After a man from Uzbekistan rammed into a Manhattan bike lane, killing eight people and injuring a dozen more under the wheels of his rental truck, President Trump immediately responded, labeling the tragedy a terrorist attack, demanding the end of the immigration lottery, and pinning blame on Democrats.
The tragedy fit his position on immigration reform.
After a man from the U.S. opened fire inside a Texas sanctuary less than a week later, killing 26 churchgoers with his assault rifle, Trump again responded immediately. But this time around, Trump ignored the attacker altogether. And when asked about gun-control during a press conference, Trump said the shooting “shouldn’t be discussed right now, we should let time go by.”
The difference is that this latter tragedy didn’t fit his position on the Second Amendment.
So, while the circumstances and ramifications of each attack vary, together they highlight the same inconsistency. Trump can certainly make the case that gun control policy won’t change what happened in Texas, but he doesn’t get to decide which tragedy to politicize.
By design, the executive moves swiftly to respond to attacks like these. Regardless of what one thinks about Trump’s response to the Manhattan murders, whether you agree or disagree with his tweets, he was acting within the expectations of his office. After the Texas shooting, though, Trump decided not only to reserve judgement but also condemn as insensitive anyone who questions his position on guns in light of the attack. This position just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
And it’s also becoming a habit. The administration ducked like this after the Las Vegas shooting, when Sarah Huckabee Sanders lectured reporters from the White House podium that it wasn’t time to talk about gun control. Unfortunately for Trump, this sort of dodge sets up an easy lay-up for his opponents and it ultimately undermines his overall argument.
After saying that the Texas shooting “shouldn’t be discussed right now,” Trump turned around and … immediately discussed it. Trump explained that increased background checks would’ve made “no difference.” And he argued that more gun control could’ve made things worse.
“You might not have had that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck go out and shoot him, and hit him and neutralize him,” Trump continued. “I can only say this: If he didn’t have a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead. So, that’s the way I feel about it. Not going to help.”
From what’s known about the attack from early reports, that answer wasn’t half-bad. By hedging, though, Trump looks like he is flinching, like his argument needs a little padding from immediate scrutiny. That not only sets up a double standard, but it also projects weakness.
Of course, Trump isn’t the first president to do this. Barack Obama did the same thing, demanding that shootings are “something we should politicize.” But his administration clearly didn’t feel the same way about the Boston Marathon bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the Pulse nightclub shooting, or the San Bernardino attack. Walking out of the Oval Office, Obama insisted that “no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland,” which is obviously false unless you accept carefully hedged and counterintuitive definitions for each word.
The truly horrific and inescapable fact here is that bipartisan actors are more than happy to let bloodshed grease the wheels of their political movements. Both sides are guilty of taking advantage of tragedy – not so much concerned for the victims as willing to exploit them.
So, unless the blood is still on the street, spare the public the pretense on timing, and just tell us what your thoughts are on the issue, Mr. President.
