Donald Trump's attempts to capitalize on cruel terrorist attack in New York last week were abominable. Just a few hours after act, he demanded on Twitter an end to family remigration of migrants and abolition of green card lottery. In addition, he promised more stringent entry controls and sounded, retaliated and wanted to meet is "even harder". (You can ask yourself if he didn't want to hit is so hard long ago.)
As if that wasn't annoying enough, Trump miraculously turned into a slick, old-fashioned Republican, as he responded to massacre in a church on Sunday morning in Texas as follows: "May God be with all people in Surland Springs," He wrote surprisingly sober on Twitter.
Yascha Mounk,35, teaches political ory at Harvard University and has recently published book The Age of responsibility.
For good reason, outrage over both reactions as well as mismatch between m is great. Liberals and left-wingers are united in ir indignation: because both liberal and left-wing voices condemned abuse of origin of assassin of New York for a right Hardlinerkurs in foreign policy. Both from liberal and left-wing camps, ridiculous statement was quite sharply rejected, now debating stronger gun laws is an unacceptable attempt to use such attacks for political purposes. Leftist and liberals criticized attitude that re was nothing to rampages and shootings as hypocrisy.
All this is just right. Trump doesn't feel ashamed. And it is outrageous that rights completely refuse to discuss link between far too easily accessible deadly weapons and appalling frequency of shootouts at all. How Trump and right rate attacks and exploit m for ir political calculus is shocking.
At same time, in past few weeks, I have been caught up in idea of wher Liberals and left are sometimes equally dishonest and pursue political self-interest?
"If it's a dark skinned, n it's a terrorist"The first time I thought about it, when a few hours after attack in New York, many people in my timeline on Twitter and Facebook were shocked about it, that very quickly comprehensible thought was expressed, which could act a terrorist Background. I found this strange, precisely because we knew that a truck was rolled across a bicycle and pedestrian road, killing people. Even if a terrible accident or a completely different motive could not be ruled out at this time, it was obvious to anyone who had been following recent terrorist attacks of this kind in Nice, Berlin, London or Barcelona that This act would also turn out to be a terrorist attack.
Even as news hawked that attacker had called Allahu Akbar, many people still refused to speak of a terrorist attack in New York. I found this bizarre. "Come on", it was said in a widespread tweet, "Muslims say this daily in ir prayers." This is undoubtedly true, but in this particular case, circumstances that hinted at a political motive could not simply be bluntly hidden. Because it was clear that Trump would use a terrorist attack for its political goals, people would prefer to cling to remotest possibility of being able to pretend that attack was not terror.
After shootout in Texas, an advanced form of this denial was even more widespread: if attack of New York was understood as terror, n reasoning was that massacre in Texas should also be described as a terrorist act. If you follow this logic, n only difference between two cases is attacker's skin color. In or words, anyone who called incident in New York a terrorist attack, but assault in Surland Springs did not, was suddenly a racist. "If it's a white man, he's mentally ill. If it's a dark skinned, it's a terrorist. This is totally unacceptable, "a tweet summed up emerging consensus.
Date Of Update: 08 November 2017, 12:02
