Hillary Clinton recently claimed, in rather incendiary language, that ISIS would rather have Trump elected President than her. Her suggested reason is that Trump will be a “a recruiting sergeant for the terrorists.”

This is both too clever by half and grossly dissonant. For years, the narrative from certain quarters has been that American imperialism has been the proximate driver of terror recruitment in the Middle East. I agree in principle that our presence over there has made things worse and that it enables the easy scapegoating of America by leaders looking to deflect their own failings and fan the flames of hatred that keep them in power. I also believe that ISIS would rather see Trump in power. I laugh, however, at the idea that ISIS would rather see Trump in power because it’ll help their recruitment. In fact, I think ISIS would rather see Trump elected because Clinton is demonstrably a bigger warmonger than Trump looks likely to be.

A lengthy Obama interview in The Atlantic made it very clear that Clinton was the [architect][18] behind the toppling of Gadhafi in Libya, and that she wanted American boots on the ground in Syria from an early time. Clinton also voted for the Iraq war. While she has worked double-time to walk back and rationalize away her Iraq vote, the more recent evidence supports the conclusion that she’s still a warmonger, and she won’t own up to her mistake in Libya. Others have noted a coalescing of neocon interventionists with liberal hawks, and Clinton appears at the fore of this unholy alliance. Why would ISIS need Trump to aid as a recruitment tool when Clinton is perfect for the role?

Clinton’s assertions regarding Trump and ISIS are consistent with the broader campaign against Trump, a campaign rooted in magnifying every big of consternation and uncertainty regarding Trump’s plans, intentions, and even his mental state. Regular readers know I have no love for Trump, and wouldn’t vote for him even on a dare, but despite all that, I’ve occasionally felt an urge to defend him against ridiculous hyperbole. There are ample rational critiques of Trump. It’s not necessary to fear-monger the way the Left, and in particular the Clinton camp and its apologists, have.

Fear-mongering does, on the other hand, offer certain benefits. If people are put into emotional states of mind, they are less likely to be rationally critical in their thinking. They’re less likely to say “hey, wait a minute, YOU’RE as big a warmonger and divider as you purport Trump would be.” Consider the recent Trump birther kerfuffle, wherein Trump masterfully trolled the press and hurt their feelings. Trump threw the birther story back at Clinton, claiming she had started it all way back in 2008. The press and the Left went bonkers, but then evidence that supported Trump’s allegation was brought around, and people abashedly moved on.

Fear-mongering keeps people in high dudgeon, and makes them react emotionally rather than rationally. Fear-mongering hides flaws and masks hypocrisy. Fear-mongering is the perfect tool for the Democratic presidential candidate, and she’s using it every chance she gets.

Peter Venetoklis

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

1+

Like this post?