The shooter in Sunday’s massacre in Orlando was clearly a sympathizer of “radical Islam.” But does that mean radical Islam is to blame for the mass shooting? Politicians are tying themselves in knots trying to answer that question.
Donald Trump has stood alone as having no problem identifying the shooter as an Islamic radical, regularly reiterating his policy on immigration on Twitter and proposing a ban on Muslim immigration as part of his anti-terrorism strategy. He also called upon President Obama to “resign in disgrace” for refusing to call the massacre “Islamic terrorism.” He even seemed to insinuate that Obama had conflicted sympathies in an interview Monday morning.
Other Republicans were quick to identify the event as “Islamic terrorism,” though most, including Rep. Paul Ryan, refused to opine further on the shooter’s specific motives. Ryan instead referred to the larger global war on Islamic terrorists, calling global Jihad a “repressive, hateful ideology that respects no borders.”
President Obama was careful to avoid all talk of the shooter’s allegiances, turning instead to a discussion of gun violence and regulations. Calling the event, “an act of terror and an act of hate,” Obama quickly pivoted to the country’s lack of effective gun control, and noting that the investigation was ongoing, so the shooter’s motive wasn’t yet clear.
Of all the political leaders, Hillary Clinton seemingly has the most difficulty figuring out how to address the religious and geo-political aspect of the Orlando shooting. In November, Clinton criticized the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” calling the phrase “a distraction.” She said “it gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.”
On Sunday, Clinton ignored the issue of terrorism altogether, calling for swift action on gun control. Then, forced to respond to Trump, she attacked the Republican for his “weak platitudes.”
Only Monday morning did Clinton address Islamic terrorism, referring to the act as “radical Islamism” and “Jihadism” rather than using the word “Islam” outright.
In a speech Monday morning, she referred to the shooter as “radicalized,” calling his ideology a “virus that poisoned his mind.”
In interviews, Clinton said that Muslims are “divided in their loyalties and beliefs.”
Clinton’s intent with that particular statement is unclear.
What is clear is that, politically, the issue is a difficult one, especially for those running for elective office (unless they happen to be Donald Trump). How do you balance a need to effectively explain the motivation behind the largest mass shooting event in American history with the need to respect a religion’s followers, most of whom do not ascribe to fundamentalism?
The struggle with how to address a movement that grows out of religious radicalization is a difficult one, and one that even President George W. Bush, who presided over America’s response to the 9/11 attacks, had to wrestle with. In his 2002 State of the Union, Bush, too, parsed words when discussing Islamic Jihad: “This great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil.”