After a winter and spring in which the Republican Party has flirted with ugly nativism, incessant racism, and vicious religious discrimination, the massacre in Orlando has generated a response that leaves no doubt about where America stands—on the brink of falling into darkness.
On Monday, Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, made a speech in which he called for restrictions on immigrants based on their religion, in which he blamed immigrants for the failure of our financial system, in which he called for expanded bombing of civilian areas and intrusive surveillance of American citizens. A speech in which he claimed that the Democratic nominee “wants to allow Radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.” Donald Trump also insinuated, more than once, that the President of the United States was not only “weak” but actively in league with terrorists to destroy his own nation.
Today, President Barak Obama responded. What the president did today was more than just deliver a speech. It was a much-needed slap across the face for those hypnotized by Trump’s facile promises of wealth, safety, and “greatness” delivered through hate and discrimination.
We now have proposals from the presumptive nominee—the Republican nominee—to bar all Muslims from immigrating into America. We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests that entire religious communities are complicit in violence. Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer—they were all U.S. citizens.
Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith?
And the president made a direct challenge to Republicans in the Senate, in the House, and in state governments across the nation.
We’ve heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this?
Because that's not the America we want. It doesn't reflect our democratic ideals. It won’t make us more safe; it will make us less safe—fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims, making young Muslims in this country and around the world feel like no matter what they do, they're going to be under suspicion and under attack. It makes Muslim Americans feel like their government is betraying them. It betrays the very values America stands for.
That is the question that should confront every Republican today. Is this hatred, this divisiveness, this discrimination … is this the America you want? “No comment” is not an acceptable answer.
On June 9, 1954, Joseph Welch stood up to Joseph McCarthy with the words ‘"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" It was the day McCarthyism began to crumble. Today, President Obama made the same challenge to Trumpism—a demand for an America that’s great because it’s first decent.
President Obama opened by stating that there’s no direct connection between Orlando and groups overseas, but there was a connection in the form of shared hatred toward the LGBTQ community.
We currently do not have any information to indicate that a foreign terrorist group directed the attack in Orlando. It is increasingly clear, however, the killer took in extremist information and propaganda over the internet. It appears to have been an angry and disturbed young man who has been radicalized.
The central part of the speech dealt with successful operations against terrorist organizations in Syria and in Libya, where ISIL in particular has been forced to surrender territory, lost many of its fighters, and seen its leadership decimated.
Newscasters may have expected the speech to end there, but the president moved swiftly on to tackle Donald Trump’s frequent demands for use of certain phrases, and mocked the hollowness of the Republican nominee’s statements.
Let me make a final point, for a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase "Radical Islam." That's the key they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them "Radical Islam." What exactly will using this label accomplish and what will it change? Will it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring more allies for military strategy than it is served by this?
The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction. ...
There is not a moment where we have not able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use the label "Radical Islam." Not once has an adviser said “man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around,” not once.
While Trump was worried about phrasing, President Obama was focusing on results.
So someone seriously thinks that we don't know who we are fighting? If there is anyone out there who thinks we are confused about who our enemies are -- that would come to a surprise of the thousands of terrorists we have taken on our battlefield.
And just to drive it home …
So there is no magic to the phrase of “radical Islam.” It is a political talking point. It is not a strategy.
And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with “political correctness” and everything to do with actually defeating extremism. Groups like ISIL and al-Qaida want to make this war a war between Islam and America or between Islam and the West.
The bolding here was added, just to make it easier to find when you want to drive this home.
As he moved toward the end of the speech, President Obama focused on themes that were more important than any particular terrorist, more important than any candidate.
This is a country founded on basic freedom including freedom of religion. We don't have religious tests here. Our founders, our constitution, our bill of rights, are clear about that. And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect—the pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties—the very things that make this country great; the very things that make us exceptional. And then the terrorists would have won.
And we cannot let that happen.
I will not let that happen.
There are two parties in America. One of them stands squarely for religious freedom, for an open society, for a nation that works by the rule of law rather than the whims of a demagogue.
What does the other party stand for? They need to decide. And soon.