Findings from a National Survey of Hispanic Women

A recent poll of Latina voters commissioned by American Women, Voto Latino Action Network and iAmerica Action[1] highlights the important role of Hispanic women in this year’s presidential elections.
These women are strongly positive toward Hillary Clinton and Democrats; meanwhile, they view Donald Trump very hostilely, not surprising in the wake of his incendiary rhetoric on immigration.

Latinas face a great deal of stress around money and family, with a diverse set of concerns that covers not only economic challenges but also family and balancing their responsibilities at work and at home. Latinas, and particularly millennial Latinas, are more likely to report earning less than $15 an hour. They want to support candidates whose policy agenda will allow them to achieve a bright future, including equal pay, college affordability, paid sick days and family leave, affordable childcare, and reproductive rights.

Moreover, Latinas express more enthusiasm for voting in the 2016 elections than in the 2014 mid-term elections, driven by very polarized feelings about the political parties and candidates.

The following are key findings from a national telephone survey of 400 Latina registered voters conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. The survey was run in parallel with an online survey of 800 registered voters nationally.

84% of Latinas View Trump Negatively
These women come to this election with very polarized feelings toward the political parties and candidates at the top of the ticket. Latinas express strong favorable feelings for the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton alike, while white men and women view them negatively. At the same time, Latinas hold a negative view of the Republican Party generally, but reserve their harshest sentiments for the presumptive Republican nominee. An overwhelming 84 percent of Latinas view Trump negatively.

Latinas show intense support for pay equality, college affordability, and reproductive health policies
Given the concerns facing Latinas and their hope for the future, it is not surprising that they strongly favor candidates who advocate for college affordability, pay equality, and paid sick and paid family leave in the workplace. The intensity of support is notable here, with nearly 8 out of 10 Latinas who say they would be “much more likely” to support a candidate for elected office who took these positions.
Latinas also strongly support policies to protect women’s reproductive health, with large majorities more likely to vote for a candidate who will protect women’s access to birth control and abortion. This includes 69 percent of Latinas under the age of 50 and 54 percent of older Latinas. Likewise, half of Latinas say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports defunding Planned Parenthood and passing a ban on abortion.

Overwhelming support for immigration reform policies among Latinas
Not surprisingly, strong majorities of Latinas favor policies that would provide not only allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and gain legal resident status, but also provide a path to citizenship. Two-thirds of Latinas strongly favor a path to citizenship, with more than nine out of ten (92 percent) favoring the policy overall. Just 13 percent of Latinas support building a fence along the border with Mexico; 83 percent oppose the plan.

Latinas express strong intention to vote in 2016
Latinas have an opportunity to be a key bloc in this year’s elections. In this survey, 59 percent of Latinas report voting in 2014; now, nearly 81 percent say they are “almost certain” to vote in 2016.

Read more at GQR here.

Speaker Paul Ryan adjourned the House, but the Democrats conducting the sit-in to protest GOP/NRA obstruction of even a vote on popular gun safety measures will continue. More details are expected today, report Deirdre Walsh, Manu Raju, Eric Bradner and Steven Sloan at CNN Politics. “The tension exploded onto the floor just after 10 p.m. ET when Republican Speaker Paul Ryan gaveled the chamber into order to hold a procedural vote on an unrelated matter. A dramatic scene unfolded as throngs of Democrats — some holding signs with the names of victims of gun violence — remained in the House well chanting “no bill, no break” and “shame shame shame.” They also sang the protest anthem “We Shall Overcome.”…They could keep their protest going on a smaller scale between now and July 5. Democrats vowed to restart their protests in full once the House returns in July, and they could look for other ways to force Republicans’ hands…”When we come back in July, we will start all over again,” [Rep. John] Lewis said…”We made some progress. We crossed one bridge, but we have other bridges to cross,” he said just after 3:30 a.m., calling the effort “a major down-payment on ending gun violence in America … and we will continue to fight.”… Overall, more than 170 Democrats took part in the sit in, lawmakers said.”

