Trump to London Be More Afraid
BY DAVID A. GRAHAM
Rarely does a leader in a liberal democracy embrace, let alone foment, fear.
But that�s exactly what Donald Trump did in response to attacks in London, as he has
often done before.
After a terrorist attack, there are two steps nearly every leader takes: first, condemn
the violence; second, appeal for calm.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan followed that familiar playbook in the wake of Saturday night�s
attacks.
Speaking to the BBC, Khan said:
There aren�t words to describe the grief and anger that our city is feeling today.
I�m appalled and furious that these cowardly terrorists would deliberately target innocent
Londoners and bystanders enjoying their Saturday night.
There can be no justification for the acts of these terrorists, and I�m quite clear
that we will never let them win, nor will we allow to cower our city.
Then Khan went on reassure the public:
Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few
days.
No reason to be alarmed.
One of the things, the police, all of us need to do, is make sure we�re as safe as we
possibly can be.
I�m reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest
global city in the world, but we always evolve and review ways to make sure that we remain
as safe as we possibly can.
Early Sunday morning, President Trump logged onto Twitter, offering not condolences to
Britain or support in fighting terrorism (though he did do that in a call with Prime Minister
Theresa May, according to a White House readout), but instead an angry �I told you so� and
an attack on Khan:
(Trump also argued that the fact that the attackers did not use guns proved gun-control
pointless, a claim my colleague David Frum has dissected elsewhere.)
The claim that political correctness, rather than violent attackers, is to blame for the
attack puts the cart before the horse.
Even if were situated properly, though, it would remain dubious, as the U.K. has aggressively
surveilled Muslims it believes could conduct attacks.
The Times reported earlier this year that British intelligence is watching 23,000 possible
jihadists, and more closely watching 3,000 of them.
As Khan�s full remarks make clear, the mayor was not soft-pedaling the attack, which he
condemned in blunt terms.
Rather, he was saying that the increased police presence offered no need for additional concern.
It comes as no shock by now that Trump would misrepresent comments or take them badly out
of context for his own political gain, but the tactic is no less distasteful for being
habitual.
In the broader context of his statement, Khan was making an argument about how populations
should react to terrorism: With anger, with sadness, with rejection, but also with courage
and a refusal to given in to fear.
Predicating the public response to terror attacks based on interpretations of �what
the terrorists want� is a slippery, trap-laden, and often self-serving approach.
For example, cracking down on civil liberties after a terrorist attack is not unwise �because
it�s what the terrorists want,� but because cracking down on civil liberties is unwise
and immoral per se.
However, if there is one thing that it is safe to say terrorists want, it is to sow
terror.
It�s the definition of the term: political violence meant to seed fear and intimidation.
Hence Khan�s statement that �we will never let them win, nor will we allow to cower our
city.�
The idea of maintaining a stiff upper lip is quintessentially British, of course, and
even more quintessentially Londoner: Think of the steadfast response to German bombardment
during the Battle of Britain.
But though Trump pays lip service to wartime leader Winston Churchill�restoring a bust
of the prime minister to the Oval Office, for example�he has consistently taken a
different approach in response to attacks.
Refusal to back down in the face of adversity is not uniquely British.
Churchill�s American counterpart, Franklin Roosevelt, famously cautioned in his 1933
first inaugural address that �the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.�
Trump is the panic president, bearing a radically opposed message: Fear is not only acceptable,
but necessary.
Rarely does one see a leader, much less the leader of a liberal democracy, actively embracing,
even calling for, panic.
But this is Trump�s response, ridiculing Khan�s plea for calm among Londoners.
If it is little surprise to see tired demagogues like Lou Dobbs do this, it is distressing
to see it in the president of the United States.
(There may be a connection�Trump�s rhetoric seems to often derive directly from Fox, Dobbs�s
employer.)
This is not a new tendency for Trump.
It has been evident since he announced his candidacy almost two years ago, in which he
claimed (without substantiation) that unauthorized immigrants were bringing a crime wave with
them over the border.
It runs through his doomsaying acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention
in Cleveland last summer, on to his pronouncements of �American carnage� in his inaugural
address, and in his repeated, dishonest claims of a nation in chaotic thrall to crime.
It is also central to his claim that the only way to stop terrorism in the United States
is to cut off Muslim immigration, even if political and legal realities have forced
him to scale back that promise.
Trump�s embrace of panic is instrumental: By first instilling fear, he can then build
himself up as the solution, as he did in his RNC speech when he declared, �I alone can
fix it.� But panic is a dangerous force, not always controllable by those who whip
it up in the first place.
Meanwhile, Trump�s governments stands ill-prepared to offer substantive aid to the United Kingdom:
His FBI has no permanent leader, after his abrupt firing of James Comey to stop an investigation
into Trump�s ties to Russia; he has appointed no ambassador to the Court of St. James; and
his State Department remains deeply understaffed.
(The U.S. charge d�affairs in London, the acting head of the embassy while no ambassador
is stationed there, contradicted Trump, praising Khan�s �strong leadership� following
the attack.)
That Trump used the opportunity of the attack to launch his own attack on Khan is likely
not a coincidence.
The two men have traded jabs before.
In May 2016, shortly after he was elected, Khan, a Muslim, criticized Trump�s rhetoric
about Muslims on Twitter:
In March, after a terrorist attack in Westminster, Donald Trump Jr. presaged his father�s tweets
on Sunday, taking a comment that Khan made out of context to criticize him.
Khan had said in September that residents of big cities had to prepare for terrorist
attacks�another unobjectionable statement that Trump Jr. mischaracterized as somehow
accepting of terrorism.
And on Sunday, Dan Scavino, Trump�s director of social media, made the president�s criticism
of Khan explicit as a rejoinder to Khan�s comments last year:
The feud is bound to continue.
Khan poses a particular challenge to Trump�s panic-fueled approach on two levels.
For one, his appeal to calm stand at odds with the president�s desire for greater
hysteria.
But for another, Khan himself represents a threat to that political message.
If a Muslim like Khan can win the mayorship of a city like London, and if he can win acclaim
as a strong leader who upholds liberal democracy, it undermines the president�s fear-mongering
about absorption of Muslims into Western society.
Now that�s something for Trump to fear.
For more infomation >> Road trip with Amarna Miller - Mesa Verde to Ridgway, CO #4 | ROAD TRIPS - Duration: 7:49. 
For more infomation >> HSN | HSN Today: M. Asam Beauty / Temptu Airbrush Makeup 06.06.2017 - 08 AM - Duration: 1:00:01. 
For more infomation >> HSN | HSN Today: M. Asam Beauty / Temptu Airbrush Makeup 06.06.2017 - 08 AM - Duration: 1:00:01. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét