In The New Republic (subscription only, lo siento) Peter Beinart has written an oh-so-moderate piece on the cartoon controversy that contains a great obfuscation or perhaps wishful thinking:
And, since the cartoon wars broke out, some conservatives have suggested that, since Islam is not a peaceful religion like Judaism or Christianity, there’s nothing wrong with depicting Mohammed as a terrorist. As one article in National Review put it, the violent protests in the Islamic world proved that the “cartoons depicting Muhammed as a dangerous man of arms … had a good point.” On Fox News, Fred Barnes declared that many “Muslims all over the world are certainly enemies of Western civilization.” Fox and conservative bloggers have been more willing to show the cartoons than their liberal counterparts.Indeed, despite Bush’s universalism, clash-of-civilizations thinking is deeply ingrained on the American right.
Leaving aside that it isn’t only conservatives who feel this way (unless Beinart wishes to lump this blogger who is pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-death penalty and an agnostic with conservatives – fine, then), there really is a “clash-of-civilizations” going on, even if it makes Beinart uncomfortable (as well it might – it makes us all uncomfortable). And the clash is about something very simple and very clear: Jesus said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Mohammed said and acted precisely the opposite. If this isn’t a clash, Mr. Beinart, what is? Even with the natural caveats – not all Muslims feel this way, etc., etc. – it is the heart of the matter. We have to look at it with a clear eye and go on from there.
UPDATE: No surprise at who really wants to avoid a clash at all costs.
“unless Beinart wishes to lump this blogger who is pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-death penalty and an agnostic with conservatives – fine, then”
Why not? All my friends do . . .
–Indeed, despite Bush’s universalism, clash-of-civilizations thinking is deeply ingrained on the American right.–
I wonder what the European man-on-the-street thinks?
Well Roger, I have fiscal conservative friends that would agree with all of that.
Mr. Beinart and his fellow ostrich brethren need to take their collective heads out of the sand and come to grips with the unfortunate truth that indeed many “Muslims all over the world are certainly enemies of Western civilization.”
That most of us cannot agree on and accept this truth os nothing short of lunacy.
Maybe I am wrong. Not about the Muslims, but that it is sand in which these ostriches heads are lodged.
Perhaps they are lodged in other places that are clenched too tight to release without making a shit storm of their lives.
I’m going to agree with Bruce Wechsler. The tone of Beinart’s article is quite constipated.
Unless and until I see an equal amount of “moderate” Muslims in the streets urging their more radical brethren to tone down the rhetoric and forswear violence, I must conclude that Islam is indeed radical, violent, and opposed to the basic tenets of Western civilization.
The fewÔøΩvery fewÔøΩmoderate Muslim voices I have heard (Amir Taheri, Omar of “Iraq the Model”, etc.) are far too atypical of the “Muslim voice”.
Although I do find it interesting (and this was pointed out in the comments section of a blog that I frequent-perhaps this one, I forget) that of all the Muslim nations, only ONE seems to have pretty much ignored the cartoon controversy entirely. Why do you suppose that is?
Of course you’re a conservative, Roger. Haven’t you been paying attention? 20% of Americans are far-right lunactics, like yourself and Joe Lieberman. 40% are moderates, like John Kerry. And 40% are progrssives, like Ralph Nader. Just ask the reality-based community.
it’s a “clash of civilizations” because THE ENEMY has made it such.
binladen zawahiri, zarqawi and the minoins in what amounts to a veritabel alphabet soup of jihadoterrorist porganizations: al Q; JI; JI; PFLP; GSPC; AA; and Hamas and Hizb’Alah – to manem jst a few.
and it’s worse than a war between us ands them, because they also attack moderate muslims, sufi muslims, shia muslims etc.
anybody with a different faith – even if it’s just a different sect than theirs – is an infidel not worthy of life.
no matter what people like beinart say, it is bvoth a cxlash of civiliations and a religious war.
no amount of denial can change that.
believing the earth is flat cannot make it so.
but it’s worse than that: not recognizing who the enemy is and waht their aims are only makes us less able to destroy them.
there is no negotiating with them. they do not believe infiodels should live; they also belive they can lie with impunity to us. so: no deal with this enemy is worth the paper it is written on.
they must be destroyed.
the longer we wait the stronger they become.
they will not go away on their own.
we need to continue to CLARUFY the struggle and corner them and then destroy them. them and their allies.
real peace can only come through real victory.
There’s something here that infuriates me about the “progressive” community.
Supporters of the war are split into roughly two camps: those who believe that Islam is beyond redemption and others (like GWB) who believe that if we apply pressure, we can coax a significant number of Muslims into the 21st century.
Most supporters of the war seem to fall into the second camp. I infer this because only a small number of the war supporters complain about the administration of holding back our full war-making potential. The rest of us understand WHY we have not turned Afghanistan and Iraq into pancakes.
Yet progressives, from day one, have been unable to distinguish these two groups of people. I have argued with progresives countless times, trying to tell them that our goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is to RECRUIT ALLIES, and the reaction is like I never said a word. They are incapable of hearing it.
Nuance my ass.
One wonders what, if not freedom of expression, constitutes a core principle of “Liberalism”? Further, if that particular principle is vaguely understood, misunderstood, or rejected outright by so many Muslims; then, is it not at least plausible that Fundamentalist Islam is an intransigent, rejectionist creed that disagrees with, threatens and opposes such Western principles–and therefore threatens Liberalism itself?Threatens Liberals themselves?
Clearly the threat to Western Civilization posed by an absolutist religion is not seen to be the equal of that posed by George Bush and the Republican Party, at least in the minds of some Liberals. Having determined that, some questions arise.
How influential are these people? How far are they willing to go, rationalizing the threatening posture of Islam to gain political power at home?
I believe, as with the NSA leak (this war not being Vietnam and this leak not being the Pentagon Papers) the Left is so old-fashioned and antebellum, so obstructionist and unprincipled, that they cannot survive this struggle as a party, unless they divest themselves of their defeatists and apologists. Kennedy, Murtha, Reid, et al, are no longer useful to the country or their own party. As long as they continue to use foreign threats as domestic leverage they will lose influence. It would have been easier if they had understood the danger, and the longer they do not the more it will cost to extricate ourselves, but in the end even they (yes even they) will be fighting for something they believe in, even if it is only self survival.
How far will they go? They have already gone too far. I find that many well-meaning supporters of the struggle are depressed when they confront our domestic political situation. It is one sort of defeatism to say the war is unwinnable, or that we should never have gone to war in the first place; it is another to think that one’s own neighbors are self-destructive and unable to recognize the true threat.It is difficult enough to wage a war like this one without having to drag a demented third of the population along behind. This is where all the leaks are coming from. There are way too many people out there who believe this war isn’t a war but a political struggle for a few counties in Ohio. They do not trust us; they do not like us; they do not believe us. They support our enemies and do not even understand that they do so.
The final question is: Can we win a war this way?
Beinart’s been stuck on stupid for quite a while. Other than Leon Wieseltier’s occasional article, there’s really not much to see at the New Republic except what Marty Peretz writes himself. Maybe it’s time for him to close up shop and become a member in good standing of the PJM.
“Can we win a war this way?”
Sure. The Civil War was won this way. The Copperheads were not insignificant then, just as they are not today. Same party, too.
The war will just take a bit longer and more American lives will be lost – blood on the Dems head. The Copperheads sedition strengthened the South’s determination and led to Sherman’s march through Georgia – the South had to be shown every bit of war’s horror in order to be convinced.
When we flatten Iran – and we will, Iranians and Americans are going to pay again for the Copperheads sedition.
They have chosen to lay down with dogs and it is going to be a very long time before they are free of fleas.
The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. “We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.”
-Hah, either this is some kind of taqiya focussed on provoking westerners, or the perfect dictionary reference for Dhimmiwitdude. Unfortunately, anything coming from Brussels most likely is the latter.
And Roger, I think you’ve clearly identified the heart of the matter. The rendering unto Caesar, the lack of any political theory in Christianity, makes western culture so much different from those places in which religion tries to dominate worldly affairs.
I wouldn’t call it a clash of civilizations, however. I would call it a clash or religious doctrines and cultures within a single global civilization; it’s single because i think all defenders of our global village now have a right to insist that the crazy bomb makers down the street learn better to control themselves and adapt to the western-led order of responsible nation-states and to the single global marketplace.
