12
TUESDAY, April 5, 2016 ● forum ● THE JUSTICE
FORUM
Criticize Trump’s concept of the American Dream Ben
Feshbach Extended Deadlines
Despite what the op-ed pages of the New York Times might have one believe, there really is no unified theory of Trump — an overriding explanation for his entrance into public life last summer and, ever since, his utter domination of the Republican presidential race. One of the most common “theories of Trump” is that he says what others think but are too afraid to say, such as racist and sexist slurs that scapegoat Americans’ economic anxieties. But even if what he says is factually — and morally — baseless, that almost does not matter; like Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness,” the only narrative that matters to Trump and his supporters is the one that confirms pre-existing tropes about women and minorities. However, the particular theory of Trump’s rise matters little when compared to the one thing with which all Americans have to reckon: Trump’s candidacy poses a fundamental threat to the American Dream as we know it. Trump claims that “the American Dream is dead,” a common refrain from his stump speeches, and in a March 30 Quinnipiac poll, according to Politico, “in [a] ... sample where Trump’s name was included, as in ‘Trump says that the American dream is dead,’ 68 percent of Trump voters said they agreed with him, a difference of 23 points from Trump voters who were not prompted.” This means that the image of Trump himself helps prompt this belief that the American Dream is dead. According to Trump, immigrants killed it; Mexicans killed it; women killed it; liberals killed it. Hillary Clinton killed it; that Kenyan socialist in the White House killed it. Trump uses these scapegoats as the killers of the American Dream and presents himself — a terrible if flamboyant businessman — as the embodiment and thus savior of the Dream. But let’s be clear about Trump’s version of the American Dream: Its icon is a failed businessman, its ideology is bigotry and its appeal is a falsified sense that life is a zero-sum game. Oddly enough, people have acknowledged for quite some time the fact that Trump has a pretty awful business record. In May 2011, when Trump was much more jokingly consid-
GRACE KWON/the Justice
ering a run for the presidency, Rolling Stone put together an online slideshow titled “The Many Business Failures of Donald Trump,” a list which included gotrump.com, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump Shuttle, Trump: The Game — yes, this was an actual board game — and, of course, Trump University, the subject of multiple lawsuits. Haven’t heard of those? There is a reason for that. Trump’s appeal is that he can “fix it” by virtue of his deal-making acumen and negotiating prowess, but clearly, that is not the case. But even if Trump were a successful businessman — after all, he did not lose all of his dad’s inheritance — this still begs the question of what tactics he uses when in business. The story of Atlantic City resident Vera Coking, for instance, ought shine some light in that area. As reported in an Aug. 19, 2015 article in the Guardian, Vera Coking lived in Atlantic City for over 30 years before Donald Trump built Trump Plaza in the 90s and needed extra space for a limo parking lot. Although Trump
bought land nearby, some property owners, like Ms. Coking, refused to sell, so Trump used eminent domain to evict her. The business, like many of Trump’s other ventures, ended up failing miserably. The Coking story fits into Trump’s troubling pattern of using the power of money and the backing of the law to uproot anyone and everyone who gets in the way of his interests. For Trump to win means that someone else loses. Trump’s business ventures demonstrate his belief that life is a zero-sum game, wherein one person has to lose in order for another to win; Trump’s campaign for the presidency relies on the same zero-sum appeal. Donald Trump — sexist pig, racist bigot, failed businessman — is trying to repackage the American Dream in the only way that has worked for him, but it will not work for Americans. Take Trump’s adversarial stance against immigrants, for example. As economics professor Art Carden notes in his Aug. 28, 2015 Forbes article, “illegal immigrants actually raise wages for documented/native work-
ers” because “we get more productive when we have more trading partners, and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English.” Trump’s nativism is not only factually baseless but also economically counterproductive. It is easy to write off Trump’s campaign, as many “theories of Trump” have done, as simply the latest example of what has been a long time coming for the Republican Party. Maybe that is even correct. But by so blatantly peddling the narrative that life is a race-baiting, zero-sum game, Trump’s campaign dismisses and denies the real American Dream: the inclusive, accommodating, powerful-if-imperfect message found at the foot of the Statue of Liberty — the belief that there is something in America for everyone, if we only recognize our interdependence on each other. The American Dream is not dead, but if Trump has his way, I am not sure any of us will want the American Dream any more.
