Labeling the Enemy

Brand your enemy.  It polarizes.  It appears to work.

Trump is really good at branding.   But sometimes there are some confusing branding problems, like when a guy who changed his name to Christian does terrorist acts in the name of Christianity and country.   

It wouldn't be fair to call him a radical Christian terrorist.  Would it?   It might be fair but it would not be useful.

Newt Gingrich taught Republican candidates a valuable lesson in the language of political debate.  He advised people to use words that are self-proving.  Say someone is "disgusting", not that you disagree.  Disgust is defined by the observer and there is no objective defense by the person charged.   It puts into the minds of the people hearing the charge that someone is illegitimate from the start and imbeds premise.  Very disgusting?  Maybe just a little disgusting?  Even if not disgusting at all, at least the seed was planted.

He started using the word Democrat as as an adjective.  "The Democrat Party. . . ."

Political observers saw that it worked, Trump among them.   Many progressive and Democratic voters hate to grant Trump any positive attributes which blinds them to the reality of Trump's messaging skills.  The problem had to be Hillary; the problem had to the Comey;  the problem had to be to the Russians.  In short, Democrats lost.  But there is another, simpler answer to why Trump is president and the House and Senate have Republican majorities.  Republicans--and especially Donald Trump--are very, very adept at political branding.

Moreover, Republican political activists believe in the power of it.   Fox News and every Republican candidate pounded on the issue:  Democrats do not want to label it for what it is, "Radical Islamic Terror."  They wanted the word Islam right in the middle of the ideology of terror.   

Anti semitic tweet by Jeremy Christian

After all, it is pretty obvious, right?  When a person has a name drawn from a religious figure--especially if the name is chosen and changed rather than the birth name--and when the person does murder shouting fidelity to religious and ethnic victory, then it is pretty obvious that religion, or at least religious tribalism, is involved.  And if a person does this with the support of a group of other like minded people, people who did not do actual terror but who support generally and in a non-violent way the principles of the murderer, then it is only fair to call it for what it is, radical Islamic terror.

Jeremy Christian

But what if the murderer says he is a Christian?  In fact, a Christian warrior, a patriot for America and Christianity?   

What if the person is obviously a radical extremist,  what if he changed his name to "Christian", what if he figuratively and literally wrapped himself in the American flag, and what if, in the aftermath of his murders done proudly in the name of religion and patriotism, he gets support from like minded (but nonviolent) supporters.   

Is it fair to call him a Radical Christian Terrorist, the terrorist part of a larger movement of Radical Christians?   

Of course, most Christians would oppose strenuously the notion that the word "Christian" should  be associated with his action.  He claimed to be Christian and his name is Christian and he said he was doing it to promote his religious values, but he isn't really Christian, so calling it "Radical Christian Terrorism" would be unfair to Christians.  Besides, he is obviously mentally disturbed.  It isn't an act of "Christian-ness; it is an act of "mental disease."

Says she supports Trump but not what Christian did.

Mentally disturbed young men who are Muslim who do murder in the name of Allah are considered radical Islamic terrorists.   But Jeremy Christian was just a crazy guy.

The line-up of interest groups are familiar.   Pro-Trump, pro- American anti-muslim rallies in the aftermath of the murder, waving the flag for white Christian supremacy, but abjuring murder.  Then there are counter-protesters, saying that Portland should be free of hate.  The mayor calls to cancel the pro-Trump, alt-right rallies scheduled for the aftermath of the murders. 

Anti-Sharia rally in aftermath of Christian's stabbing

The ACLU backs the right of free speech, including objectionable free speech including that by white supremacist alt-right demonstrators.  Many of them share Christian's anti-semitism and hostility to Muslims, but they formally attest that they do not endorse his terror.  They are Christian anti-semites, and unusual in their beliefs making them "radical", but they are not terrorists.   

Christian:  anti-semitism, anti-Muslim

Alt-right demonstrators, therefore, are "radical Christians", yes, but not "radical Christian terrorists."

These rallies in support of an alt-right, pro-Trump, anti-Muslim agenda have lots of national support in the form of Facebook supporters and national nonprofit organizations which rally support.   On one of their websites they speak to the value of labeling:  "We cannot defeat an enemy we are not willing to label."

From Act For America, a group working with the Portland alt-right marches.

So what is the right label?   It will not be "Radical Christian Terrorism."

Jeremy Christian and the murders in San Bernardino and Orlando have some similarities, but the political consequences are direct opposite.   It was in the interest of the GOP to address and encourage the deep vein of anti-Muslim sentiment.  Obama seemed more thoughtful and less angry than were most Americans, so that created an opportunity.  The incidents in America and Europe provided evidence.  Hillary spoke to the value of immigration and tolerance; Trump spoke to the danger of Muslims everywhere in the world. Trump represented the party of the Christian Tribe; Hillary represented the party of the separation of church and state.

It would do Democrats no good whatsoever to begin speaking of white supremacist and anti-semitic/anti-Muslim marches as "radical Christians."  Democratic interests are in the opposite direction, to re-engage as a party comfortable with Christian faith.  I predict the next Democratic candidate will be a regular churchgoer and will use religious language in his or her speeches.   

Jeremy Christian will be defined as an example of crazy, not an example of Radical Christianity.