Our politics in this country have become so tribalized and dichotomized that it's easy to idealize our allies and forget what commonalities we have with those on the "other side of the aisle." Right-wingers vote for right-wingers, even when perhaps a moderate left-winger's ideas are more compatible with their own. Left-wingers vote for other left-wingers, even when the candidate has no chance of winning and there is a perfectly acceptable right-leaning moderate available (see Crist vs Meek vs Rubio in Florida's Senate Election). Admittedly, I am as guilty as anyone of being caught up in the heat of wing-politics on occasion. Recent events, however, are reminding me all the more how dangerous it can be to fall into the trap of groupthink. In the past week, I have found myself in deeply moved, profound agreement with two groups I would not regularly associate with- the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Liberty Caucus, both times in opposition to an Obama Administration I generally support. The two issues at play- the 9th Court of Appeals' overturning of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and the potential legalization of cannabis in California this November, have blurred the lines between right and left and revealed that American politics are far too complex and multi-faceted to be trivialized by a false left-right dichotomy.
Following my exodus to the left two years ago, I, unlike many of my left-leaning comrades, fully embraced the term "liberalism." To this day, when someone asks me about my political views I always say "I'm a liberal"; I never call myself a "progressive" unless someone else categorizes me as such in which case I do not run from the term. After all, liberalism and progressivism have become essentially interchangeable in American political jargon. However, I do not wear the latter as a badge of honor in the same manner that I do the former. For one, progressivism simply does not have the same rich historical and philosophical tradition that liberalism has. It is rather remarkable that the left in this country has allowed the far right to claim ownership of the Founding Fathers' legacy, when the Founders were unanimously "liberals." True, they were "Classical Liberals" rather than "Modern Liberals", but the latter are the ideological descendants of the former. Secondly, cowardly liberals in the Rush Limbaugh-era embraced the title "progressive" as a euphemistic means of running from liberalism and the scorn of right-wing demagogues such as Limbaugh. By responding to the vitriolic propaganda of little more than Top-40 DJ's, left-wing politicians and commentators lend legitimacy to imbeciles like Limbaugh and Hannity, and move the Overton Window farther and farther to the right. However, the recent controversy and reactions to both Proposition 19 to legalize Marijuana in California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in "Log Cabin Republicans v. United States" have led me to believe that perhaps the distinctions between liberals and progressives lie deeper than terminology.
It has long been understood that the "New Right" in American politics, or the ideological coalition that has dominated the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan's Presidency, consists of two camps- traditionalist and libertarian. On economic matters, these two are in near complete agreement in their embrace of laissez-faire free market capitalism (economics are truly the dividing point between left and right). However, social issues present a clear dividing point- traditionalists are authoritarian and zealously religious, whereas libertarians pursue the empowerment of the individual and the abolition of laws forbidding any activity which does not directly harm the society or other individuals. It seems to me in light of the Administration and other "establishment" Democrats' opposition to Prop 19, that there is a similar contrast on the Left. People like President Obama and Senators Boxer and Feinstein (both of whom oppose Prop 19) do not just call themselves 'progressives' to run from liberalism, they call themselves progressives because that's what they are- they are not liberals. Interestingly, the words "liberalism" and "libertarianism" both come from the same Latin root- "liber", which directly translates into "freedom." Both ideologies place a strong emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, and both claim direct descent from Classical Liberalism. One of the few differences, but a big one, is in economics. Libertarians believe that by virtue of our being born into a free society, we each have an equal opportunity to thrive and as such, embrace the concept of "negative liberty", that is, freedom from outside government interference in our economic lives. Conversely, liberals recognize that the private sector can be just as tyrannical as the public sector, and that the forces of the federal government must be employed to protect the poor and middle class from exploitation by the rich (and, in another era, to protect minorities from tyrannical and racist state governments). In other words, liberals, unlike libertarians, believe in "positive liberty"- the freedom TO thrive, and the government's role in extending that freedom to as many people as possible. Their mutual support for positive liberty is what keeps the marriage between progressivism and liberalism alive.
In social issues however, progressives have very different goals from liberals. Progressivism is a society-centered ideology. Progressivism embraces a dynamic and fluid society that is constantly improving and being perfected. In other words, progressives are just as naively trusting of change as traditionalists are of the establishment. At first glance, this would make it seem that progressivism and traditionalism are diametrically opposed to one another, but in fact there have been a few times in history in which the two have worked together- and the results have never been good. Perhaps their most noteworthy mutual accomplishment was the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, better known as "Prohibition", a miserable failure which ended a short (not short enough) 14 years later with the Twenty-First Amendment, the first section of which was terse but effective: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Many progressives (though not all) supported Prohibition because they felt that alcohol consumption was an impediment to mankind's progress, whereas the traditionalists supported Prohibition for mostly religious reasons, and, I suspect, because it was just one more way for them to ruin the fun for the rest of us (I kid, traditionalists). Another area of progressive-traditionalist cooperation was in the arena of early 20th-Century race relations. Of course, the continued disenfranchisement and second-class citizen status of African-Americans was primarily a cause for traditionalist southerners, and the racist element of early progressivism has been far overblown by people like Glenn Beck (I'm not sure whether he is intentionally attempting to distort history, or if he is just ignorant of it- probably a little bit of both) but the silence of early-20th Century progressives on the injustice of segregation and Jim Crow is deafening. To be fair, libertarians also have a pretty poor record on civil rights (see Barry Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Rand Paul's recent criticism of the Act, an act far more alarming and deserving of attention than Christine O'Donnell's history with witchcraft). Liberalism is the only philosophy that has always stood up for equality and civil rights: equal protection of the laws for all groups and all individuals, economic empowerment for all individuals to achieve their potential, the right of all people to the necessities of survival like healthcare and housing, and a federal government strong enough to stand up to state governments and powerful corporations if those institutions are subverting the rights, natural or civil, of groups or individuals. I bring up race not to make traditionalists, libertarians, and progressives feel guilty, but because it perfectly demonstrates where each of those philosophies' values lie:
Traditionalists believe the established order must be maintained at all costs, even if that order is terrible and laced with injustice of the worst sort.
Libertarians believe that the federal government must never intervene in the affairs of state governments or business, even when state governments and business are perpetrating far grosser violations of the principles of freedom than any intrusion by the federal government would constitute.
Progressives believe that societal stability and progress must take precedence before all else, and are only willing to take a stand when it is politically expedient to do so.
History is repeating itself. Today, it is not African-Americans who are being denied equal protection under the law as Progressives watch in inaction or even support, but the LGBT community. Our country's military has operated under the immoral and discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for 17 years now, in gross violation of both our principles as a country and our Constitution, and at last, the Courts have begun to wake up and overturn the policy, thanks to a lawsuit brought by the "Log Cabin Republicans", an organization of Republicans supportive of gay and lesbian rights. For reasons beyond me, the Obama Administration Justice Department under Eric Holder is appealing this decision, essentially fighting to keep discrimination alive. The President himself has acknowledged the wrong and discriminatory character of this policy and has called for its repeal (though he has failed at securing such a repeal), and yet he continues to defend it in court. The time has come, Mr. President. This is about ending a wrong and immoral policy, not how it ends or when it ends. If the Justice Department cooperated with the Court order rather than appealing it, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be dead tomorrow. It seems the progressive tendency to play politics rather than take a stand is alive and well.
The overturning of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not the only current event where the Obama Administration is disappointing to liberals such as myself, however. The establishment in both political parties are fighting tooth-and-nail to defeat Proposition 19 in California, which would legalize recreational Marijuana consumption. Opposition to Prop 19 is a rare area of bipartisanship in this year's highly partisan atmosphere. Opposition to it is shared by Barack Obama, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, Barbara Boxer, and Carly Fiorina all. Eric Holder (once again) has gone so far as to say that even if Prop 19 passes, his department will step up enforcement in California of national laws against marijuana use: "We will vigorously enforce the CSA (Controlled Substances Act) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101015/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice).