The Democrats’ strategy is to dramatize the fact that Speaker Ryan won’t even allow a vote on enormously popular gun safety measures, some of which are supported by upwards of 80 percent of Americans in opinion polls. Ryan is providing cover for his cowardly fellow Republicans who meekly do the NRA’s bidding, but don’t want to be held accountable for it by voters. The Democrats are committed to making sure that the NRA Republicans can no longer hide in the shadows and escape voter accountability.

At The Fix Chris Cillizza’s “Five things House Democrats’ sit-in on guns will change. And one it won’t” mulls over some of the possible ramifications of the sit-in. I hope he is right about his first assertion: “The Democratic base will be energized beyond belief…The organic nature of the sit-in — most Democratic members outside of Reps. John Lewis (Ga.) and Katherine Clark (Mass.) were unaware of it before it launched Wednesday afternoon — is just the sort of thing that will thrill rank-and-file Democrats. The Democratic party committees will fundraise like crazy off of this event. So will Hillary Clinton, who will highlight it the next time she speaks publicly. Democrats had been privately concerned about the enthusiasm of their party base when compared to Republicans during the primary voting process. A high profile event like this one should help narrow that gap.”

Richard Gonzales reports at NPR that “The owner of Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, where 49 people were shot and killed on June 12, says she and her staff will host a “Latin Night” street party on Thursday.” But to make it more meaningful, they should launch a statewide voter registration campaign at the event, since Florida is one of the worst states for voter suppression.

The Atlantic’s associate editor Clare Foran explores a question on the minds of many “Can Hillary Clinton Turn Red States Blue?” and reports on Clinton’s efforts to launch a ’50-state strategy.’

At Sabato’s Crystal Ball Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley have an updated projection, “The Electoral College: Map No. 2: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” The authors still see the Democrtatic nominee, Clinton’s most likely electoral vote total as 347 (270 needed to win the election), vs. Trump’s 191. The authors add, “…Party unity within the Republican family is a non-starter. Two former presidents (both Bushes), the previous party nominee (Romney), and a host of other top GOP officials, donors, and commentators will never get on the Trump bandwagon. News media coverage is bound to stress who does not come to Cleveland, not just who does…As much as many Republicans dislike Trump and fear he will lead to catastrophic losses in the fall, he won the nomination fair and square…Bluntly put, the GOP is stuck with Trump. And a substitute nominee, should one be installed somehow, would be asked to lead a viciously divided party with no real chance of victory.”

At New York magazine’s Daily Intelligencer Ed Kilgore explains why “Why Trump Can’t Afford to Let Clinton Dominate the Political-Ad War.” Kilgore notes, “it should serve as a warning to Team Trump that one of the political scientists most associated with disrespect for paid ads in presidential elections, Lynn Vavreck, also insists that letting one’s opponent run uncontested ads is a path to a slow, but sure, political death. Kilgore sums up Vavreck’s key points, “Unopposed ads do indeed shape impressions of candidates, and those impressions affect polling numbers which in turn affect actual voting in the end.”

Marco “AWOL” Rubio missed another important Senate Foreign Relations Comttee hearing — this time to announce that he has changed his mind and will now run for senate, despite numerous recent statements to the contrary. “Democrats immediately circulated opposition research on Wednesday showing Rubio has missed the bulk of his committee hearings in addition to the votes he missed while running for president.

That’s likely to be a theme of the Senate campaign against him,” reports Burgess Everett at Politico. Ed Kilgore notes, “There are two very recent polls of this race that point in different directions. Quinnipiac has Rubio up 47-40 over Murphy (and 48-4o over Grayson). But PPP has Murphy up 42-41, with Rubio well underwater with a 30-49 job approval rating and his ability to stay even with Murphy depending on the temporary phenomenon of higher name ID.”

