A Senate Race Is Not A Hijacking

A Senate election is a contest for public office. Donald Trump would like to know whether we could run it with a terrorism soundtrack instead.

Reuters reports that, at Sunday's Port Huron rally, Trump compared voting against Abdul El-Sayed to the actions of passengers who fought the Flight 93 hijackers. El-Sayed is a Muslim candidate born in Michigan. He denies affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood; Reuters says Mike Rogers's allegations of ties lack evidence. Rogers earlier rejected the idea that El-Sayed is a violent terrorist, but did not answer Reuters's questions about Trump's later 9/11 invocation.

Those distinctions matter. So does the enormous distance between arguing that someone would be a bad senator and casting his election as a security emergency.

The latter is a wonderfully convenient campaign device if you would rather not debate the job. No need to compare proposals. Just attach a siren to the opponent and complain that anyone questioning the noise isn't taking public safety seriously.

There is nothing protective of America about treating a Muslim American's candidacy as an intrusion. The country is not a private club whose admissions committee consists of whichever Republican currently has the microphone. Citizenship doesn't become a guest pass when the citizen runs against you.

And the Flight 93 passengers do not belong in this campaign's prop cupboard. Their actions were real, in circumstances that were real. They were not auditioning to become an all-purpose endorsement for future Senate candidates. The comparison cheapens their courage while demanding that an unrelated American answer for the attackers' crimes.

The candidate can be questioned about his policies, record, alliances and judgment. That is scrutiny. Turning his religion into a standing suspicion is a different enterprise.

Rogers's earlier rejection of the terrorist characterization was worth making. The useful next step would be to apply it while the president is making the comparison, rather than leave voters to assemble the objection from separate appearances.

A ballot is not an emergency exit. Michigan voters deserve an argument about who should represent them, not an alarm bell with a candidate's name taped to it.