Once again, history is repeating itself. These groups once worked together to ban alcohol, and now they are working together to keep in place the impractical and ridiculous ban on cannabis, a substance no more addictive, intoxicating, or unhealthy than alcohol (not that any of that is the government's business in the first place). In addition to using the same tired arguments against marijuana legalization that were once used against alcohol's legality, this time there are also financial interests at play in bringing together such a politically diverse coalition. The alcohol lobby doesn't want marijuana legalized, people might not drink as much alcohol; the tobacco lobby doesn't want marijuana legalized, people might smoke something other than tobacco; even the oil lobby doesn't want marijuana legalized, because that would also open up the potential for biofuel made from the oils in hemp (which is also currently illegal, however ridiculous that is). So, in short, the establishment in both of our parties are siding with their campaign's bank accounts and the special interests that fund them, rather than the treasury fund of California and the United States, both of which would be greatly helped by the tax revenue legalized cannabis would surely generate. This must be a critical area of cooperation between liberals and libertarians, and it is already starting to materialize. Surely, the coalition for passage of Prop 19 is just as diverse as the coalition that opposes it- Prop 19 has been endorsed by such disparate forces as the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Green Party of California, the Libertarian Party of the United States, and the Democratic Party of LA, San Francisco, and Santa Barbera counties.
The moment has come for Liberalism. We must come out from the shadows of the Democratic Party and make ourselves heard. We must also fashion ourselves an independent identity distinct from progressivism, though in cooperation with both progressives and libertarians on those issues in which we agree with them. Say what you will about the Tea Party movement (and I have said plenty), but it has accomplished one good thing- it has upset the balance of power in the Republican Party and given the libertarians within that party a greater voice. Likewise, I would quite like to see something like the Tea Party movement materialize on behalf of liberalism- not at all as angry or intolerant of dissent, but just as expressive and politically relevant. After all, weren't liberals behind the original "Tea Party"?
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Fatal Distraction
Hope and change was in the air. It felt like a thunderous paradigm shift was taking place in American politics and John F. Kennedy's proclamation 48 years earlier was ringing true once again, "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans!"
The 2008 election of Barack Obama really did have a feeling of awe and mysticism about it, particularly for my generation, whose "political coming-out party" it was supposed to be. Now here we are, just 2 short years later, the Tea Party's screams of socialism having drowned out the chants of "Yes We Can!", young people nowhere to be found, and a new, far more radical Republican Party poised to perhaps take back the House just 4 years after having lost it, and to gain several seats back in the Senate. It's almost beyond belief. How did we as Americans go from such happiness and optimism in 2008 to such anger and pessimism in 2010? How did the Party of Bush orchestrate such a remarkable recovery within 2 years of W's leaving office? There is plenty of blame to go around but, as much as it pains me to say it, the responsibility for the negativity in 2010 rests primarily on the shoulders of the same man who was responsible for the positivity in 2008- President Barack Obama, and his well-intentioned but poorly-scheduled Healthcare Bill that destroyed his popularity, distracted his administration from recovering the economy (always the key to political credibility), and mobilized his opponents.
Let me be clear- I supported the President's proposals for Healthcare Reform and was quite happy when they passed. If I had my druthers, our country would adopt a single-payer system like that of every other industrialized country in the world, but I understand the necessity of compromise and pragmatism and think the bills passed in March were a good start. Having said that, I now regard the Healthcare Reform passed this Spring as a good thing at a very bad time. As aforementioned, economic prosperity is absolutely key to political credibility. After the passage of the Stimulus Plan, overwhelmingly endorsed by the economic community, Obama held this credibility, only to spend it immediately on the razor-thin passage of a Healthcare Bill that was utterly watered down by people who didn't end up voting for it anyway. While the President and the country had all eyes on Healthcare however, the Stimulus coffers ran out- and the economy was still not recovered.
Quite recently, two very different definitions of what constitutes a 'Recession' were put on display by the Bureau of Economic Research and billionaire investor Warren Buffett, respectively. Last Monday, the Bureau of Economic Research (which is typically regarded as the authoritative voice on these matters) announced that the U.S. did get out of recession, by their definition which sees a recession as "a significant decline in [the] economic activity spread across the country", in June of last year. In an interview with CNBC Thursday, Mr. Buffett disagreed, saying that he regards a recession as not being over until "real per capita gross domestic product returns to its pre-downturn level."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2314652920100923
Thus, by the Bureau of Economic Research's definition, Obama succeeded at getting the country out of recession as he intended. Unfortunately for the President, most people's definition of recession falls far more in line with Mr. Buffett's- and to break out of a recession by that definition would have required far more spending than the Stimulus passed last Spring authorized. Wouldn't it be nice if, in a perfect world, the President could propose doing what is right for the country and have it passed lickity split? Instead, the rules of modern politics required the Republican Party to denounce fiscal stimulus (which, by the way, was the same way that Ronald Reagan and Congressional Democrats steered the country out of the early-80's recession. Taxes went down and spending went up in Reagan's tenure, the very definition of fiscal stimulus). Now, the Republicans having succeeded at turning public opinion against him (in large part due to the Healthcare Debate), the President is afraid even to propose a 'second stimulus', sure that the Republicans will stick to their guns (I speak metaphorically, though a literal interpretation would probably be accurate as well) at opposing the concept of fiscal stimulation of the economy.
Had President Obama, upon passing the first Stimulus, stayed away from any other major initiatives until the economy was recovered, he would have retained his political popularity, the Republicans would have maintained the image of obstructionist Bushites who got us into this mess in the first place, and he would have been able to easily pass a Second Stimulus as needed. With the additional stimulus, the economy almost certainly would have recovered by now, making the President and, by extension, Congressional Democrats, more popular- and leading to what could have been another Democratic year this election cycle, giving Pelosi and Reid the votes necessary to pass real Healthcare Reform, including the Public Option and maybe even Single-Payer. Instead, we have a big Republican election victory on the horizon, the possible onset of a Depression as a result of the GOP's increasingly lunatic economic policies, and a half-hearted Healthcare Bill (which Insurance Companies are already finding ways to get around- http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921) that served to do little more than create a fatal distraction for an administration elected with a mandate to fix the economy first, and do all else second.
The 2008 election of Barack Obama really did have a feeling of awe and mysticism about it, particularly for my generation, whose "political coming-out party" it was supposed to be. Now here we are, just 2 short years later, the Tea Party's screams of socialism having drowned out the chants of "Yes We Can!", young people nowhere to be found, and a new, far more radical Republican Party poised to perhaps take back the House just 4 years after having lost it, and to gain several seats back in the Senate. It's almost beyond belief. How did we as Americans go from such happiness and optimism in 2008 to such anger and pessimism in 2010? How did the Party of Bush orchestrate such a remarkable recovery within 2 years of W's leaving office? There is plenty of blame to go around but, as much as it pains me to say it, the responsibility for the negativity in 2010 rests primarily on the shoulders of the same man who was responsible for the positivity in 2008- President Barack Obama, and his well-intentioned but poorly-scheduled Healthcare Bill that destroyed his popularity, distracted his administration from recovering the economy (always the key to political credibility), and mobilized his opponents.
Let me be clear- I supported the President's proposals for Healthcare Reform and was quite happy when they passed. If I had my druthers, our country would adopt a single-payer system like that of every other industrialized country in the world, but I understand the necessity of compromise and pragmatism and think the bills passed in March were a good start. Having said that, I now regard the Healthcare Reform passed this Spring as a good thing at a very bad time. As aforementioned, economic prosperity is absolutely key to political credibility. After the passage of the Stimulus Plan, overwhelmingly endorsed by the economic community, Obama held this credibility, only to spend it immediately on the razor-thin passage of a Healthcare Bill that was utterly watered down by people who didn't end up voting for it anyway. While the President and the country had all eyes on Healthcare however, the Stimulus coffers ran out- and the economy was still not recovered.