In his NYT op-ed article, “How Low Can the GOP Go?“, Thomas B. Edsall notes, “Polls are also showing an increase in the percentage of Republicans who are indicating that they might sit out the 2016 election. The Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll measures how many voters refuse to say whether or how they will vote. Among Republicans, the percentage of these voters has risen since early May from 17.2 percent to 26.6 percent. Among Democrats, the percentage has remained relatively constant, fluctuating between 19 and 21 percent.”

“We have a mission, a mandate, and a moral obligation to speak up and speak out until the House votes to address gun violence. We have turned deaf ears to the blood of the innocent and the concern of our nation. We will use nonviolence to fight gun violence and inaction.” – Rep. John Lewis (D-GA).

Above, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joins Rep. John Lewis and other Democratic members of congress during their sit-in to protest Repubican inaction and NRA obstruction of gun safety.

In his CNN Opinion post, “How Clinton can redraw the map,” Howard Dean credits Hillary Clinton with making some strategic moves which can help secure working Democratic majorities down-ballot for decades to come. As Dean writes,

Most presidential campaigns follow the same playbook. Candidates parse the map into red states, blue states and so-called “swing states”–and they focus their time and resources exclusively on that third category.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is rejecting that strategy in favor of a much broader one. The plan that Clinton began to execute this week is a 20-year strategy to create a new vision for America.

To fulfill it, she is dispatching staff to all 50 states and is working to identify and organize supporters in each one.

It’s not just about winning the presidency for the Democrats. Clinton’s vision includes strengthening the party down-ballot:

On the same day Americans cast their vote for president this November, they’ll also be voting for senators, representatives, governors, state legislators and city council members. A 50-state strategy means that Democrats can focus attention and resources further down the ballot. We can’t forget that the outcomes of those local races matter too if we’re going to truly make a difference in people’s lives…Every Democrat that she helps get elected to offices across the country this year, the deeper the bench will be for many elections to come. They will become the foundation of a potent legacy, not just for the party, but for a consequential presidency.

“She understands that what happens between now and November is not just about 2016 or even 2020,” adds Dean. “If we really want a political revolution, we have to build it block by block–nurturing strong Democratic organizations in each of the 50 states.”

For too long Democrats have accepted weak party organizations in many states. All too often we read reports about Democrats failing to field candidates, sometimes even in competitive districts. The DNC and Democratic leaders simply must do more to help local party organizations build their strength.

Clinton understands that Democrats have a unique opportunity this year, with an extremely weak Republican presidential nominee serving up daily outrage and myriad disasters. Many Republicans are coming around to the belief that a “cleansing” defeat in the 2016 presidential election may serve their long-range interests by reorienting their party to succeed amid demographic change.

It’s a small window of opportunity in an historical context. It’s good that Clinton recognizes the importance of strengthening the Democratic Party at the state and local level — and the rare chance to do it in a big way this year.

“In her campaign, Clinton will show up everywhere and take no voter for granted,” writes Dean. “That’s why solidly red states like Georgia, Utah and Arizona already appear a few shades more purple.”

Strategically, a presidential candidate has to focus more time, energy and resources in identifiable battleground states to win the electoral college majority. But governing effectively will also require Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. Putting an end to the GOP’s reign of Gridlock, Obstruction and Paralysis will also require major Democratic gains in the state legislatures of America. Having a presidential candidate who gets this — and commits to do something about it — is a big plus.

“Almost Every GOP Senator Just Voted to Keep Letting Terror Suspects Buy Guns: Once again, gun safety measures fail to move forward in Congress after a massacre,” reports Becca Andrews at Mother Jones.
“Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Republican candidates for the House and Senate would risk large defections from their base if they are seen as sabotaging Trump…Moreover, Greenberg sees a focus on Trump’s personal volatility as having helpful ricochet effects with other constituencies. To the extent that Trump is forced by the party to tone down his rhetoric – just watch his flat, Teleprompter-driven address from last Tuesday – he may start losing some of his magic with working-class voters…Greenberg argues that Clinton knows she has to offer a strong economic message with a populist feel to win over the millennial voters who flocked to Sanders. Appeals aimed their way will simultaneously help earn Sanders’ blessing and pick up the white working-class votes she’ll need.” — from E. J. Dionne, Jr.’s syndicated column.
“Hillary Clinton Is On A Mission To Rebuild The Democratic Party: A 50-state strategy has been tried before. Her staff think they can do it right this time,” according to Sam Stein, writing at HuffPo.
Steve Benen reports at msnbc.com that “Clinton moves forward with a ’50-state strategy‘.”
At The Monkey Cage Gabriel Sanchez and Alan I. Abramowitz explain why “Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls may be larger than it seems…” The authors noter, “Why were so many of the polls wrong? In part, because they failed to capture how minorities would vote. Unfortunately, some pollsters may be making the same mistakes in 2016 — and thereby underestimating Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls…In 2012, many polls underestimated how many minorities would vote and how many would vote for Obama…In 2016, the country is even more diverse. Pollsters need to take steps to more accurately estimate the political attitudes and behavior of black, Latino and Asian American voters…If Clinton does as well with minority voters as Obama did, then her lead in the poll would be 10 points (see here).
At salon.com Sean Illing explains why “The Republicans’ November fantasy: A glance at the GOP’s swing state strategy ought to delight Democrats everywhere: The Republicans’ strategy for November is based on wishful thinking. Hillary could win this election in a rout.”
Also at salon.com, read Gary Legum’s “Don’t rule it out: Thanks to Donald Trump, the Democrats have a slight chance of taking back the House: The Democrats need to win 30 seats to get control of the House — it’s unlikely but definitely not impossible.”
NYT’s Lynn Vavreck afforms that “Yes, Political Ads Are Still Important, Even for Donald Trump” and notes, “A study estimated that most of the impact of an ad in a presidential election is gone within a day or two of its airing (I am one of the authors of this paper). In governor, congressional and Senate elections, the effects last a bit longer: three or four days. Fleeting effects on campaigns have been shown by various authors in the lab; in Canada; in the 2000 and 2004 general elections; in the 2006 midterm elections; in the 2012 general election; and in field experiments in a Texas governor’s primary in 2006 and a general election in 2014.”
The title, as well as the content, of Joan McCarter’s Daily Kos article delineates one major difference between the two parties: “The consequences of an election in Louisiana: 200,000-plus people now have Medicaid.”

A lot of intemperate things were said in the wake of the massacre in Orlando, many of them by Donald Trump. But John McCain took the shameful cake, as I discussed this week at New York:
[Y]ou’d figure the presumptive Republican nominee has reasserted his leadership of the Obama-haters of America. But then came this astounding attack today:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the elder Republican statesman, said President Obama was “directly responsible” for the terror attack in Orlando due to his failure to combat the rise of the Islamic State terror group.

Wow.
McCain’s “reasoning,” so to speak, for this remarkable statement involved the stacking of dubious premises to reach an absurd conclusion:

When pressed by a reporter on the claim that Obama was “directly” responsible, McCain reiterated his point — that Obama should not have withdrawn combat troops from Iraq and should have made a more determined effort to intervene in the Syrian civil war.

Keep in mind that so far as anyone knows, ISIS had nothing to do with the Orlando massacre other than taking “credit” for it ex post facto thanks to the murderer’s apparently independent decision to dedicate his evil act to the evil actors in the Middle East.
Shortly after spouting this insanity, McCain issued a statement on Twitter saying that he “misspoke”: “To clarify, I was referring to Pres Obama’s national security decisions that have led to rise of #ISIL, not to the President himself.”
So that’s reassuring: McCain was not accusing the president of being personally involved in the planning or execution of the attacks in Orlando. But that he felt the need to clear that up is telling.
It’s worth remembering that if John McCain had somehow beaten Barack Obama in 2008, he might still be in office today, actively waging wars instead of merely longing for them and bitterly lashing out at a commander-in-chief who is, to his view, insufficiently bloodthirsty. He’s convinced himself that the case for an expanded and eternal Iraq War was strong when he championed the “surge” and, if possible, is even stronger today. And he wants a new war or two now to make up for Obama’s horrific decision to bring that great folly to a close. Perhaps because he knows Donald Trump won’t make this particular argument, McCain felt the need to make it himself.
If the myth of McCain the Maverick Good Guy still survives in some quarters, it’s time to consign it to the history books for good.

The 2016 presidential campaign has generated a lot of media coverage speculating on the role of social class in the upcoming presidential election. Philip Bump’s article, “Donald Trump’s strategy centers on working-class whites, but even they don’t like him” at The Fix provides an informative update on the speculation, as both parties prepare for their nominating conventions. As Bump notes,

Donald Trump’s reasonable argument* for how he’ll win in November centers on white, blue-collar voters — the sort of voters he thinks can propel him to victories in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. (Sometimes, Wisconsin gets looped into that list, but that looks unlikely at the moment.)
Winning white, blue-collar voters doesn’t necessitate that those voters like him, of course, but it would help. And while that group (loosely defined as whites without a college degree) likes Trump better than anyone race/education split, more than half still view him unfavorably.

Bump goes on to note that a majority of white men without college degrees view Trump favorably. It’s white working-class women women who tilt his unfavorables upward with the working-class demographic.
All of this is rendered somewhat problematic by defining adults without college degrees as working-class, excluding many who have college degrees — or “some college” in some definitions — who are working at jobs that are essentially working-class. Quite a few recent college graduates, for example, are waiting on tables, walking dogs, driving cabs and doing other jobs most would consider essentially blue collar work.
There are also skilled — and even unskillled — manual workers with no college degree who are making more money and living more upscale lives than adjunct professors, for example. I know a former adjunct professor at a community college who quit her job because she could easily make more money stitching together dog-walking and baby-sitting gigs.
As always, the reality is more complicated than the simplistic definition, which is more intended for ‘ballpark’ socio-economc and political analysis. That should be kept in mind when pondering generalizations about political attitudes. The point is to get a rough idea about how social class is affecting American politics. In Trump’s unique case, gender clearly provides the pivot point that qualifies even simplistic generalizations about ‘the white working-class’ vote.
Further, let’s not assume that Trump voters can all be correctly pidgeon-holed into any one social class. As Dave Anderson notes in a Boulder Weekly op-ed,

Nate Silver, in a May 3 posting on his FiveThirtyEight website, says Trump voters are economically better off than most Americans: “The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.”

Bump also points out that working-class disapproval of Hillary Clinton remains high. Clinton’s campaign strategy of keeping a relatively low media profile up till now, while Trump self-destructed, has begun changing in a big way. As the Democratic nominee, she will be increasingly visible leading up to November, and voters will get a much better look at her impressive qualifications in stark comparison to Trump.
By November, Trump’s shrinking constituency could be reduced to a hard core of mostly white male ideologues of all social classes. In that event, a wave election favoring Democrats will become a reality.

While the two national political conventions are still more than a month away, the two presidential candidates’ general election strategies are coming into focus. I discussed the contrast this week at New York.

Politico didn’t have to mince words when it came to describing the strategies Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will pursue in the key general-election battleground states:

Republicans will rely on the sheer force of Donald Trump’s personality to tap into deep-seated voter anger. Democrats are counting on a superior field organization to serve as Hillary Clinton’s firewall.

The Republicans quoted in the story appear to have decided to make a virtue of Trump’s famous disdain for data analytics, micro-targeting, and all that other fancy-dan stuff. He doesn’t need it.

“His job is to be Mr. Trump,” said Rob Gleason, the chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party. “His appeal is very different than a normal politician. Usually, when we have rallies for people, we prepare weeks in advance. All he has to do is announce three days ahead of time he’s going to be somewhere and a huge crowd shows up. It always energizes people.”

Indeed, Trump’s casual approach to figuring out what to do where is encouraging to GOP leaders in places presidential candidates usually skip:

Deployed the right way, Trump’s force-of-nature persona could help flip some long-blue states toward the GOP, others said.
“I think if he invests in Michigan and shows up in our state, he will do very well,” said Ronna Romney McDaniel, chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party (and niece of 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney). “We haven’t had a candidate actually run a robust campaign in Michigan where they’re showing up post-convention.”

You may recall that Sarah Palin pitched a fit in 2008 because the McCain campaign would not waste time and money contesting Michigan. Her buddy Trump may be easier to persuade. After all, he’s “very different from a normal politician.”
By contrast, Hillary Clinton is going to deploy all the state-of-the-art political resources she can. Her events may not have the demonic energy of Trump’s White Resentment Festivals, but she’s not counting on outgunning the mogul in some imaginary enthusiasm competition.

Democrats should not hesitate to emphasize the fact that nearly all Republican U.S. Senators voted against a measure to let the attorney general deny firearms to suspected terrorists. It would be wrong for Democrats not to leverage public outrage to secure life-saving reforms.
Reena Flores reports at cbsnews.com that “In the wake of the nation’s deadliest mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, a new CBS News poll has found that a majority of Americans now support a nationwide ban on assault weapons…The survey, conducted in the days following the massacre at a popular Orlando gay night club, shows 57 percent of Americans now favor such a ban. That’s up from 44 percent in December, when the question was last asked in CBS News polling. Now, 38 percent of respondents oppose the legislation, compared to the 50 percent who opposed it in December.”
At gallup.com Jim Norman has stats showing that ‘terrorism’ is an issue that historicaly has a short shelf life. However, calling the Orlando massacre “the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11,” Norman concludes “It happened in the middle of a bitter presidential contest already marked by harsh exchanges between the candidates on the issues of terrorism and gun control. The combination of these factors almost guarantees that terrorism and gun control will be major, persistent themes in the candidates’ campaigns over the next five months.”
A new addition to the GOP’s “somebody but Trump” list: “Republican Maryland Gov. Hogan says he won’t vote for Trump” by Jeremy Diamond at CNN Ppolitics.
Re Sean Illing’s “Letting Trump and the GOP self-destruct: Hillary and Democrats have the right strategy by laying low: Harry Reid is encouraging Dems to sit back and watch Trump discredit himself — and he’s exactly right” at salon.com, that’s a good strategy — to a point. But there will also be times when Clinton and/or surrogates should weigh in with sharply-stated comments and soundbites to clarify issues and maximize coverage.
At The Plum Line Greg Sargent puts the torch to an oft-repeated false equivalency meme: “In reality, for now, at least, there’s no real equivalence between the negative views of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While Clinton certainly has problems in this regard, Trump fares far, far worse…The new Washington Post/ABC News poll illustrates this neatly. It finds that Donald Trump’s unfavorable numbers have climbed to a new high: 70 percent of Americans have an unfavorable impression of Trump, versus only 29 percent (fewer than one-third!) who have a favorable impression. Clinton’s negatives, too, have hit a new high of 55 percent.”
In his NYT op-ed “Sanders, the Windows 95 of Progressive Politics?,” Mark Schmitt, director of the political reform program at New America, criticizes the economic proposals of Sen Bernie Sanders, but acknowledges “Mr. Sanders’s achievement has been to show the leadership of his recently adopted party that Democrats and many independents under 35 — that is, those who weren’t adults during Bill Clinton’s administration — are eager for a full-throated progressive agenda and are unafraid of backlash. While Democrats in the 1990s — notably Bill and Hillary Clinton — worried about the party’s mistakes of the 1970s, many in this decade worry more about triangulation and the cautious politics of the 1990s.”
At The Wall St. Journal Laura Meckler and Colleen McCain Nelson report that “Bernie Sanders Not Being Vetted as Hillary Clinton’s Running Mate: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is among a group of Democratic officials being considered.” The authors add, “Beyond the Massachusetts senator, other prospective candidates include Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Reps. Xavier Becerra of California and Tim Ryan of Ohio, several Democrats said.”
David Cay Johnston presents “New Evidence Donald Trump Didn’t Pay Taxes” at The Daily Beast.

