Perhaps it is but the sign of our times that the most potent comment on the misuse of the word ‘terrorism’ came from a Facebook meme page.

“Wow i feel like that accepting any use of violence as terrorism would have made my undergrad essays on the topic much easier” - Intensely Radical International Relations Memes Until I Run Out of Ideas

I’ve seen mass shooter after mass shooter (a depressing phrase to write) lambasted as “terrorists” by people, usually liberals, who want to draw attention to the double standard (perceived or otherwise; I will discuss that in a bit) between white shooters and Muslim shooters, where the former is described as ‘mentally ill’ whilst the latter get the ‘terrorist’ designation. The proposed solution to this discrepancy is to label all mass shooters ‘terrorists’ without regard as to motivation.

It is cold comfort for the families of the dead, yes, but there is a very important distinction to be made. The word ‘terrorism’ has many definitions, but every single one involves a political motivation. This is important. The definition used in the William & Mary Government Department is along the lines of “violence used to instill social change via instilling terror by nonstate actors against civilians.”

By that definition, random violence, as tragic as it may be, is not terrorism. The motivations of Stephen Paddock are not known, but there seems to be no connection to political motivation. Likewise, the motives of Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of the Newtown shooting in 2012 had unclear motivations, mostly driven by his own mental issues (which I cannot judge for I am not a professional in that field). The same with Columbine; the two murderers were motivated by other non-political factors. A mass murder does not a terrorist attack make.

With terrorist attacks, say by ISIS, there is a notable political motivation: that of the capitulation of Western powers and their withdrawal from the Middle East. 9/11 (by al-Qaeda) had the American presence in the Middle East as a motivation, and similar has been used in attacks elsewhere in the ensuing years. There is a defined motive about a political issue; that is terrorism.

Lest I am accused of things I am not, I will state that there have been Western terrorists, American terrorists even. I would argue that the late 19th century and early 20th century Ku Klux Klan meet the definition of terrorism, in the way they used violence against African-Americans to deny their political power. There were the Anarchist terrorists of the last years of the 19th century and the first of the 20th, like the followers of Luigi Galleani. There was the wave of leftist terrorism in Europe and the United States in the 1970s, to name one more wave.

And to criticize the media on their neglect of homegrown terrorism, I turn my attention to Charleston. Dylann Roof, the perpetrator, very much wanted to start a war between the races. That is a political motive. Not calling this terrorism is a disservice to the victims of that miserable event, and to the political motivation behind a disturbing amount of violent incidents (of which I would call the ramming of a protester at Charlottesville with a car to be the most recent major example).