogic challenger strategy in the future.

This typical challenger strategy was followed up with another challenger go-to. Trump finished his answer by going on the offensive and associating Obama’s performance in the area of counter-terrorism with Hillary Clinton, making the implication that another 4 years under Clinton will be another 4 years of failed policy and refusal to face the enemy. In this way, Trump attempted to position himself as the agent for change, though he clearly lacked the optimism typically associated with challenger campaign strategy.

#MuslimsReportStuff

Unfortunately for Trump, Muslim-Americans caught onto Trump’s enthymeme almost immediately. Many were frustrated that both candidates spoke about Muslims only in relation to foreign policy, while others ridiculed the notion that Muslims never report terrorism by starting the tongue-in-check hashtag, “Muslims Report Stuff.”

Ultimately, Trump’s statements alienated Muslims. But given his goal of strengthening his his own base in a time of desperation, he will likely continue to attack the integrity of Muslim-Americans in order to galvanize his own supporters and discourage them from leaving his camp in favor of the “weaker” and “less capable” Hillary Clinton.

 

According to Merolla and Zechmeister with The Washing to Post, Terrorist attacks typically affect elections and public opinion in three distinct areas. After a brief discussion of each area, the question will remain: what does this tell us about the 2016 Presidential election?

 

First Area:

According to the article, “when terrorist threat is pronounced, individuals become less trusting of others, even their own neighbors.” What does this mean? Essentially this means that views towards immigration will become increasingly hostile, and that attitudes towards Muslim and Aramaic immigration will especially escalate.

 

Second Area:

“Second, terrorist threats help increase the public’s support for certain political leaders.” Traditionally, an increase in threat elevates the Republican candidate as the most favorable solution. Republicans tend to have the persona of being stricter with immigration policies and having a heavier hand against terrorism. While the democratic candidate’s polling rates will typically fall after a recent internationally discussed terrorist attack.

 

Third Area:

“A third way public opinion shifts in response to terrorism is toward support for more hawkish policies in foreign affairs and homeland security, even at the expense of civil liberties.” This final factor is not influenced as much by political affiliation or party and is primarily a result of individual reactions to terror in the media. In the recent history of our country we have seen that countless citizens are willing to give up certain individual freedoms in order to feel safer and more secure as individuals and as communities.

 

The Conclusion?

Terrorism has been a significant issue throughout the entire 2016 election season.  Based on the three things listed by The Washington Post, it could be argued that Trump is set up to win the election if the vote was based solely on the areas addressed in the article. Firstly, as individuals become less trusting of others, they will also become increasingly less trusting of Hilary – especially considering the fact that that is already one of her primary faults in the race. Second, Trump running as a Republican gives him the automatic public image of a stern hand when it comes to immigration, not to mention his own drastic statements about fighting terrorism and solving immigration problems. Finally, the shift towards more hawkish policies due to the increasing fear of terrorism without a doubt describes Trump’s stance on foreign policy. Only time will tell if the predictive guidelines of this article are reliable or not.

President Obama made headlines last week by speaking at a CNN Presidential Town Hall. The President was confronted by Gold Star mother Tina Houchins, who asked him why he refused to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism” to describe terrorist attacks against the United States in recent months.  President Obama again opted to defend his deliberate choice of words, drawing a contrast between himself and certain “people aspiring to become president.”

The President’s refusal to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism”  has become a source of outrage for many republicans, who claim that a refusal to “name the enemy” betrays Obama’s lack of  dedication to the fight against terrorism, and moreover displays his blindness to the relationship between terrorism and Islamic religion. Democrats counter by claiming that use of the phrase needlessly associates terrorism with all Muslims, an action which they say exacerbates Islamophobia and distrust in the United States.

Why do the Words Matter?

As David Zarefksy points out, the president is in a unique position to define one of the greatest threats facing America today. As Zarefsky puts it, “The president, by defining a situation, might be able to shape the context in which events…are viewed by the public.”

Indeed, the Obama argument against using the phrase is strong enough that it was the same strategy utilized by George W. Bush following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Defining terrorism as a specifically “Islamic” problem would shatter any effort at peaceful coexistence between Muslims and the rest of the world- a practice that could encourage individual radicalization and discourage international cooperation.

Obama chooses to disassociate “Islam” from “terrorism” and to define our understanding of the problem: Islam is not to blame for terrorism.

The Election to Define Terror

Come January, a new president will have the power to determine the relationship between the United States and Islam. Donald Trump, for his part, has already vociferously criticized the Obama administration for its refusal to use the phrase, while Hillary Clinton has only partially fallen in line with the Obama tactic (albeit with reluctance).

The next president will need to weigh carefully the effects of his or her rhetoric on the rest of the world, and  decide whether or not irrevocably associating “Islam” with “terrorism” is a wise move. As the threat of terrorism increases, so too will the importance of its definition.