Quite recently, two very different definitions of what constitutes a 'Recession' were put on display by the Bureau of Economic Research and billionaire investor Warren Buffett, respectively. Last Monday, the Bureau of Economic Research (which is typically regarded as the authoritative voice on these matters) announced that the U.S. did get out of recession, by their definition which sees a recession as "a significant decline in [the] economic activity spread across the country", in June of last year. In an interview with CNBC Thursday, Mr. Buffett disagreed, saying that he regards a recession as not being over until "real per capita gross domestic product returns to its pre-downturn level."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2314652920100923
Thus, by the Bureau of Economic Research's definition, Obama succeeded at getting the country out of recession as he intended. Unfortunately for the President, most people's definition of recession falls far more in line with Mr. Buffett's- and to break out of a recession by that definition would have required far more spending than the Stimulus passed last Spring authorized. Wouldn't it be nice if, in a perfect world, the President could propose doing what is right for the country and have it passed lickity split? Instead, the rules of modern politics required the Republican Party to denounce fiscal stimulus (which, by the way, was the same way that Ronald Reagan and Congressional Democrats steered the country out of the early-80's recession. Taxes went down and spending went up in Reagan's tenure, the very definition of fiscal stimulus). Now, the Republicans having succeeded at turning public opinion against him (in large part due to the Healthcare Debate), the President is afraid even to propose a 'second stimulus', sure that the Republicans will stick to their guns (I speak metaphorically, though a literal interpretation would probably be accurate as well) at opposing the concept of fiscal stimulation of the economy.
Had President Obama, upon passing the first Stimulus, stayed away from any other major initiatives until the economy was recovered, he would have retained his political popularity, the Republicans would have maintained the image of obstructionist Bushites who got us into this mess in the first place, and he would have been able to easily pass a Second Stimulus as needed. With the additional stimulus, the economy almost certainly would have recovered by now, making the President and, by extension, Congressional Democrats, more popular- and leading to what could have been another Democratic year this election cycle, giving Pelosi and Reid the votes necessary to pass real Healthcare Reform, including the Public Option and maybe even Single-Payer. Instead, we have a big Republican election victory on the horizon, the possible onset of a Depression as a result of the GOP's increasingly lunatic economic policies, and a half-hearted Healthcare Bill (which Insurance Companies are already finding ways to get around- http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921) that served to do little more than create a fatal distraction for an administration elected with a mandate to fix the economy first, and do all else second.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Mosque Ado About Nothing
It is no coincidence that I happened to begin writing this blog at the height of the controversy surrounding what I regard to be one of the most ridiculous "news" stories in years. I speak of course of the controversy surrounding the dreaded "Ground Zero mosque" which is, in fact, not a mosque, and not at Ground Zero (I guess "the Islamic Community Center in Lower Manhattan" didn't have the same ring to it...). The controversy surrounding the proposed community center is one of the latest stories in a growing trend towards intolerance and misinformation in this country that has caused me great concern and heartache. As I mentioned in my first posting, I have always loved politics. More or less, I have also always had a great trust in the ultimate wisdom of the American people, even if I at times disagreed with their selection of leaders or opinions in polls. Recent developments however, including but not limited to the controversy surrounding the Community Center, a no-name pastor from Florida becoming national news for threatening to burn the Quran, and polls showing a substantial portion of the American population either not knowing President Obama's religious affiliation or thinking that he is a Muslim, have threatened to make me far more jaded about politics and doubtful of the American people's discernment (the last one in particular is astounding- did we not have a long, ridiculously drawn out national dialogue during the election over Obama's radical, fire-and-brimstone CHRISTIAN pastor?).
As detestable as all of these things are to me, I hesitate to categorize all of the above grievances under the label "Islamophobia" as so many of my concerned fellow Americans have. Okay, Pastor Jones in Florida certainly is deserving of the term (perhaps just generally ignorant and xenophobic would be better descriptions though), but as disappointed as I am in the majority of the American people, both for their ambivalence about Obama's religion and their opposition to the Mosque, I refuse to believe that the majority of my countrymen are 'Islamophobic.' Moreover, there are certain elements of Islam as it is practiced today not only by the radicals but by a substantial portion of its adherents that it is entirely rational to be weary of as a member of civilized, secular, Western society. The suffix 'phobic' suggests that a fear of something is irrational (which, in the case of Jones and others like him, it is), but I think it is perfectly rational for someone to be concerned about, among other things, the veiling of women, intolerance of homosexuals (to be fair, Islam shares that one with Christianity, though not in the same degree), and a consistently violent response to anything perceived as blasphemous to their religion or its founder. Many of the same critics of Americans who oppose the proposed 'Cordoba House', today cited the French legislature's decision to ban women from wearing the full Burqa (veil covering a woman's entire face but her eyes) in public as another example in a long line of Western Islamophobia:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100915/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_forbidding_the_veil
While I do regard opposition to the community center as silly and ridiculously hypersensitive, I believe that the French legislature's decision to ban the burqa for reasons both legal and cultural was a fair one. It is, in fact, consistent with reforms instituted nearly a century ago in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal (lauded by Turks everywhere as 'Atatürk' meaning "Father of the Turks"). In the wake of the dissolution of the old Ottoman Empire (the power center of the Islamic world at that time) at the end of the First World War, "Atatürk" fashioned a modern, Westernized, secular democratic republic out of the rubble of the old Empire. Among his reforms were the enfranchisement of women, the abolition of Islam as the official "state religion", the separation of church and state, complete freedom of religion, and, yes, banning the wearing of the burqa. Not only does Atatürk's example prove wrong the claim of some on the right that Islam is incapable of modernization and an Enlightenment comparable to that experienced by Christendom in the 18th Century and Shinto Japan following World War II, but it also proves wrong the gross exaggerations of the West's intolerance by Islamic apologists.
