Lessons from a primary

US Republicans show dangers of irresponsible rhetoric

The race for the presidential nomination within the United States' Republican Party continues to astound and dumbfound observers worldwide. The continuing lead in the polls for Donald Trump, the controversial real-estate developer and reality television star, can no longer be dismissed as a temporary phenomenon. In the past - particularly in the 2008 primaries - the Republicans have boosted first one and then another unlikely candidate to the lead before finally settling in on an establishment moderate. It is beginning to look like this might not even happen this time. Indeed, the establishment candidate - Jeb Bush, son and brother of past presidents - has spent the most money but still trails miserably in the polls behind four or five others. So far to the right has the Republican primary drifted that some candidates from the US Senate, who were once known as being associated with the radical Tea Party, are now being seen as relative voices of moderation.

Mr Trump began his campaign for the nomination with an attack on illegal immigrants and Mexicans in general; but he has pivoted, after the recent attacks in Syria, towards another target. He has demanded that no Muslims be allowed into the United States. He has even said that, if he is elected, a detailed database of Muslim Americans would be set up, and their movements tracked. Such remarks from a politician leading in the polls would be disturbing enough; but, sadly, what is perhaps even more distressing is that such statements have not eroded his popularity among his base. Many of his supporters seem to see such rhetoric as proof of Mr Trump's authenticity, and have been emboldened into loudly taking such positions themselves.

But all the attention on Donald Trump's obvious racially-charged statements should not distract from the fact that many of his Republican peers have come out with similar positions. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon, who traded poll leads with Mr Trump, controversially called some Syrian refugees "mad dogs". And several other Republicans have also called for restrictions on Muslims; one, Rick Santorum, even said that Islam should not be treated like a religion but as a competing political system. In the recent Republican debate at Las Vegas, only two of the many candidates on stage visibly dissociated themselves from such stands. The senator Lindsey Graham began his speech by thanking Muslim American soldiers; and the establishment candidate, Jeb Bush, warned that the statements that his competitors had made commonplace risked damaging opinions about America worldwide, particularly among Muslims. Many observers reflected on the fact that Mr Bush's brother, when president, had gone out of his way to repeatedly emphasise that the "war on terror" was not a war on Islam. The Republican party has clearly moved far from the Bushes' position on the subject.

The dangers of such overheated political rhetoric are considerable. Thanks to the Republican candidates' espousal of such positions, anti-Muslim bigotry has grown in the United States. According to The New York Times, attacks on Muslims, mosques, or Muslim-owned businesses have grown threefold in recent times. It is obvious that this is the consequence of irresponsible politics. The lessons for Indian politicians are considerable. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has allowed many of its leaders, including some in Parliament and the Cabinet, to make irresponsible statements targeting Muslims. The debasement of public discourse can have negative effects on law and order. It is incumbent on all Indian politicians - including leaders of the national Opposition, such as Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal - to ensure that heated rhetoric does not cross crucial lines.