As Bostonian (above) writes so salinatly:
“Supporters of the war are split into roughly two camps: those who believe that Islam is beyond redemption [like Michael Savage] and others (like GWB) who believe that if we apply pressure, we can coax a significant number of Muslims into the 21st century.
“Most supporters of the war seem to fall into the second camp….
Yet progressives, from day one, have been unable to distinguish these two groups of people. ”
As a libertaran mired among “isolationists” like these,
http://hnn.us/blogs/4.html
a;;ow me to sxplain that it’s even more complicated than Bostonian admits: there are three groups among the right. The two above, and then those like Pat Buchanan who simply close off all security issues by waving the “not our business” flag, or “not in our interest” to sacrifice any blood or treasure fur any damn foreingers.
One isolatiopnist, US historian David Beito, demands that “Antiwar “Libertarians Need to Defend Free Speech” because they, like Justin Ramondo (of antiwar.com shame), sure aren’t doing so. “Perhaps many antiwar libertarians are fearful that they might give ammunition to those who justify the war on the grounds that the Middle East is “Islamofascist.” This precise opposite is true. Few issues better illustrate the folly of neocon/Jacobin foreign intervention as this one. The most obvious example is the readiness of our ‘democratic’ allies in Iraq and Afghanistan to throw aside any alleged “pro liberty” views and join the anti-Dane lynch mob.”
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/21528.html
So, this last point is used to justify the futility of doing anything, rather than the seriousness ot the actual problem. Thus, denial isn’t the exclusive property of Noam Chomsky, the EU, and lefties, but it’s alive and kicking on the right as well. To check out the comments section of Beito’s post, one sees libertarians mired in problems of definition and where and around whom to draw boundaries. There is no realization that fundamental differences and freedoms are at stake in the cartoon crisis, but for ritual incantations against being such marginalized anti-American voices.
Finally, as is said above, I’ve given up on the New Republic – except quite rarely do they print something thoughtful or provocative. Thus, Beinart’s ignorance goes even deeper than Roger knows.
“Most supporters of the war seem to fall into the second camp….
Yet progressives, from day one, have been unable to distinguish these two groups of people. ”
Well, most “progressives” have been unable to see that the Muslim world is at war with us even if we are not at war with them, yet.
What scares me is that when we reach the tipping point the West will be taken over by some unsavory right wing types who will make even Michael Savage and his ilk look tame.
Roger:
This is not a religous war. Any Muslim in the west who wants to practice his faith has no obstacles thrown in front of their journey of faith. Are there aspects of the country that they live in that upset them? Yes. Are they allowed to participate in the political process and try to convince there fellow countrymen to change their ways. Yes. Of course this entails being on the losing side now and then, but all religions face that same problem. Is anyone in the west trying to, by force or any non voluntary method, make Muslims convert to the religion that the Muslims are “at war” with? NO. Can many of the Muslim governments that are in power today give the same answers to this question. No.
Beinart has fallen into the old trap of “if we treat them with respect they will start to reciprocate” falsehood. They don’t just want to enforce a theocratic dictatorship in their own countries. They insist on other countries bowing to their will as well. And they openly warn Beinart and all the other deluded fools that Allah has the same plans for them as well. If he thinks the Islamo Fascists will seperate the “conservatives” and the “progressives” of the west in their bloody war he is in for a rude suprise. Even moderate Muslims will fall under the ax if they do not submit and conform to their 14th century ideals.
Beinart can’t deal with the fact that there are certain large factions of the Muslim world who don’t want to discuss things at a Kennedy School talking heads forum. Their idea of negotiation is you agree to everything we want or we will kill you. When those signs at the recent protest march said things like “Europe, you will have your own 9-11″ and “Death to democracy”, and “Death to Freedom of Speech” it wasn’t overheated hyperbole. it was their mission statement.
Bostonian,great post
at February 9, 2006 02:23 PM
Your linked article (“avoid a clash”) reports that the EU is considering a cartoon code of conduct.
My god, my god. The civilization that gave us Milton’s Areopagitica, Locke’s 2nd Treatise, and Mill’s On Liberty is selling its birthright for a mess of pottage.
To paraphrase Churchill: they are faced with a choice between dishonor and war. They are choosing dishonor, and they will have war.