One of the disturbing things about many leftists, including a number who have commented to this blog, is that they dismiss ideas they find distasteful with the flick of the wrist and don’t bother to articulate the grounds for their disagreement. They frequently misstate the conservative positions they don’t like, calling them racist, sexist or homophobic. For some reason, they have to reduce all conservative attitudes and ideas to our supposed antipathy to some group.
We see this phenomenon in the reaction to Bruce Bawer’s most excellent book, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. While Bruce makes clear that his problem is not Islam itself by the radical Muslims in Europe who refuse to integrate into the societies which welcome them, while challenging the very values — and freedoms — of those societies, many of his critics read his criticism of the radical Islamicists as an antipathy to the very faith itself.
Just two weeks ago, when announcing that Bruce’s book was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle award, Eliot Weinberger faulted the author for engaging in
“racism as criticism.” It seems he must have read some dishonest critique of the book rather than the book itself.
The president of the Circle’s board probably also failed to read the book, saying its “hyperventilated rhetoric tips from actual critique into Islamophobia.” Hyperventilated rhetoric? Hardly. I read the book and found that Bruce makes his case by laying out the facts and drawing thoughtful conclusions from them.
After the attacks of 9/11, I wonder what it is about certain members of the intellectual elite that they see any criticism of radical Islamicists as a manifestation of Islamaphobia or racism. As Bruce puts it on his blog:
One of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberals have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the coldblooded murder of one’s own children in the name of honor, etc., etc. These authors and intellectuals respond to every criticism of that chilling fundamentalist code – however cogent and correct the criticism may be – by hurling the “R” word.
We need to understand how Islamic fundamentalism threatens the values, including tolerance, of Western society — and how that fundamentalism differs from the attitudes of the Islamic culture that flourished in the first centuries of the faith. For the pluralism we now enjoy in the West has antecedents in the Islamic culture around the turn of the last millennium where Islamic scholars were eager to translate classical works into Arabic and integrate their ideas into their theology while welcoming scholars of other faiths into their cities.
In his book, Bruce does a good job of showing how Islamic fundamentalism, on the rise in Europe, threatens the very values of Western civilization. And he also shows how that fundamentalism hurts many Muslims who have different ideas of their faith. Hardly racism that. It’s too bad too many on the left, particularly among the literary elite, misrepresent Bruce’s ideas. It seems that they, like some of our critics, prefer labeling him with the simple terms they use to dismiss many conservative ideas to arguing with the actual points he makes in his book.
I’m delighted that Bruce’s book was nominated for the National Book Critics Circle Award. It is well deserving of such an accolade. It’s a good read, a timely book and an important one. Now only is it well-written, but it’s well-argued as well. Rather than take my word for it, read the book yourself. And you’ll see that far from being a racist tract, it’s a serious essay on perhaps the most pressing issue of our time.
As one of the liberals, or at least to the left of most, on this blog, I don’t see how one could disagree that radical Islam is a problem. I guess the real question is how to address it, deal with it, and defeat it. Everyone, liberal or conservative, that I have spoken to about this have the same view. Too bad that Bawer is being mischaracterized without his book even been read.
Dan, I agree that liberals, including this site, have mischaracterized arguments by conservatives, as you said. To be fair though, it happens any time there is a disagreement of an issue on either side. I have seen arguments by liberals being mischaracterized as being unpatriotic, supporters of terrorists, etc., for having a different opinion on the war on Iraq.
Anyway, it looks like an interesting book, and may end up purchasing it.
Pat, I for one would love to hear your take on the book once you read it. Seriously. I want to know where you and the author both converge and diverge in terms of the WOT.
Regards,
Peter H.
I look forward to reading Bawer’s book. Here is another, recommended to me by an avid reader.
#3 – Bawer’s book is really good – I can also recommend it.
#0 –
Indeed. And the positions of non-conservatives (e.g., me) as well. Any queer who doesn’t toe the line.
Another of their tactics is to tell the individual who won’t validate them (by agreeing with them, or telling them what they want to hear) that he or she is “living in an echo chamber”. Irony, anybody? 🙂
I’m convinced that certain lefties come here only to bolster their shaky egos by bashing conservatives, real or imagined. Kind of like… oh, I don’t know… gangs of youths looking for perceived gays to bash. More irony, anyone?
But they do so at their moral and intellectual peril. As so many have found, the “victims” here are not only pleased to fight back, but equipped to crush them.
As for ungrounded criticisms of Bawer’s thesis: V the K has a great insight that I’ll advocate here. (V, correct me if the following is wrong.)
Basically, if Islamo-fascism really is a major threat to our way of life, then left-liberal ideology is crap. Moral relativism is crap, pacifism and anti-militarism are crap, multiculturalism is crap, the brotherhood of man is crap, siding with “oppressed” brown people against evil AmeriKKKa is crap, etc.
So, at all costs, the true depth and gravity of the Islamo-fascist threat must be DENIED… or a least shunted aside with a casual, shallow, smug and incorrect flick of the wrist.
Looks like we have another phobe added to the list of things conservatives are.
Honestly, it bothers me that what appears to be an honest critique of a problem gets dismissed as “Islamophobia.”
I haven’t read this book, although it sounds like an interesting one.
Sorry Pat, I can’t agree. Perhaps I could describe you as center-left. When I (at least – can’t speak for anyone else) talk about lefties, I’m specifically excluding you. Instead I mean people like raj, lester, Ian, GCB – the real conservative-hating, Bush-hating comment trolls who (it seems to me) can’t mount a reasoned or factual argument.
Bruce Bawer’s book is among the books I encourage friends to read. After reading other accounts as well as talking to friends who live in Great Britain, I found Bawer’s book very objective and factual.
It’s a scary book. The night I finished it I had trouble falling asleep.
I’ve been battling the leftists at ThinkProgress , trying to get them to recongize the Jihad (a hopeless cause).
The Left is more interesting in waging war on thier countrymen than they are against a foe they must know in thier hearts is committed to thier destruction.
Europe has proven incapable of assimilating its Muslim population into the general population. Their Govs tries to make special laws while the populace resents that special treatment.
This is the catalyst to their current problem.
America’s immigrant based society has been better at integrating its Muslims.
Thankfully they are now in our Congress and have a say in our government!
So…Good job USA!
Bruce Bawer: another victim.
I still find it interesting that it’s ok to trash Christians, but if you’re critical of Islam, you’re an Islamophobe.
Further, if we have (supposedly) separation of church and state, why are schools teaching Islam and allowing prayer rooms?
I, too, cannot understand a mindset that denounces Christianity at every opportunity, while defending Radical Islam at every opportunity. Both are (generally speaking) homophobic, so that’s not the difference that allows them to denounce one while supporting the other. Christianity abhors murder (including that of unborn children) while Radical Isam embraces murder … so … Is that what they support? That makes no sense. Is it because the Left simply hates “whites” (a distorted picture of what constitutes Christianity to be sure) and will support ANY other race, no matter their actions or ideals?
Don’t lump me in with the Islam-lovers. As an gay atheist, I can’t find much good to say about any religion but Islam has to rank pretty much at the bottom of the barrel. I think there is a real threat from militant Islam but I don’t believe that invading and occupying Muslim countries is a very effective way of combatting that threat. It would be useful, I think, if we actually went after murderous Islamic militants like Osama who so far has got away with his attack on the US. That sure doesn’t send the right message to others who might want to emulate him.
Ian incredibly writes: “It would be useful, I think, if we actually went after murderous Islamic militants like Osama who so far has got away with his attack on the US. That sure doesn’t send the right message to others who might want to emulate him.”
Last fall: “Al Qaeda’s No. 2 operative in Iraq, Hamed Jumaa Al Saeedi, has been arrested, the U.S. military and Iraq’s national security adviser announced Sunday. Al Saeedi, also known as Abu Rana and Abu Humam, is said to be second in command in the terrorist group al Qaeda in Iraq, behind Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Al-Masri succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after he was killed during a U.S. airstrike in June.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/iraq.main/index.html
Post 9-11: “At least one senior al-Qaeda commander, Muhammad Atef, died in the U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan, and another top lieutenant, Abu Zubaydah, was captured in Pakistan in March 2002. In March 2003, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and al-Qaeda’s treasurer, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, were also captured in Pakistan”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/
Last week: “Coalition Forces killed three terrorists and detained 26 suspected terrorists including an al-Qaida in Iraq cell leader during raids Monday morning targeting foreign fighter facilitator and al-Qaida in Iraq networks.”
