Within hours of the London attack, the reliably tasteless Donald Trump was taking school-level potshots, revealing his lack of class and a procedurally adolescent mind.
“Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!” the President tweeted as if delivering the coup de grace of some past argument.
It was dismal reasoning. Clearly, if these terrorists used firearms, the death toll would have been higher.
“At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says: ‘There is no reason to be alarmed’!” he followed up, not only undermining British efforts to manage the situation, but advocating alarm, even panic.
Having transformed the Oval Office into a teenager’s bedroom, a belligerent Trump shows no interest in learning on the job, nor in tempering his emotions against the weighty responsibilities of office.
Between social media, and the advent of an unprepared TV-celebrity as President, we see a new phenomenon: political naivety leap-frogging the normal developmental stages, to emerge unfiltered as policy.
Through a bizarre set of circumstances, the leader of the free world has arrived late in life yet prematurely in politics.
To Trump’s supporters, however, his visceral emotion, rather than dull facts, is what matters. The measured, calming rhetoric of authorities following horrific events such as Manchester and London merely proves it.
It is a world view that is likely to strengthen in the west where communities feel helpless in the face of sporadic, unpreventable terrorist atrocities.
Trump, Theresa May, Tony Abbott, and a raft of right wing “leaders” have two things going for them as they now affect a switch to a more combative anti-Muslim stance: shifting public opinion, and an Islamist campaign designed to achieve just that.
Both have the same assessment: that Western societies are approaching a tipping point, when government invocations of tolerance, diversity, and inclusiveness, will ring hollow in the public ear, indistinguishable from appeasement.
That such a binary was always the Jihadist aim, makes this an unpalatable admission but nonetheless true. On one side, a religious war is already afoot.
If the best that more conventional leaders have to say is that terrorists are “cowardly” – which is probably the least convincing reduction of someone who commits to die for their cause – is it any wonder that Trump’s responses and others like it here, will begin to cut through?
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald