In yesterday’s OpinionJournal (WSJ), Bret Stephens asks “Why is the left afraid to face up to the threat of radical Islam?”
Here’s a puzzle: Why is it so frequently the case that the people who have the most at stake in the battle against Islamic extremism and the most to lose when Islamism gains–namely, liberals–are typically the most reluctant to fight it?
Although there are no doubt a number of people on the left who fit his question, Polimom suspects Stephens may be blurring a line between reluctance to fight Islamism and anger about the war in Iraq.
However, while I think it’s fair to wonder about the hard-left thinking, I don’t think those liberal values are only threatened by Islamism. Stephens also writes:
“…what Islamism most threatened wasn’t just America generally, but precisely the values that modern liberalism had done so much to promote and protect for the past 40 years: civil rights, gay rights, feminism, privacy rights, reproductive choice, sexual freedom, the right to worship as one chooses, the right not to worship at all.
As long as we’re asking questions about ideological extremes, why is it that the hard-right conservatives don’t seem to recognize the paragraph above as a mirror of themselves?
Update (via memeorandum): Sam Harris has a directly-related article in today’s LA Times titled “Head-in-the-Sand Liberals“. It’s a good read, particularly recommended for those who are not overly concerned about Islamic extremism. Here are a couple paragraphs:
Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.
At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government “assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;” 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.
Kevin Drum has an excellent rebuttal here.
Fascinating discussion, all the way around.
Update 2: Amba finds, and discusses, the liberal-denial argument.
Heh good point 🙂
More importantly, I’m not sure what “Islamism” is, except putting a name on a particular branch of ‘my religion is better than yours.’ As you point out, there are plenty of extremist Christians who would love to eliminate most of the freedoms outlined above. So why don’t we get all weird about ‘extreme Christianism’? (Bomb abortion clinics, anyone? “Well now, we don’t want tto paint all Christians with that brush, but… er, it’s different, and you liberals just don’t ‘get it’!”)
Seems like some folks have a ‘hearing’ probem. What we say is, “We don’t like this solution,” and what they hear is “We don’t see any problem.”
Otherworldly News Service reports: “Anti-Coffeeism forces have bombed two enormous Starbucks stores. In retaliation, King George says we are going to take over Colombia.”
Conservatives: “Yes, yes! Send those poor, uneducated — oops, I mean brave American soldiers over there to save the day! The Democrats could have thwarted the awful destruction by taking over Colombia back when the last coffee crisis hit.”
Liberals: “Uh, the guys who did the bombing were disgruntled former Starbucks barristas who claim caffeine made them crazy. They don’t even know anybody in Colombia.”
Conservatives: “Clearly you liberals are too unintelligent to properly comprehend the threat . Why, our illegal wiretaps — er, I mean cleverly gathered intelligence — shows that one of the accused bombers placed a phone call to a high-placed official in Colombia only yesterday!” (pause, listens to earpiece) “Well, ‘District of Columbia’ sounds just like ‘Colombia,’ and the ACLU is clearly a high-placed radical official. Plus, we have proof that Colombia was planning to ship to the US a whole cargo ship of WMDs (deadly, dangerous caffeine-containing coffee beans in hopes of making other Americans crazy!), so how do you respond to *that*?”
Liberals: (So incredulous they are completely unable to speak)
It’s a really easy question, unless of course you’re an editorialist at the WSJ and aren’t really interested in an answer.
I really wish the government spent more time fighting that battle and less time fighting other battles (Iraq) or trying for the same kinds of social changes that fundamentalist Muslims would want here at home.
Yes, I am more concerned about the religious right than al Qaeda. Here’s why: while I could be a victim in a terrorist attack, that’s highly unlikely (and that was even true when I lived in DC). On the other hand, the radical right here at home has had quite a few successes, and probably will have more, and WILL have a direct impact on my life.
Yes, it’s horrifying that they hang gay people in Iran. No, it doesn’t leave me feeling like I’m in personal danger. On the other hand, when I hear a local fundamentalist whipping people into a frenzy about how gays will destroy civilization, it occurs to me that someone hearing those words might get an urge to head over to Montrose and bash someone. Which happens regularly.
Then there’s that other little issue of the government fighting the wrong fight, and fighting the right one badly, but that’s a whole other topic.
Polimom,
Interesting post and links. It seems to me that the issue of how to approach the phenomenon of trans-national radical Islamic fundamentalism comes down to one’s view of the problem, or to say it differently, one’s framework. If:
These are fundamentally different views of the problem, and it is unlikely that they can be reconciled–ever. One or the other is likely to prevail in each western country. However, until the SAME view is held by a majority of western countries, coordinated action is all but impossible. Fragmentary, often counterproductive actions and reactions are likely to be the norm, and emotions will harden that “the other people” along with “trans-national radical Islamic fundamentalism” are contributing to our eventual destruction.
Our political leaders would be doing us all a favor if they forced a national, or worldwide debate on these two views of the problem, rather that trying to embed their views in each election campaign. Maybe if we had had such a discussion in 2002, we would be less divided, less angry with each other now.