Reject Islamophobic reactions to Islamic State terrorist attacks Kat
Semerau kattitude
It is a bold move to preach pacifism in the face of the Islamic State — I get it. Even President Obama called for “hunting down terrorists who threaten our country” in a September 2014 speech addressed to the nation. But when putting a stop to an extremist terrorist group turns into widespread fear mongering, Islamophobia and violence, one has to wonder whether vehement retaliation against the Islamic State is actually putting Americans in more danger. In fact, the media has twisted the Islamic State narrative so as to inspire a war against all Muslims, a war that is causing bloodshed right here at home. If our goal is to make America safe, we must first overcome the threat we pose to one another. This means making peace. On Dec. 15 of last year, an Iraq veteran robbed convenience store owner Inerjit Singh at gunpoint in Grand Rapids, Mich. The American-hero-turned-enraged-gunman forced his weapon into Singh’s mouth and pulled the trigger. Thankfully, the bullet ejected through his cheek, sparing him his life. According to a Feb. 16 New York Times article, the gunman yelled, “I killed guys like you in Iraq, so I never think about it when I shoot them anymore.” Little did he know that Mr. Singh was not Muslim but Sikh. That same month, in yet another incidence of violence on Dec. 11, 2015, a California resident set fire to a Mosque in Coachella Valley after burglarizing it. No one was hurt — thank Allah — and authorities detained the suspect, who was later charged with a hate crime, according to a March 1 Los Angeles Times article. A similar incident occurred in
Meriden, Conn. There, a neighbor of the Baitul Aman Mosque fired several rounds from a high-powered rifle at the building early in the morning of Nov. 14 of last year, according to Connecticut U.S. Attorney Deirdre Daly. Hate crimes targeting the Muslim community are becoming more and more common. According to Professor Brian Levin of California State University San Bernardino, attacks against Muslims have tripled in the past two years. In the wake of recent Islamic State attacks, Americans have retaliated against the Muslim community at large, committing hate crimes ranging from vandalizing storefronts to harassment to shooting suspect Muslims for no reason. It is the media that has created this situation; their slandering has painted a denigrating image of Muslims. Late-night talk show hosts often use the term “Muslim terrorists” and cable news channels fabricate a stereotype that equates being Muslim with hating the West. For example, Bill Maher’s show “Real Time with Bill Maher” has repeatedly espoused negative stereotypes of Muslims. Maher said in a Nov. 17, 2015 interview with Stephen Colbert that “terrorists share ideas with lots of mainstream people who follow the Islamic religion.” This episode has been viewed almost two million times on YouTube. Fox News has also contributed to this slander. Segments dealing with Middle Eastern strife are especially divisive for the Muslim community. During an Oct. 15, 2010 “Fox and Friends” interview, for example, Islamic relations aficionado Brian Klimeade falsely proclaimed, “All terrorists are Muslims.” More recently, television sensation Bill O’Reilley stated, “Most of the terror violence in the world comes out of Muslim precincts” in a Jan. 13 airing of “The O’Reilley Factor.” But these stereotypes are unfounded. Of 1.6 billion Muslims, only a fraction of a percent commit crimes of terror around the world, according to a Dec. 7, 2015 study by the Pew Research Center. Comparatively, non-Muslim Americans have committed over 94 percent of terror-
ist attacks from 1980 to 2005 here, according to a 2002 to 2005 terrorism report by the FBI. And what about the attacks in Europe that have been the recent obsession of news channels? Only two percent have been carried out by Muslim fundamentalists in the past five years, according to a Dec. 9, 2015 Huffington post article. Granted, the Islamic State commits brutal attacks: beheadings of journalist with samurai swords, public executions and plane explosions — to name a few. But this does not mean that all — or even most — Muslims are terrorists or support ISIS. It also does not mean that Muslims predominantly carry out terrorist attacks. The media is responsible for this story — that all Muslims are inclined towards fundamentalism and, as a result, there exist “Muslim terrorists.”
“
Today, our fear of terrorism has caused more violence, death and marginalization than actual terrorism. This narrative has done a gross injustice to the Muslim community, and it has taken root in our social milieu: at the family dinner table, dominating political discourse, even encouraging demagogic small talk. Some family friends I visit bring up “the Muslims.” Friends frequent the Islamic State headlines, constantly wary of Muslim fundamentalism. One of my good friends shared with me her vivid fear of an Islamic State member bursting into her classroom and shooting her, point blank. It is no wonder that attacks against innocent Muslim-Americans have spiked. We are constantly told that Muslims hate the West and are prone to terrorism, and we are scared.
This partially explains the success of religiously bigoted political figures like — but not limited to — Donald Trump. When they demand halting immigration of Syrian refugees just because they are Muslim — refugees who are fleeing ISIS — they exacerbate this hysteria. This same hysteria is at play when nonMuslims marginalize the Muslim community. The trend of fear has been good for news ratings, but it has had detrimental effects. A 2014 study published in the Economic Journal says it all. It found that assimilation declined among the Muslim-American community in the wake of anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11 and further noted the radicalizing effects this can have. This trend not only threatens Muslim-Americans’ First Amendment right to practice their religion in safety but also further endangers every American. As U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) explains, “they [the Islamic State] want the West to marginalize Muslims and isolate them, making them more susceptible to being radicalized.” When we attack the Muslim community, we help the Islamic State achieve its goals by adding credence to the idea that the West is anti-Muslim and broadly justifies acts of terror against the region. Such attacks even encourage more radicalization among MuslimAmericans, who feel threatened themselves. The only way to effectively combat terrorism is to fight terrorists. It is important that while we stand in solidarity with Ankara, France, Brussels, Cote d’Ivoire and other sufferers of Islamic State attacks, we also identify who the enemy actually is: the Islamic State, not Muslims. Otherwise, we will continue such heinous violence against one another and possibly inspire even more radicalization. Former President Franklin Roosevelt famously said, “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.” He understood the power that fear has over us. Today, our fear of terrorism has caused more violence, death and marginalization than actual terrorism. By not acknowledging the fear we have of the Islamic State, one form of extremism has inspired another.