Cole in Salon: "Blowback from the GOP's Holy War'
My Salon column is out: Blowback from the GOP's holy war:
The 2008 Republican race has left a bitter legacy of sloganeering against Muslims. It may well haunt the party this November.
Excerpt:
'Giuliani complained that during their debates, Democratic rivals "never mentioned the word 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamic extremist,' 'Islamic fascist,' 'terrorist,' whatever combination of those words you want to use, [the] words never came up." He added, "I can't imagine who you insult if you say 'Islamic terrorist.' You don't insult anyone who is Islamic who isn't a terrorist."
But people are not "Islamic," they are Muslim. And one most certainly does insult Muslims by tying their religion to movements such as terrorism or fascism. Muslims perceive a double standard in this regard: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols would never be called "Christian terrorists" even though they were in close contact with the Christian Identity Movement. No one would speak of Christofascism or Judeofascism as the Republican candidates speak of Islamofascism. Muslims point out that persons of Christian heritage invented fascism, not Muslims, and deny that Muslim movements have any link to the mass politics of the 1930s in Europe.
Giuliani's pledge to take the United States on an offensive against Islamic fascism, which he also said would be a long-term battle, failed to excite the imagination of voters. It may well have alarmed them in a way different from what Giuliani intended: If, by Giuliani's logic, the United States is only on the "defensive" now, with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, what would being on the offensive look like? Would Giuliani have started four wars? Interestingly, Giuliani did especially poorly in Florida among retired and active-duty military personnel. '
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/01/2008 12:32:00 AM
|
Facebook
16 Comments:
The insistent use of the word "islamofascism" is, in my view, a typical GOP ploy of accusing the opponent of doing what you are doing. Are you attempting to steal elections? Accuse the Dems of doing it. Are you governing in an increasingly fascistic style? Accuse the Muslims of it.
Fascism is not primarily religious. It can make use of religious fervor, though it is more prone to make use of nationalist fervor, or to blend the two.
As a word, Islamofascism is like enginechlorophyll, perhaps, or catfeathers...
The question is who coined those terms? And why? I suspect it was somebody with a palpable design about the rest of us, somebody who wants to "frame the Middle Eastern argument". Someone who's not playing a straight bat vis-a-vis the various actors there. Someone who sees the world the way Richard Perle sees it. Or Mayrev Wurmser. Or Douglas Feith. Or Paul Wolfowitz. Or any of the rest of those dark actors - to borrow David Kelly's phrase - at the AEI.
I just finished reading Chris Hedges' book, "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," Free Press, 2006. Very well written and documented. His main point is that many of the leaders of the Christian Right want to end democracy in the US and replace it with a theocracy based on fear, where they would rule (as do the ayatollahs in Iran). The US would then "liberate" the world for Christ by overthrowing Islamic governments, etc. These self-designated "leaders" are a much more dangerous threat to the survival of our republic than all the Muslims in the world.
I believe the use of "Islamo-(insert idiotic -ism here)" does two things:
1 - It supports the terrorist's cause(s) by tying some religion and/or some form of "holiness" to their action(s)
2 - It supports the terrorist's cause(s) by inflaming the anti-American attitude that has become a pandemic under Duhhbya's Dogma.
So, the "Islamo-(insert idiotic -ism here)" groups of the world are grateful for the continuing suport from George, his minions and the bobble-headed, teleprompter-reading, ball-chasing puppies of the MSM.
Goooood Puhhh-peees!
Interestingly enough, Arab-Americans, who usually vote Republican, are turning towards the Democrats in this year's election. I think this is just one more thing to be said for Barack Hussein Obama, who once said that the Azaan is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." Check out this link: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/549DEAFE-5BFB-4C30-8A54-3CAB48F18BC8.htm
Giuliani's foreign policy advisors include longtime Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz and other neoconservatives, so Giuliani's anti-Arab, anti-Moslem obsessions are not surprising. Giuliani flopped catastrophically among Republican primary voters, spending $40M to get only one delegate.
A sidelight on Giuliani's frame of reference: in his endorsement of McCain he described him as "the most qualified candidate to be the commander-in-chief of the United States".
I haven't seen or heard any media mentions of this conflating of the position of president of the US with that of commander-in-chief of the US military forces.
This is another indication that the answer to your question "would Giuliani have started four wars?" is "sure, why not?"
Many radio news sources are attributing the bombing in Baghdad today to two women with "Down's Syndrome" yet there is no credible source for this claim. The NYTimes (apparently where the radio news sources are getting their information) actually wrote:
"Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem al-Ezzi, a senior officer in the Ministry of Interior police commandos, said officials at the Ghazil market had scrutinized the suicide bomber’s head and concluded that she had Downs Syndrome. However Iraqi officials have made similar claims in the past, and other witnesses said her head could have been distorted by the blast."
A minor, and entirely unsubstantive, cavil.
Tom Tomorrow was given the ability to link directly to his own Salon content by Salon's editors, bypassing the advert or subscribe firewall that they have. Perhaps you could ask for the same. I don't go to Salon because I won't subscribe and their advertising frequently shows me the ad and then still refuses to let me into the site, which is entirely frustrating.
Rojo, my dear friend, I respectfully disagree.
First of all, we sit through ads all the time, even at the movies now, so sitting through an ad seems a small thing. You could even get up and leave till it is over.
But actually I'd urge you to subscribe. Given the consistently high-quality content from Conason, Greenwald, Kamiya and the others, the subscription price of like 4 cups of latte at a pricey coffee shop per year is a steal.
Finally, Salon does pay me and publishes me regularly; similar offers have not come frequently from the MSM, so I'd urge my readers to reward Salon for being progressive in this way. Content on the web will only flourish if it develops a business model, and Salon is virtually the only one who has done so successfully.
cheers
Juan
Rojo :
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/01/6785/
Common Dreams has much better formatting than Salon as well. You have to wait a day or so, but Juan Cole's articles, if not timeless, don't go stale at the rate that the trash from the MSM does.
As regards the article itself, the propaganda routine on the part of the Neocon far-right is not surprising, nor is the MSM's uncritical megaphone for it.
What is surprising is the number of Americans willing to swallow what ALL of us know to be swill out of fear, and our concomitant willingness to be herded into a phalanx engendered by fear. To vote for McCain, or Clinton-Obama.
We all know what is happening yet we go along with it.
We are responsible for the actions of our government. Although its been stolen its been stolen "fair and square", in broad daylight with the shades rolled up. In plain view.
We are truly an unexceptional people.
We're just like the Germans who bore up under the Third Reich. Just like the Romans who laughed at the tame slaughter in the coliseum, cheering and clamoring for more blood and more bread.
Dr. Cole
The problem with Salon is not ads or subscription.
It is that they don't allow you to visit their site without
having cookie enabled even for their blog site which
is ridiculous. It is easy for them to show an ad
and transfer to the article without trying to track me.
Roja, it must be probably with your computer or the software- I had a similar problem previously.
-MJ
http://bayesianheresy.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the article. Reading it on Common Dreams, I noticed a typo in paragraph 14.
The "no religious test clause" is in Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution...not in Article IV.
Thanks again.
Dear Anonymous@0948,
I believe that Mr. Stephen Suleiman Ahmad Schwartz claims to have invented "Islamofascism" as an English word, following in the path of some Croat or Bosniak or other südmitteleuropäisch polemicist whose name meant nothing to me. In addition to the article linked to, SSAS wrote another with more details about the coinage that I cannot find right off. Originally the prime target was the Wahhábiyya or extreme salafiyya, but by the time he wrote the WS article, he had resigned himself to defending more or less the vulgar wingnut sense.
The question is who coined those terms? And why? I suspect it was somebody with a palpable design about the rest of us, somebody who wants to "frame the Middle Eastern argument". Someone who's not playing a straight bat vis-a-vis the various actors there.
I'd start by asking the pragmatic question instead: what would happen if the various ideological bands who march in the streets yelling that slogan took complete control?
Not a hard question. The point of barking and bellowing about "Islamofascism" is to make sure that peace does not suddenly break out on the Eastern front. Period.
That's what they consciously have in mind when they shout, of course. One could offer a functional analysis instead or in addition, treating "Islamofascism" as a sort of verbal tattoo or bumper sticker that members of the Kiddie Krusader tribe use to recognize one another.
The word's definition, denotation as opposed to connotation, comes in a bad third, I think.
Schwartz explains at length what the tribal yell "Islamofascism" is supposed to mean, that is, how its dictionary definition ought to read. It would be interesting to see if a neutral observer could figure out what word he's talking about given the pertinent passages from his article with a few tell-tale bits blacked out: ... demands expansion of XXXXX spheres of influence ... seeks control over all XXXXX projects itself as an ally XXXXX in establishing regional dominance ... imposing a strict division between [US] and [THEM] .... .
Golly, that could be pretty well anybody this side of Mahatma Gandhi. Why, it could even be . . . !!!)
I share your hope that America has lost interest in leaders who make fear of Muslim terror bogeymen our first priority and want to whip the country up for some more holy wars. That said, I find your reasoning a little hard to follow. There is a difference between McVeigh and Nichols, who have, as you say “close contact” with the CIM and some other terrorists. Equating these situations seems suspect. Terrorists who see their murders as part of their holy duties in service of Allah or Islam or whatever it is, who martyr themselves and expect to see their pictures plastered on walls by their post-mortem holy PR purveyors as they watch from a bed with 72 virgins in the afterlife, well, it seems to me they could quite fairly be described as Muslim terrorists. If someone walks into an abortion clinic and blows themselves up in service of Christ, well, Christian terrorists would be a fair description.
Putting aside the term Islamofascism and it’s use by the Podohertzes of the world, I’m curious what you think about Buruma’s views of fascist influence on Middle Eastern thought of today.
Post a Comment
<< Home