Armageddon

I point readers to the thoughtful comment by Thad Guyer to yesterday's post on Rubio's TV ad.   He notes correctly that some of Rubio's ad is factually correct, that what happened in Paris could happen here, that the terrorists aren't disgruntled or disempowered, that there are radical terrorists who want to kill us.   It is factually correct that in Saudi Arabian women are currently not allowed to drive and that in some Taliban controlled areas girls are prohibited from some secular educational opportunities available to boys.  

Guyer goes on to note that it is politically damaging for Obama and Hillary Clinton to be circumspect about denouncing the enemy.   He is right.  And I agree Obama and Hillary Clinton come across as hesitant and politically correct.  They denounce jihad, and the "perversion of Islam" which sounds parsed instead of sweeping in condemnation of Islam because it is.   It therefore feeds the widespread belief held by a vast majority of Republicans, plus Democrats and Independents, that Obama does not understand the threat to America.

Every Republican candidate I have seen in person included in their Town Hall speeches  denunciation of  Obama and Clinton for "failing to name the enemy,", for "failing to say 'radical Islam', for failing to condemn our enemy in a way that includes the name of the religion.  It is a guaranteed applause line.

Obama is describing an ideologically motivated crime: jihad.  Rubio is describing a war against a whole civilization.

And to justify the broad sweep generalization Rubio picked two examples of a cultural practice, women not being allowed to drive in one county, Saudi Arabia, and some girls being prohibited from secular secondary education in areas controlled by the Taliban.  Rubio said that "they", i.e. Muslims, "They want to kill us because we let women drive.  Because we let women go to school."

Because of those things, he says.

The purpose of those lines is to amplify race hate and contempt for Islam, a process well in progress.   The ISIS execution videos were intended to generate this response, and it worked.   Rubio's ad is the followup, just what ISIS wants and just what feels right to a great many Americans.   Islam is not well described by citing women not driving or Taliban education practices but Rubio can stir up anger and contempt by asserting this, and especially by saying these are why they want to kill us.   

Similarly, it would be unfair to describe Western civilization or Christianity by citing thirty thousand gun deaths a year, or the presence of drag queens on TV, or American girls losing their virginity at an average age of 15 as the true nature of Western civilization, but these are real and could be cited.  And if traditional people were told it was because those behaviors were important to Americans that they wanted to have soldiers in the Middle East it would frighten and offend religious conservatives there, just as the presence of drag queens disturbs religious conservatives in America.

This is not a difference in actual war policy.  Republican candidates actually generally approve of what Obama is doing as long as it is not identified as being Obama's policy.  Republican candidates want:
 ***massive drone strikes with minimal regard for collateral kills of innocents,
***financial and arms support for any coalition partner willing to fight ISIS regardless of motive,
***massive use of bombing of infrastructure in ISIS controlled areas again with minimal regard for collateral damage,
***reluctant willingness to use American ground troops.  

Some of the candidates (Trump, Rubio, Christie) say that America should ignore privacy concerns and use whatever internal surveillance and data collection necessary.  That is also Obama's position, the more hawkish one.   Security is more important than privacy.  

Cruz and Paul lean toward privacy, making them "softer" than Obama.  Rubio cites Cruz's position as a significant point of differentiation between them, but he does not identify his as being the Obama position.      

Yes, there is one candidate, Lindsey Graham,  who openly wants more American redeployment of boots on the ground than does Obama, a genuine policy difference.   He polls at zero among Republicans.

Rubio's TV ad is useful in teasing out the difference between the Republican candidate framing of the issue versus the one that Hillary is likely stuck with, insofar as she needs to adopt a position rather like Obama's.    There is a wave of Islam-hate washing through the electorate.  Rubio is joining Trump and the others getting on the wave.   Hillary Clinton and the left is rooted in resisting ethnic-religious prejudice, even when it is obvious that it exists and events in the world amplify those feelings.

Rubio's TV ad wants the clear and simple enemy: weird, dangerous, women-hating Islam and the people who have that belief.   Hillary's enemy a more complicated and nuanced one, people holding a virulent and obscene perversion of Islam.