Donald Trump is not the monster his critics make him out to be.
That’s not an opinion, it’s a statement of fact.
Most of the criticisms leveled at him – or that you yourself may have even leveled at him if you’re a critic – are based on a caricature. Not on the man himself though, nor on his actual policies or rhetoric. This is verifiable for anyone who wants to look through transcripts of his speeches or listen to them in videos to see what he’s actually said, and to anyone willing to go to his website and actually read his policies. The following, a comment I left on Linda’s post about Trump…
Is a slightly edited response to one of the criticisms I’m describing…
“But how do we fight fear? By being brave and standing together. Not building walls and hiding within them, never letting anyone else in.”
~Linda G. Hill
This, to me, is where the flaw in her reasoning starts to show.
First crack in logic being in the question of how we fight fear.
We fight it by taking stock as best we can and identifying it’s source. How we deal with a given instance or source of it depends on the source and should be judged on a case by case basis imo, but the point is, if they’re legitimate fears than “standing by and showing how brave we are”… well, that’s not really doing anything, is it. It doesn’t deal with the root of those fears, doesn’t do anything to resolve the problems we have with terrorist organizations or radicalization… does nothing at all… except, perhaps, makes us feel good about ourselves.
Second, “building walls and hiding within them, never letting anyone in” is a gross over-statement and dramatization meant to cast the suggestions he’s made as more over the top than they really are. The measures, particularly those related to border closure and/or temporary moratorium on Muslim foreigners (seeing as how we can’t really vet anyone in a way that will reveal they’re radicals or extremists), which represents the “taking stock” portion I mentioned when I was talking about how one deals with a given problem. Next would be to revamp our vetting system, and target and attack ISIS with a clear, definitive timetable (which we completely lack, at present).
That second part, in applying proper goal setting and defining an achievable objective in our efforts against ISIS, will have a huge impact on whether or not it’s safe enough to remove such a moratorium if it were put in place. Make a schedule, keep the schedule, and once you’re in the “mopping up” stages with them, the risk of widespread, heavily motivated radical Islamic terrorism probably drops drastically. One of the biggest reasons it’s gained so much traction in the first place is because ISIS holds territory. That’s their legitimacy. If we take that from them in a timely manner, set an actual objective and then attain it, there’ll be a lot less of a threat in general.
All of that is to say, she’s misrepresenting what Trump has said and what he wants to do. To herself most of all perhaps because… I don’t think she put it that way to dupe or deceive anyone on purpose, but it’s not true to what he’s said, at all. Controlling our borders is not hiding. Restricting travel to the States by a body of people known to contain such a high percentage of radicals is not hiding. And none of the measures or ideas put forward by Donald Trump have been defined as indefinite, nor have the criteria for ending them once in place been all that vague. There are pretty clear bench marks to meet, and once met, the measures would be removed.
To assume otherwise is to blindly speculate based on unfounded (illegitimate) fears, and to me I look at her perspective as the exact kind of running and hiding she’s speaking out against. When it comes to Donald Trump, especially given the lack of factual basis for her positions, where is your inclination to stand tall and be brave that she espoused? Where’s her inclination to take the risk on him like she thinks we ought to do with our borders? Particularly since the fears of terrorism are realistic and justified (by her own admission) and the fears of Trump (as she described them) are, at least as I would describe them, speculative and irrational.
“When he claims he will torture and kill the families of terrorists, and when he talks about waterboarding, he sanctions the very same methods of terror that the terrorists are using: violence to get a point across.”
~Linda G. Hill
Has it occurred to her that he’s not trying to make America into a personification of what she asserts him to be, but that he’s using the simple, effective age old tactic of intimidating an enemy? They’re the ones who use violence (and nothing but) to get they’re point across, and using scare tactics to make them think twice about taking a shot at us isn’t a half bad idea.
And the notion she puts in there about two negatives not making a positive might work with electricity, but I can tell you this much: if a guy wants to rip your eye out and he knows there’ll be virtually no consequences for doing so, do you think he’s going to rip your eye out? Probably.
If, however, that same guy wants to do that same thing, but he knows you’ll rip his eye out in retaliation, will he still rip your eye out? Maybe, but it’s a lot less likely. It’s “an eye for an eye” logic, sure, but here’s the thing: it works. The same logic was at work in preventing the Cold War from becoming a nuclear holocaust. The Russians didn’t blow us into oblivion because they thought we would do the same to them, and vice versa. An eye for an eye keeps the peace. so long as it’s clear to whoever you’re dealing with that you can indeed take theirs if they take yours.
“They are saying we need to look beyond the color of our skin and our religious beliefs, and stand together regardless of our nationalities. The alternative is to fear those who are different, and build walls to keep them out.”
~Linda G. Hill
Nobody, especially not Trump, is saying to judge based on skin color (or even religion). His policies and ideas have had the protection of American Muslims in mind just as much as the protection and security of any other American. They would keep Americans of the Muslim faith just as safe from radicalized foreigners as they would the rest of Americans. Think about that.
What All Of This Boils Down To Is…
If you want your criticisms to hit home, be sure that they’re criticisms of the actual thing you’re talking about, not a dramatized, cartoonish, or demonized version of the thing, because…
When people look for themselves at that thing you’re describing as such a monster and only see a man, or worse, see a good man, they’re going to scratch their heads at your criticisms and wonder where the hell you came up with them. They’re criticisms of a fiction rather than a reality.
The subject of your criticisms will remain untouched because…
Once people see the reality for themselves, the validity of your criticisms is shattered.
(Note to Linda: I’m not trying to bash you or single you out or anything, I’ll remove your name from the quotations if it bothers you at all, I just thought the comment I left would be good for illustrating a point I wanted to make so I re-purposed it for a post. No hard feelings I hope 😉 .)