WarSclerotic

Source: Israel Hayom | Mind the gap

Prof. Avram Ben-Tzvi

Often, during the race to the White House, a watershed event occurs that seals its mark on the entire campaign and changes its course entirely.

In 1972 it was Senator Edmund Muskie, the leading front-runner for the Democratic Party, who, according to the newspapers, broke down in tears during an address he delivered on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.

The event marked his surprising demise, as it exposed an unstable character and discredited him as a worthy candidate. In 2015, it was the searing address delivered by none other than U.S. President Barack Obama following the San Bernardino terrorist attack on December 2.

Although Obama is not a presidential candidate but rather an outgoing president, one must not ignore the far-reaching effects of his words — as well as those he refrained from voicing — on the public and domestic political agenda on the eve that marked the beginning of the primaries.

Obama’s address after the tragic event has once again proven that he remains rooted and anchored in his worldview, according to which Islamic extremism is no more than a marginal phenomenon.

Not only were extensive parts of the address taken directly from his “Cairo speech,” (an address delivered on June 4, 2009 at Cairo University in Egypt), but the direct link he made between the massacre and the ease with which Americans can purchase assault weapons (as if this was the reason for the attack), proved that he had learned nothing and forgotten nothing since entering office with a straightforward agenda to open a new and appeasing page with the Muslim world.

Against the backdrop of this fixation, which he has exposed to an entire nation desperate for a strong and decisive leadership, one could understand Donald Trump’s recent uptick in the polls, despite his attacks against Islam and his demand to bar Muslims from entering the U.S.

However, at a time when Trump seems to go overboard in his unrestrained rhetoric against in-house ethnic groups, minorities and sectors, as well as diplomatic entities in the international arena, we have been witnessing a paradox — Obama’s languid response to the recent terror events has made room for Trump’s tempestuous style to fill in the void and provide large publics (not only the natural base of his supporters) with an answer to the security dilemma they are facing.

In light of the atrocities the Islamic State group has been conducting and the deterioration of security and order in Western Europe and the U.S. itself, many have been wondering why not give the keys to the white House to someone whose verbal aggression is his very essence?

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been extending the span of his influence in Syria using Uncle Sam’s flaccid policy to the fullest, also raises the question of why not make a dramatic shift of directions and give a chance to a candidate who is the exact opposite of the aloof Obama, who avoids using military force.

This is the main reason that explains the migration of votes to Trump, who in recent days opened a substantial lead over his rivals. Polls have shown that the outspoken candidate is reaching an astounding 40% support among Republicans.

Given all these, even Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential election, has reason for concern. Despite her efforts to distance herself from Obama’s legacy, let us not forget that she faithfully served as secretary of state during his first four-year term and is completely identified with his conciliatory approach on defense and foreign affairs.

This entry was posted on December 27, 2015 at 2:55 PM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.