The politics of 'hatred' and 'right-wing terrorism'

Somebody cue former President Barack Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The words we speak and the words we embrace have huge implications, and being responsible with both is essential. Hiding behind freedom of speech doesn't change that, either.

Former President Barack Obama used his First Amendment last week at Rice University in Houston, Texas, to suggest that a shift has occurred in which "you start getting politics that's based on, 'That person's not like me, and it must be their fault,' and you start getting a politics based on a nationalism that's not pride in country, but hatred for somebody on the other side of the border."

Clearly, Obama appears to suggest here the same allegations that are often leveled against President Trump and his supporters, against those who are not for open borders, who believe in border security, who resist allowing people to march their way into our country because they can. His distillation of the issue is unfair and, frankly, irresponsible.

Not to be outdone, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, speaking at American University Washington College of Law on Thursday, was, of course, bolder and cut right to the chase -- openly criticizing the president.

"He cozies up to white nationalists," she said. "He undermines the free press and incites violence against journalists." Warren then went on to decry "domestic right-wing terrorism."

"Just like the hateful terrorism of al-Qaeda and ISIS, domestic right-wing terrorism is completely incompatible with our American values."

Well, I'm not sure what she classifies as "right-wing terrorism" that justifies being included in the same sentence as ISIS, but I classify her comments as "Liz Warren lunacy."

"Movements toward openness and pluralism have stalled and begun to reverse," the senator from Massachusetts said, and "right-wing demagogues are gaining strength."

Both Obama and Warren's comments are irresponsible at best. Downright dangerous is more accurate.

Obama's suggestion that people like Trump and those who agree with him on border security do so because they hate people who are different is based solely on his own imagination, not measurable evidence. Is he projecting? Maybe people actually believe that massive amounts of people do not have a right to bombard their caravan onto American soil. Maybe they believe people need to enter the United States legally. Maybe they believe the people applying for citizenship should be honored over those choosing to take matters into their own hands. Maybe Trump has compassion for the plight of those who want a better life but as a president who took the oath of office -- which really does come down to America First -- he has to raise a standard and reject what jeopardizes America. Could it be any of those things -- or does it really have to come down to the dangerous, ugly allegation of hatred for those who are "different"?

Those who seek to divide and label others as racists cannot consider those things, though. They always have to paint the situation in the nastiest terms possible. How else will they rile up people's emotions and get people to say, "Rah! Rah!" when they speak the most absurd of allegations? They use their freedom of speech dangerously; their rhetoric sets people off -- and people are already ticking time bombs. We don't need irresponsible speech masquerading as freedom of speech.

Warren does it also. She's a master. Those who disagree couldn't possibly simply have rational reasons for disagreement. No, if you don't think like she thinks -- and I hope I never do -- you could not possibly have a valid point or two worthy of consideration. Instead, you have to be an un-American terrorist. Yet she wants to preach to us a sermon about "openness." No wonder the American people rejected the Democrats' church in 2016. That's the kind of sermon we do not need.

Immigration is a complicated issue. It pulls at my heartstrings. It raises questions. But I have a hard time taking people seriously who oppose border security and want to let everyone in our front door. Until they start leaving their front doors open at home, I really don't buy their outrage at locking America's doors. Until they start waving welcome flags to a plethora of people carrying the flags of their home countries while demanding entrance into their living rooms, they need to sit down. It all reminds me of the folks who criticize the Second Amendment while they walk around with armed guards. They want to tell the rest of us to be vulnerable; meanwhile, they and their families are covered. My response is, "You go sit down. Bring me someone who actually practices what he preaches."

If we're ever going to get anywhere as a nation, if we truly want to healthily discuss the issues about which we vehemently disagree, we are going to have to stop the unfair, irresponsible and dangerous habit of labeling everyone with a different opinion as hateful, a racist and a terrorist. But then, we would actually have to look at them as human beings -- and that wouldn't be politically advantageous, would it?

Adrienne Ross is owner of Adrienne Ross Communications and a former Southeast Missourian editorial board member. Contact her at aross@semissourian.com.