It seems that between the right-wing's race to condemn Islam (or, as Sarah Palin would say, "refudiate" it), and the left-wing's race to defend it, reason and clear-thinking is all but lost. Yes, Islam in its purest form has some aspects intrinsic to it which are contradictory to modernity and civilization- but so do all religions when they attempt to go beyond the realm of personal decisions by individual adherents into forcing their precepts on the population at large. Therein lies the problem with contemporary Islam- the insistence by many of its adherents, perhaps even the majority, that it be not just a religious ideology but a political one; as well as the tendency for the hardliners to threaten violence whenever they perceive blasphemy, and the majority of Muslims to either consent or stay silent about it. There can be some parallels drawn between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists, but the simple fact is that if a whack-job Imam publicly planned to burn the Bible, a great many Christians would be terribly upset and offended, but there would likely be very few, if any, threats of violence. This is a sad reflection on mainstream Islam as it exists today, but I have great hope for its future. I go to school here at the University of Texas with a great many Muslims every bit as modern and American as I am. They value their religion in their personal lives, but do not seek to implement its teachings at the political level. When we as a country protest the building of a Community Center by one of their more moderate leaders (Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is no Atatürk, but he is a step in the right direction) because it is the general vicinity of the site of an atrocity perpetrated by someone whose ideology has no resemblance to his or theirs, we draw an unnecessary line in the sand that threatens to lose a great many young, bright, patriotic Muslims. In this sense, perhaps the controversy surrounding the proposed Cordoba Center is in fact not "Mosque Ado About Nothing", but "Mosque Ado About Something", for the symbolic importance it has attained in the ongoing modernization of mainstream Islam.
As detestable as all of these things are to me, I hesitate to categorize all of the above grievances under the label "Islamophobia" as so many of my concerned fellow Americans have. Okay, Pastor Jones in Florida certainly is deserving of the term (perhaps just generally ignorant and xenophobic would be better descriptions though), but as disappointed as I am in the majority of the American people, both for their ambivalence about Obama's religion and their opposition to the Mosque, I refuse to believe that the majority of my countrymen are 'Islamophobic.' Moreover, there are certain elements of Islam as it is practiced today not only by the radicals but by a substantial portion of its adherents that it is entirely rational to be weary of as a member of civilized, secular, Western society. The suffix 'phobic' suggests that a fear of something is irrational (which, in the case of Jones and others like him, it is), but I think it is perfectly rational for someone to be concerned about, among other things, the veiling of women, intolerance of homosexuals (to be fair, Islam shares that one with Christianity, though not in the same degree), and a consistently violent response to anything perceived as blasphemous to their religion or its founder. Many of the same critics of Americans who oppose the proposed 'Cordoba House', today cited the French legislature's decision to ban women from wearing the full Burqa (veil covering a woman's entire face but her eyes) in public as another example in a long line of Western Islamophobia:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100915/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_forbidding_the_veil
While I do regard opposition to the community center as silly and ridiculously hypersensitive, I believe that the French legislature's decision to ban the burqa for reasons both legal and cultural was a fair one. It is, in fact, consistent with reforms instituted nearly a century ago in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal (lauded by Turks everywhere as 'Atatürk' meaning "Father of the Turks"). In the wake of the dissolution of the old Ottoman Empire (the power center of the Islamic world at that time) at the end of the First World War, "Atatürk" fashioned a modern, Westernized, secular democratic republic out of the rubble of the old Empire. Among his reforms were the enfranchisement of women, the abolition of Islam as the official "state religion", the separation of church and state, complete freedom of religion, and, yes, banning the wearing of the burqa. Not only does Atatürk's example prove wrong the claim of some on the right that Islam is incapable of modernization and an Enlightenment comparable to that experienced by Christendom in the 18th Century and Shinto Japan following World War II, but it also proves wrong the gross exaggerations of the West's intolerance by Islamic apologists.
It seems that between the right-wing's race to condemn Islam (or, as Sarah Palin would say, "refudiate" it), and the left-wing's race to defend it, reason and clear-thinking is all but lost. Yes, Islam in its purest form has some aspects intrinsic to it which are contradictory to modernity and civilization- but so do all religions when they attempt to go beyond the realm of personal decisions by individual adherents into forcing their precepts on the population at large. Therein lies the problem with contemporary Islam- the insistence by many of its adherents, perhaps even the majority, that it be not just a religious ideology but a political one; as well as the tendency for the hardliners to threaten violence whenever they perceive blasphemy, and the majority of Muslims to either consent or stay silent about it. There can be some parallels drawn between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists, but the simple fact is that if a whack-job Imam publicly planned to burn the Bible, a great many Christians would be terribly upset and offended, but there would likely be very few, if any, threats of violence. This is a sad reflection on mainstream Islam as it exists today, but I have great hope for its future. I go to school here at the University of Texas with a great many Muslims every bit as modern and American as I am. They value their religion in their personal lives, but do not seek to implement its teachings at the political level. When we as a country protest the building of a Community Center by one of their more moderate leaders (Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is no Atatürk, but he is a step in the right direction) because it is the general vicinity of the site of an atrocity perpetrated by someone whose ideology has no resemblance to his or theirs, we draw an unnecessary line in the sand that threatens to lose a great many young, bright, patriotic Muslims. In this sense, perhaps the controversy surrounding the proposed Cordoba Center is in fact not "Mosque Ado About Nothing", but "Mosque Ado About Something", for the symbolic importance it has attained in the ongoing modernization of mainstream Islam.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Introductions
Greetings blogosphere! My name is Joey Sorenson and I am an 18-year old student at the University of Texas at Austin, majoring in Government and History. Since childhood, I have had an intense, even unusual, interest in politics. While my political views have changed wildly over the years, my passion for politics has remained a constant throughout every phase and every age of my life. Raised in West Texas, I was a staunchly conservative Republican until 2008, when disappointment with George W. Bush, the onset of the 'Great Recession', hope and optimism for the candidacy of Barack Obama, and disillusionment with John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as running-mate pushed me farther and farther to the left. Today, I consider myself a liberal Democrat. This is not to say, however, that I am a blind ideologue. Labels have some value- they create cohesion and organization, allowing citizens to have a greater say in their government by syncing their voices with those of like-minded others. However, we must not allow our enthusiasm for joining forces with certain parties or ideologies to blind us to "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party" which George Washington warned the nation against as he left office ten score and 14 years ago:
Could you imagine any politician today speaking with such eloquence or humility? It seems that "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party" are alive and well. Rarely has our country seen the levels of anger, partisanship, and demagoguery permeating the halls of our Congress today. While I claim party membership, I am not a slave to it. Before all else, I consider myself a reasonable person, and an American- not because of an excessive pride in geography or national descendance, but because I agree so strongly with the ideals on which the country was founded and, at it's best, has operated. In this blog, I hope to apply my interpretation of those ideals to current affairs, and in so doing, perhaps give voice to those in my Generation who feel disillusioned about politics after years of being called spoiled good-for-nothing brats by the right, and apathetic and self-centered by the left. I certainly am not claiming to speak for all of the members of my Generation, but I do hope that I can give a public voice to what many of them are feeling. Just because we don't yell, doesn't mean we don't care. We "don't need to fight to prove" we're "right." We "don't need to be forgiven."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)