President Barack Obama refuses to use phrases such as “radical Islam” or even “Islamic terrorists.” What would that accomplish, he asked rhetorically in angry comments on the matter.
What would it accomplish? Well, it would be a more accurate, informative description of organizations such as the Islamic State, al-Qaida and dozens of other terrorist groups based on a dishonest interpretation of the Muslim religion.
But merely using the words “Islam” or “Islamic” somehow is a slur against all Muslims, Obama and his defenders maintain.
It is not, of course.
But such sweeping generalizations don’t seem to bother Obama, Hillary Clinton and other radical liberals when they talk about their political enemies.
“Republicans waging war on women” takes in a lot of people, after all – including millions of women registered as GOP voters.
And not so long ago, the word “apartheid” was virtually never used except in connection with South Africans.
Were all Germans Nazis during the 1930s and 1940s? Are all Mexicans members of drug cartels? Were all who lived in the old Soviet Union communists? Is everyone in China, for that matter, a communist?
Does everyone in India believe in the caste system? Is everyone who works in Wall Street financial institutions rich and somehow cheating the rest of us to get richer? Are all Southern whites bigots? Are all Republicans in favor of solving health care problems by killing off old people, as one Democratic lawmaker suggested a few years back?
It won’t do, Mr. President. Sweeping generalizations are common among politicians. So is describing groups of people more specifically by referring to factors such as geography, race and religion in connection with behavior traits.
So, a final question: Why does Obama believe Muslims require such special semantical treatment?