During the relatively civil Republican debate that aired on CNN on March 10, Senator Rubio explained why Donald Trump's "ban all Moslems" policy proposal was an error.
Two days ago, I met this extraordinary couple who were on furlough because they are missionaries in Bangladesh. It's a very tough place to be a missionary. It's Muslim.

And their safety and security very much relies upon friendly Muslims that live along side them, that may not convert, but protect them and certainly look out for them. And their mission field really are Muslims that are looking to convert to Christianity as well. And they tell me that today they have a very hostile environment in which to operate in because the news is coming out that in America, leading political figures are saying that America doesn't like Muslims. So this is a real impact. There's no doubt that radical Islam is a danger in the world.

I can also tell you if you go to any national cemetery, especially Arlington, you're going to see crescent moons there. If you go anywhere in the world you're going see American men and women serving us in uniform that are Muslims.
That argument offers a number of promising extensions.  As the senator is pointing out, winning this kind of war requires the participation of people who practice Islam without wishing death to America.  There might be something stronger, along the lines of wanting to work with Moslems elsewhere in the world who aren't mad jihadis, raising the notion that the crazies are not the strong horse.

Here in the US, it's the actions of the mad jihadis that are making life miserable for other practitioners, including plenty of people who understand that the United States is still a land of opportunity.  Apparently the Sillies would like fellow-travellers in Minnesota to hit law enforcement.  That's not good for law-abiding practitioners, whether newly arrived or to the Midwest born, notes Chicago Boy TM Lutas.
Before the first law enforcement victim gets attacked off that list, there are already injuries, the reputation and community standing of loyal, reasonable, peaceful Muslims who have to get checked off as not a risk of attempting to act on the list. These Muslim american citizens, permanent residents, and visitors have their quality of life degraded every time ISIS or any other extremist organization tries to associate these Muslims with extremist violence. And unlike the law enforcement officers who are on such a list and are statistically unlikely to actually be targeted, the damage to these Muslims is certain and is already happening.

Clearly the bulk of the US response to such a list should be to protect those targeted for death and to try and find the list creators to stop them. But minor injuries are still injuries and are at least a tort. Why not run with it and create a class action lawsuit to recompense the non-radicals for the damage done to their reputation? At the very least it might give some pause to the moneybags of the Muslim world who are currently supporting the violent radicals.
Put another way, there has to be a traditional conservative message that expands the base of support for law enforcement and against the pernicious cult of authenticity that enables the crazies as somehow deserving of celebration.

Turning to the rest of the world, there are likely to be plenty of law-abiding practitioners of Islam, in India, in Indonesia, in Albania, in Bangladesh, and elsewhere, whose lives are being made miserable by True Believers who would just as soon kill the wrong kind of Moslem as kill a Christian, or an atheist.  Thus, a United States foreign policy that works with the governments that protect law-abiding practitioners and crack down on the True Believers has promise.  Same principle, applied at home and overseas.

Further, in such an approach, there are parallels to attracting new Republican voters in the urban hellholes that the Democrats have owned.  Thomas Frank and Bill Press recently wrote books identifying the failure of the Democrats to improve social and economic conditions therein.
Together, the authors offer an early postmortem on the Obama presidency and a bleak, bitter vision of where liberal elites are taking the Democratic Party. In the 2016 campaign, anger and disappointment are not the sole province of the right.
In a link-rich column, Thomas Edsall gets specific.
The Democratic Party cannot continue to reap the electoral rewards of the black vote — or embark on a comprehensive revaluation of life at the bottom of the economic scale — without fundamentally reconceiving how it deals with the neighborhoods where many of its voters live.
That's the opportunity.  Republicans, too, can reconceive how their party deals with those neighborhoods.  In those neighborhoods are law-abiding people fearful of both the police and the street gangs, young people rendered unemployable by the minimum wage and government schools, yet the Democrats take their votes for granted.

No comments: