words per minute
8
NagaviBindzuriani
00:00
Speed
Spend any time on the campaign trail, and before too long a cynical voter will
complain that there is no difference between candidates on the ballot paper.
Let nobody make that claim ahead of the 2016 presidential election. On June
13th Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump gave duelling speeches in response to
the murder the day before of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando, Florida by
a rifle-wielding 29-year-old who dedicated his hate-filled evil to the Islamic
State (IS) terrorist network. The two speeches were polar opposites, giving
a glimpse of a general election campaign that will offer America its starkest
choice in decades.
Mrs Clinton set out to sound practical, even wonkish, offering a three-part
plan for tackling IS and other "radical jihadist groups" that includes all arms
of the government, the brightest minds in Silicon Valley and community groups.
Her to-do list included such tasks as disrupting money transfers between terrorists,
and tracking extremist social media postings. She was detailed, citing a pilot
programme she had visited in Minneapolis that helps "parents, teachers, imams,
mental health professionals and others" spot when young people are being radicalised
and work with law enforcement before it is too late. The presumptive Democratic
nominee was cautious, noting that many facts about the mass shooting remained
to be learned. She praised existing efforts by Barack Obama and allied anti-IS
forces to take back territory from the extremists, but used her freedom as a
candidate to go further than officials in office can, declaring it "long past
time" for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and other countries to stop their citizens
from funding extremists-and to stop supporting radical schools and mosques around
the world. In framing the Orlando shooting as a test of American values, Mrs
Clinton struck an optimistic note, saying: "Our open, diverse society is an
asset in the struggle against terrorism, not a liability. It makes us stronger
and more resistant to radicalisation."
Though Mr Trump read from a teleprompter, in a concession to the seriousness
of the subject matter, he struck a tone that was vengeful and dystopian. If
America does not get tough and smart, he announced early on: "we’re not going
to have a country any more, there will be nothing left." Frequently departing
from his prepared text, he scorned facts, trampled logic and levelled a string
of false accusations. He did not just take issue with Mrs Clinton’s plans to
combat terrorism, but charged that Mrs Clinton "wants to allow radical Islamic
terrorists to pour into our country." Without caveats, he cast the Muslim community
in America as a fifth-column of terrorist sympathisers, and immigration as a
source of danger. "The Muslims have to work with us," he said to a crowd of
supporters in New Hampshire, accusing Muslims of knowing about bad people in
their midst and failing to hand them in. "They know what’s going on," Mr Trump
added, declaring that anyone who failed to help law enforcement should face
"big consequences."