For the last 6.5 years, I think Barack Obama has done a great job on the vast majority of issues ranging from taxes to the environment, abortion, gay marriage, the economy and saving America’s financial system. He’s done a pretty solid job of repairing America’s image in the world too and with many (tho not all) foreign policy issues.
However, one issue that is now more likely than ever to show up in the 2016 race, in light of the Paris terror attacks, is the issue about using the term “Islamic terrorism,” “radical Islam,” “radical Islamic terrorism,” or some variation of.
This particular issue typifies a broken clock being right twice a day. There is nothing racist about using the term “Radical Islamic Terrorism.” Islam is not a race or an ethnoreligious grouping (as Jews, Yazidis, Druze, and several other groups are commonly accepted to be).
Fact is, yes, that while there are religious extremists of all stripes, more deadly attacks occur expressly in the name and cause of Islam than other religions in more places. Also, using the term or a variation doesn’t “label all Muslims.” Often, the rebuke from many is “what about Christian terrorists like Timmy McVeigh, etc.” Problem with that retort is that this not about what religion the attackers happen to practice. Its about the cause that motivates their attacks. More people are affected, influenced and controlled by it, and its a lot more oppressive than other religion-based political ideologies.
After all, Radical Islamism doesn’t just use gays and women as political rhetoric or use legal structures to push their agenda: they use defenestration, castration, imprisonment, execution, and lashings to do so. “Progressives” shouldn’t be shy about hating such a sick ideology.
I do think Hillary Clinton was right to use the term “radical jihadists” (Romney used to use the term too, famously in one of his ads from 2007) and “Islamism.” While I do wish she’d just use the term “Radical Islam” or at least “Radical Islamism,” I sense she’s trying to avoid what happened in 2008 when she got dubbed “neo-con” by some on the left. She also may be worried about being seen as implicitly rebuking Obama on this.
Also, this is one issue where the GOP could build a polling and public sentiment advantage given that American are more worried about terrorism that they were a few years ago. Not using the term “radical Islam” could help the GOP if the election sees national security as the issue. Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the economy loomed instead, and the Iraq War destroyed W.’s popularity. However, John Kerry lost 2004 not because of swift boats, because of his perceived weakness on national security in the wake of September 11, 2001 (see the “Trust ___ to handle terrorism question”). That perception was typified by ads showing his “flip-flopping” on an $87 billion dollar defense bill (made into a natl’ sec. issue) and saying he was for it before he was against it on camera. The perception was fed in part because the “global test” comment at the debate was spun into “he’ll put others’ views over America’s security.” It also stuck because he was painted as looking to be “on defense, not offense” due to comments like “any attack will be met with swift...response” instead of “we’ll prevent attacks,” which he should’ve said.
There’s near zero political downside to calling the spade what the spade is. It doesn’t tar or brand all Muslims, and even if some are offended, yes, there is a problem in Islamic civilization, as Bernie Sanders points out that its fighting for its soul. Also, America is one of three countries on the face of the Earth with more Jews than Muslims. Obama did lose a decent amount of Jewish support from 2008 to 2012 that the GOP would love to pick up. Also, Appalachia and other regions we should wanna compete in are less sympathetic on this issue that other places. Of course, neither myself or Democratic candidates advocate stripping Muslims of civil rights, as Dr. Carson would, or banning minarets/mosque building, as the tolerant Europeans do. Luckily, Muslims and other immigrant groups integrate better here than in Europe. Europe clearly cannot replicate America’s melting pot or Canada’s cultural mosaic. Still tho, events like 9/11, the Boston Bombings, Fort Hood, etc. are still real dangers, and ISIS exemplifies the threat.
Perhaps there could be a compromise or sorts. “Islamist terrorism,” “radical Islamism,” but this issue cannot be allowed to hand the GOP the 2016 election. The environment, alternative energy, womens’ right to abortion, gay rights to marry, the economy, and the tax code demand us and the candidates not to hand the GOP 2016. Save the foreign policy nuance for the actual presidency; it doesn’t work in campaigns.