The following article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
We will not know all of the facts surrounding the unfathomable tragedy in Orlando for some time – perhaps, many days.
But one thing is certain: intolerance and hatred inevitably lead to violence and death.
That is why our primary response to the horrific massacre at the Pulse nightclub must be to rededicate ourselves to creating a culturally diverse society that is based on tolerance and respect for other religions, sexual orientations, races and life styles.
In America the one thing we must never tolerate is intolerance itself.
All of us must extend our sympathy and support to those who are directly affected – and, frankly to the entire LGBT community that was, in fact, the intended victim of this horrible attack. This was an attack on an LGBT club during Pride Month.
The shooter, Omar Mateen, sent messages indicating that it was his allegiance to ISIS that lead him to murder fifty of his fellow human beings. Whether he was motivated by ideological commitment or his own hatred of gays and lesbians, or both — that motivation can never trump the fundamental sense of human empathy that provides the foundational principle of a civilized society.
Whatever his motivations, the shooter himself obviously bears complete responsibility for actions that ended the hopes and aspirations of so many brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, boy friends and girl friends, sons and daughters.
But while the shooter is directly responsible, political decisions – and America’s political culture – are also culpable. And we dare not allow the forces of intolerance to exploit the Orlando mass shooting and throw gasoline on the fire of intolerance itself.
In recent years, instances of mass violence that were born of intolerance, have increased:
• The shooting of African American worshipers at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston;
• The murders at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs;
• The mass shootings by Islamic extremists in San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels;
• The Boston marathon bombing.
They all have one thing in common. All of them resulted from actions by those inspired by hate filled rhetoric and intolerance.
Islamic extremism is a major driving force. But let’s remember, that the data shows that in the United States itself you were more than 7 times as likely to be killed by a right wing extremist than a Muslim terrorist in the 13.5 years following 9/11.
The New York Times reported that a study by UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer, showed that Islam-inspired terror attacks “accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.” Meanwhile, “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.”
In point of fact, there is no fundamental difference between the murders by Islamic extremists, or white racists, or anti-abortion extremists. They are all acts rooted in intolerance and bigotry and we must create a society that refuses to tolerate those acts – or the intolerance and bigotry that lead to them.
For much of the last year, many on nativist right – particularly Donald Trump – have spewed out hate-filled, intolerant rhetoric like a geyser. Trump has made it seem increasingly “normal” in American political discourse.
Quite apart from wrong-headed policy proposals, the hateful, intolerant political environment that this rhetoric spawns, creates the conditions that make hate motivated political violence more – not less likely. It is reckless and dangerous.
In particular, Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric legitimates the narrative that groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda use to recruit impressionable young people.
Then of course there is the issue of assault weapons – and the fact that it is simply too easy for people who are planning violent acts to get their hands on guns in the United States.
The purpose of an AR-15 – or any similar rapid fire assault weapon like the one used by the shooter in Orlando – is to allow the shooter to enter a “target rich” environment and kill dozens of people in seconds. Storm a nightclub where 300 people are enjoying the evening, and you can easily use an AR-15 to kill 50 people and wound 53 others.
Assault weapons are designed for military use – to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. There is simply no justification for their sale to the general public.
During the administration of Bill Clinton, assault weapons were banned by Congress. That ban expired and the GOP Congress has refused to renew it. The GOP Congress even refuses to stop individuals on the terrorist watch list from obtaining these weapons and other firearms- although they may be banned from flying on commercial aircraft. That is simply inexcusable.
Assault weapons should be banned in the United States for all but military and police use. You can’t use them to shoot deer. You can only use them to kill other human beings.
And it is obviously time to enact universal background checks for the purchase of all guns – a position supported by 80% plus of the voters.
Gun violence has to stop. Congress must act now.
And most important, the Orlando massacre should serve as the event that forces America to launch a new war – a war on intolerance, hatred and bigotry.