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9698&Itemid=21
How many citations are needed to dispute your silly claim, Ian. Right, we haven’t “captured” or killed Osama bin Laden… if he is still alive… he’s beating all the odds given his chronic renal failure. I bet he was vaporized a long time ago. Is Mullah Omar still around? Sure. Is he a target of the West and its allies? You bet. Are we killing Al Qaeda terrorists and leaders? Damn straight.
I think rather than do the usual drive-by Democrat stunt, Ian, you ought to reflect a moment on how many al Qaeda operatives have been killed and captured… how the terrorists’ financial organization has been disrupted through the concerted efforts of the West and even allies like France and Saudia Arabia.
In fact, Ian, you have alot to be thankful for in the Bush Administration and the US military… they’ve kept you and those you love safe these last 5 years… to play the “Osama bin Laden isn’t captured yet” card shows how closely aligned you are to the GayLeftBorg and MyDD types.
#14 – Matt, and thus we come across the eternal dilemma of dealing with trolls.
Ian’s comment that you quoted is so demented, so detached from reality, so “typically Ian” that it deserves no response. Why feed the troll? It only encourages it. But on the other hand, good people do have to respond to lies at some point (hopefully before they take over a country, a la Hitlerism), plus, whack-a-troll is fun.
A gay atheist? Really?
Wonder what he yells out during sex?
Regards,
Peter H.
P.S. Matt you did a fine job… and, had you wished, you could easily have also smacked at:
– Ian’s implied insult to our military and CIA people who have been going after bin Ladin. (Ian’s unspoken implication that they don’t exist; or perhaps that Ian could do better.)
– Ian’s seeming ignorance of Pakistani sovereignty.
– Ian’s implied denial of the fact that Islamo-fascism is a broad, dispersed movement of ideology where no one leader is the key. (bin Ladin has had no role in direct operations since the 1990s; KSM directed 9-11.)
– Ian’s implication that our brave troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere aren’t going after “murderous Islamic militants” this minute and sending a much-needed message.
– Ian’s implied pretense that, if Bush had invaded Pakistan and ‘gotten’ bin Ladin (thus starting WW3 against a nuclear-powered ally), Ian wouldn’t now be criticizing that instead.
That’s his MO: say something with half a dozen unspoken implications, every one of them screwed up.
Ian will defend absolutely anything a Democrat does and never give a Republican credit for anything. When someone is so obviously a partisan shill, debating them is pointless.
Anyway, back to Bawer. The reason the left can’t handle Islamo-Fascism is because their worldview is so rigidly dogmatic, it simply can’t accept the existence of brown-skinned minority people who have no interest in, and are indeed hostile to, the progressive secular agenda. It simply does not compute for them.
And, as the saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The left has no other tool than bribing off unhappy minorities with taxpayer-funded welfare. Hence, they believe, as the French do, that the solution to Islamo-fasicsm is to buy off the radicals with grants and welfare. Military defense is off the table because it’s “imperialist.” Securing the homeland physically and culturally is off the table because it’s “racist.”
Meanwhile, in Inane Ian’s backyard, Good-bye minimum wage, hello unemployment line.
You know guys, if we keep calling these spades, spades… pretty soon we’ll have no one here to debate. Remember the days of Mr Moderate, QueerPat, CowBoyBob, raj of the lower case, Gryphon of the lesser case, Anonie-mouse and all the others?
Now they hang out at BlogActive and IndepGay to encourage the other GayLeftBorg assimilators to trash us.
I wonder if they ever will get the notion behind civil discourse and enlightened conversation?
If you can dismiss BB’s book and its premise without reading it, if you can defend the Imperial Jetliner and limo fleet scandal without cracking a smile, if you can write “I support the troops but it’s time to cut & run” and not suffer a severe personality disorder, I guess debate was never in their long game.
Pity all that. They seem content to drive by and snark… like the aging gay leech at the end of the bar giving three snaps to the young bartender when he isn’t looking and while mixing the leech’s 5th pink cosmo… such brave GayLefties when bravery was never in supply.
M-Matt, how’s this for a spin:
“I support Obama but not his mission.”
“I support women but not their right to an abortion.”
“I support gay people but not their right to a recognized civil union.”
Watch libtards freak out if you say any one of them. Then compare it to how they “support the troops but not their mission.”
I call that – CHECKMATE.
Regards,
Peter H.