Im-Politic: Political Dividers and Double Standards

Tags

Al Qaeda, Chattanooga shooting, Donald Trump, Ferguson, illegal immigrants, Im-Politic, Immigration, ISIS, Kathryn Steinle, Michael Brown, Obama, police killings, radical Islam, radical Islam denialism, San Francisco, Sanctuary Cities, terrorism, Trayvon Martin

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has caught lots of flak for inflammatory and polarizing political statements, and some of it is deserved. At the very least, even a less-than-master rhetoretician could have made the same points in less offensive, more precise, and equally hard-hitting, attention-getting ways. Now I’m waiting for the same self-appointed guardians of inclusiveness and political civility who have slammed Trump to go after President Obama for two gratuitous contributions he’s recently made to America’s national divisions.

The first has been his failure to reach out personally, or to authorize any communications from his aides, to the family of Kathryn Steinle. She was the innocent woman gunned down in San Francisco July 1 by an illegal alien criminal who was released by law enforcement in that Sanctuary City even though he had been deported five times previously, and even though the Department of Homeland Security wanted him held in order to deport him again.

Mr. Obama has made such gestures to the families of other killings, especially if they have been the victims of controversial uses of violence by police or, in the case of Trayvon Martin, a vigilante. He spoke out and even sent representatives to the funeral of Ferguson, Missouri’s Michael Brown, even though the officials at fault were not federal employees.

But when it came to the victim of an illegal immigrant whose presence on the streets stemmed from clear failures of federal deportation, border enforcement, and related policies, the Chief Executive said and did nothing. Nor have words of comfort have been offered by the administration for other families whose loved ones have been killed in similar circumstances. If Mr. Obama truly wanted to be a president of “all the people,” why would he distribute his sympathies so unevenly when it comes to policy-related wrongful deaths? And why have nearly all advocates both on the Left and the Right of fewer immigration curbs – and even more or less Open Borders – so far allowed their legitimate policy preferences to override their sense of simple decency?

The president’s second divisive decision was his failure to order federal flags to be flown at half mast to honor the Marines slain by the Arab-American gunman in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Yesterday, five days later, and after considerable criticism, he deemed their deaths worthy enough. His delay understandably fed fears that he’s insufficiently alert to the threat now clearly posed to the American homeland by Islamic-related terrorism.

The flag-lowering delay also fed somewhat less understandable, but by no means completely unjustified, charges that the president’s emotions don’t kick in especially hard when these actions can, and often have, been cited, particularly on the Left, in narratives emphasizing the historic suffering of non-Western peoples at the hands of Europeans and Americans (including those who have settled in an ancient Middle East homeland). Indeed, Mr. Obama engaged in something like this rationalization when he practically handed ISIS and its ilk talking points by comparing their current atrocities with past horrors encouraged by Christianity.

To be fair, in remarks yesterday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Obama specifically mentioned the possibility of Al Qaeda and ISIS responsibility. But he remains unwilling to acknowledge that these attacks and countless others like them reveal a major problem with the mainstream of contemporary Islam, not just a few lunatic fringes. Especially interesting in this vein: The Washington Post has reported that the killer’s father has been accused in a court of law of the type of misogynistic behavior (in this case, wife-beating) unmistakably sanctioned by the Koran – and all too widespread throughout the Muslim world.

Similarly troubling about the president’s views – his description of the Marines’ killings as “tragic” and “senseless.” Obviously, they’re tragic for the victims. But the rest of us, including the Commander in Chief, should treat them as outrages. And far from being senseless, they just as obviously were directed at a highly particular type of target.

In this case, many of the conservatives who have upbraided Trump for various potshots have condemned President Obama’s coddling of the “Islamic” part of Islamic terrorism. But for the most part, the president’s morally dubious and – more important – tactically destructive attitudes have been either ignored on the Left or applauded.

So here’s hoping that calls for greater civility and inclusiveness in the public square continue and are heeded. But here’s also hoping that selective expressions of outrage that conceal political agendas are increasingly recognized as the hypocrisy they represent.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: OPM Hack Still Looks Like Obama’s Katrina Moment

Tags

cronyism, cyber-security, George W. Bush, hacking, Hurricane Katrina, Katherine Archuleta, Michael Brown, New Orleans, Obama, Office of Personnel Management, OPM, Our So-Called Foreign Policy

Remember the scorn heaped on former President George W. Bush when, amid the Hurricane Katrina disaster, he told the head of the main federal disaster relief agency that he was doing “a heck of a job”? The reaction seemed fitting not only because Washington’s efforts to help New Orleans were so obviously failing, but because the official, Michael Brown, was so obviously unqualified for the job. Indeed, his appointment seemed like a classic example of rewarding a political crony with a fancy government title at a supposed backwater bureaucracy.

Katherine Archuleta has now quit as Director of the federal Office of Personnel Management. But given the hacking disaster she presided over – only the latest worrisome cyber-attack on his watch – why hasn’t President Obama been treated just as scornfully? The twin cyber breaches OPM has suffered are widely seen as “among the most potentially damaging cyber heists in U.S. government history” because they could pose huge threats to American national security. And although the president never personally lauded or defended Office Director Katherine Archuleta, the White House was until the last minute expressing “confidence that she’s the right person for that job.”

Yet a look at Archuleta’s bio strongly suggests that, at a time of rapidly emerging cyber insecurity, her 2013 appointment to lead OPM was arguably an even more inexcusable example of cronyism than Bush’s choice of Brown.

Two Mays ago, when Mr. Obama chose Archuleta, cyber security was amply recognized as a top policy challenge. In fact, in February, 2013, the president himself issued an Executive Order to “improve critical infrastructure cybersecurity” because “The cyber threat to critical infrastructure continues to grow and represents one of the most serious national security challenges we must confront.”

So who did he place in charge of the nation’s federal personnel records, which include detailed, sensitive information that foreign powers could use as tools for recruiting spies inside official American ranks? Someone with no apparent expertise whatever in any technology issues, much less tech-related security issues. Archuleta started her career as a Colorado school teacher – an honorable profession of course – and came to Washington through having served as a staff chief to a former Denver Democratic mayor who wound up heading two cabinet agencies during the Clinton Administration.

When she returned to Colorado when Republicans recaptured the White House, she went back to work for another Denver mayor as a “Senior Policy Advisor” before coming back to federal service for another chief of staff job – at the Labor Department.

This isn’t to say that Archuleta is a dodo – though she didn’t exactly display sterling judgment by claiming that “There is no information at this time to suggest any misuse or further dissemination of the information that was stolen from OPM’s system.” Like she would be in a position to know? Like the sky isn’t the limit over any significant stretch of time? But more important, there’s no evidence that she boasted any qualifications for protecting some of the nation’s most crucial data.

The OPM disaster could dwarf Katrina in its long-term impact.  But since it lacks heart-rending visuals and patently buffoonish moments, it’s easy to see why Washington’s sensation-seeking chattering classes hasn’t zeroed in on Obama’s responsibility. From the standpoint of common sense, though, it’s hard to understand why that’s necessary.