Multiple members of Trump's cabinet have expressed opinions which differ substantially from Trump's. For example Mattis on enhanced interrogation, and Tillerson (and others) on climate change. I could site many other examples. The news media generally has been reporting these conflicts as evidence of disarray bordering on incompetence. Most of us who support Trump see this tolerance of differing points of view as a highly positive quality. It indicates that Trump is choosing advisers based on what he feels are their capabilities and not based on their slavish alignment with his thinking. (Of course no one thinks alike on all issues so that someone who appears to be doing so would be hiding his true opinions). I suspect that this has been his management style in his business as well, presumably a key to his success. It is also a good thing that differing points of view are allowed to be expressed openly, and not just in private. This stimulates open public discussion which is one of the strong keys to success in a democracy.
It seems to me that this was not a strong suit of the Obama administration, that is that one rarely heard any reports of internal disagreement. This was not to their advantage. For example there were these quiet reports that Hillary (and others) disagreed with the total Iraq pullout, which turned out to be disastrous. Her inability to stray from the party line and make this point during the campaign I think was to her great disadvantage.
My second comment is on the Islamist issue. I can see McMaster's point but I disagree with it. Of course the great majority of American Muslims who accept American values are fine people who are just interested in a good life for themselves and their families. On the other hand, although I have never read the Koran (English spelling) there is this thing they call Sharia law which seems to be fundamentally opposed to western ideas of individual freedom and equality. That these concepts are not just antique symbolism not to be taken literally, as in the Hebrew bible, is indicated by the strict adherence in some Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia where women are subservient, there is no religious toleration and social deviancy is subject to severe punishment. Apparently this extreme interpretation of the Koran includes capital punishment for those who express derision for Mohammed or for apostates from their religion. There are a great many Muslims in the world and it is my understanding that there is a sizable portion, perhaps even the majority who favor these ideas, even if they do not themselves carry out radical behavior. So with these people there is a clash of civilizations. If they were to simply stay in their own territory and run their civilization as they wish that would be one thing, but some very small, but lethal, proportion are not content with that.
President Obama (and President Bush as well) adopted the policy of minimizing this conflict so as not to offend those Muslims who are content to accept western values and hopefully to recruit them to help in the battle. As it turns out I don't think this has been an effective strategy. In fact the reluctance to forthrightly name our enemy seems to many to have inhibited our response and led to more calamity. Trump's idea, and I and many others agree with it, is to point out that there are 2 kinds of Islam, the modern kind that adheres to the good aspects of Islamic teachings, that correspond to the principles of peace and toleration advocated by other religions, and the abhorrent, fundamentalist kind that teaches a violent intolerance of those who do not accept Mohammed's word as expressed in at least some parts of the Koran.
I think this debate, stimulated by the differing opinions in Trump's cabinet, might hopefully lead to something of a compromise in Trump's polemics. He should state loudly and clearly that our country is freely open to the adherents of all religions as long as they accept western values of freedom, tolerance and equality. (We went through this same debate on a smaller scale 55 years ago with Catholicism when Kennedy was elected.) But at the same time we will adamantly reject those who wish to come here who do not accept our values and wish to change us to their system, sometimes by violence. And he should call on the "good" Muslims to help us in this fight, more openly than they have up to this point, by strongly condemning the radicals and by helping us to identify and remove from our midst, or possibly even to reform, those who do not accept our values.
Where am I going wrong??
No comments:
Post a Comment