Skip to main content

On The President's Refusal To Name Radical Islamic Terror

President Obama just gave a press conference explaining why he won’t use the term “radical Islamic terror.”
Here was a great opportunity to finally answer the question on everyone’s mind. Which is whether he has so much sympathy toward Islam that he cannot consider America’s interests objectively in this case.
His response: Using the term “radical Islamic terror” is actually dangerous, he said: “It won’t make us more safe, it will make us less safe,” because our enemies will use it as a propaganda tool. They will say such a label acts to “validate” the idea of a religious war.
Coming from the most image-conscious, message-aware and brand-savvy American leader of all time, this argument was specious at best. Nobody knows better than the President that radical Islamic terrorists turn everything we do into a propaganda victory.
The President also knows that naming the enemy is the only way to defeat them. After all he frequently names Republicans as the cause of the roadblocks he experiences in Washington.
There is no way to manage a problem effectively until you name it. The President knows this. After all, we name sex offenders, even though the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are male. Does this naming turn men into victims of discrimination?
Of course not. Because once you name the problem, you automatically create two categories: those who are part of it, and those who are not. Americans are an incredibly fair, even generous people and we know that a hateful subculture is not at all equivalent to the culture as a whole.
The President has no problem naming "radical right-wing extremists." We all know what type of people he means when he says that. Of course — a type of Republicans!
So his refusal to do so is disingenuous at best.
The President took the focus off the victims of terror. He avoided the rightful anger Americans feel, their sense of vulnerability and lack of protection. Instead he said, ISIL is getting weaker — believe me because I say so. So stop attacking me.
He delegitimized those who oppose his refusal to name radical Islamic terrorists, by questioning their motives. He said that those on “the other side of the aisle,” e.g. Republicans, and in particular a certain Tweeting Presidential candidate, seek to win points by politicizing the issue.
He played the military card, insinuating that anyone who questions the President is actually devaluing the way in which they risk their lives for the rest of us.
President Obama did everything to avoid the fundamental issue, which people on all sides of the aisle can see. And that is that radical Islamic culture, which has complex historical roots and is not easily divorce-able from religion, frequently praises those who use military force to do religious work.
If radical Islamic culture did not marry religion and killing, guns would not be so appealing. And yet the President scales down the issue to one of excessive gun rights.
The President implies that naming the enemy is un-American. He says that such an approach “doesn’t match our democratic ideals.”
Really? I thought one of our most democratic ideals was to speak the truth freely!
While it is true that hate is wrong and we should avoid it, the President avoids the fact that others hate us and that some have turned a particular religion into their calling card.
He says that naming the enemy would create a religious war that doesn’t currently exist. But in fact his refusal to name the enemy is making matters worse, because people perceive that he cannot be trusted to handle the problem objectively.
Instead of directing his outrage against those who act as dictators, the President says that if we do so we will tarnish the honor of Islam.
But the terrorists are the ones tarnishing it!
Mr. President, with all due respect, it is crucially important that you stop spinning narratives and start telling it like it is.
Radical Islamic terror.
It is a cancer on humankind.
Time to name it and obliterate it completely.
All opinions my own.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …