Oct. 17, 2007

Be Aware (Beware)

Not all Islamophobes are fanatics. Most, on the contrary, are decent people who just want to live in peace. Islamophobia forms only part of their identity. They grew up fearing Islam, and they still worry about it from time to time, especially during holidays and on certain anniversaries; but many would confess to doubt about just how Islamophobic they feel deep down inside. They may find themselves wondering, for example, if the Koran is really that much more bloodthirsty than the Jewish scriptures (Joshua 6 is plenty murderous) or the Christian (Matthew 10:34 is not exactly comforting).

Unfortunately a handful of troublemakers thrive among them, parasitically. They spew out hatred through Web sites. They seek to silence their critics, and to recruit impressionable young people. Perhaps it is unfair to confuse matters through calling the moderates and the militants by the same name. It would be more fitting to say that the latter are really Islamophobofascists.

Some might find the expression offensive. That is too bad. If we don’t resist Islamophobofascism now, its intolerance can only spread. And we all know who benefits from that. One name in particular comes to mind. It belongs to a fellow who is now presumably living in a cave, drawing up long-term plans for a clash of civilizations.....

Maybe I had better trim the satirical sails before going totally out to sea. As neologisms go, “Islamophobofascism” probably sounds even more stupid than the term it mocks. But there is a point to it.

“Islamofascism” is a noxious and counterproductive term — a bludgeon disguised as an idea. Its use comes at a cost, even beyond the obvious one that goes with making people dumber. “Islamofascism” is the preferred term of those who don’t see any distinction between Al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, and the Baathists. Guess what? They are different, which might just have been worth understanding a few years ago. (Better late than never, maybe; but not a whole lot better.)

The more serious consequence, over the long term, is that of offering deliberate insult to those Muslims who would be put to the sword under the reign of Jihadi fundamentalists. Disgust for cheap stunts done in the name of “Islamofascism awareness” is not a matter of doubting that the jihadis mean what they say. On the contrary, it goes with taking them seriously as enemies.

It should not be necessary to qualify that last point. Somebody who wants to kill you is your enemy, whether you care to think in such terms or not; and the followers of Bin Laden, while subtle on some matters, have a least not been shy about letting us know what methods they consider permissible in pursuit of their ends. The jihadis mean it. Recognizing this is not a matter of Islamophobia; it is a matter of paying attention.

And paying attention means, in this case, recognizing that most Muslims are not our enemies. It is disgraceful to have to spell that out. But let’s be clear about something: The jihadis are not our only problem. As anyone from abroad who likes and respects Americans will probably tell you, we tend to be our own worst enemy.

There is a strain of nativism, xenophobia, and small-mindedness in American life that is always there — often subdued, but never too far out of earshot. To call this our fascist streak would be absurdly melodramatic. Fascism proper was, above all, purposeful and orderly, while fear and loathing towards the “un-American” is often enough the woolliest form of baffled resentment: the effect of comfortable ignorance turning sour at any demand on its meager resources of attention and sympathy.

This quality can subsist for long periods in a dormant or distracted state — expressing itself in muttering or small-scale acts of hostility, but nothing large-scale. Perhaps it is restrained by the better angels of our nature.

But it means that the unscrupulous and the obtuse have a ready supply of raw material to mold into something vile when the occasion becomes available, or if there is some profit in it. H.L. Mencken explained that a demagogue is “one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” The problem with this definition, of course, is that it is the product of a simpler era and so not nearly cynical enough. For a demagogue now, truth and knowledge have nothing to do with it.

For the really suave expression of Islamophobofascism, however, no local sideshow can compete with an interview that the British novelist Martin Amis gave last year. At the highest stages of cosmopolitan literary influence, it seems, one may express ideas worthy of a manic loon phoning a radio talk-show and get them published in the London Times.

“There’s a definite urge — don’t you have it? — to say, ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order,’ ” Amis said. “What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportation — further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan.… Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children.”

The cultural theorist Terry Eagleton issued a response to Amis in the preface to a new edition of his book “Ideology: An Introduction” — first published in 1991 by Verso, which reissued it a few weeks ago. It stirred up a tiny tempest in the British press, which reduced the argument to the dimensions of a clash between two “bad boys” (albeit ones grown quite long in the tooth).

Quickly mounting to impressive heights of inanity, the coverage and commentary managed somehow to ignore the actual substance of the dispute: what Amis said (his explicit call to persecute all Muslims until they acted right) and how Eagleton responded.

“Joseph Stalin seems not to be Amis’s favorite historical character,” wrote Eagleton, alluding to the novelist’s Koba the Dread, a venture into Soviet political history published a while back. “Yet there is a good dose of Stalinism in the current right-wing notion that a spot of rough stuff may be justified by the end in view. Not just roughing up actual or intending criminals, mind, but the calculated harassment of a whole population. Amis is not recommending such tactics for criminals or suspects only; he is recommending them as a way of humiliating and insulting certain kinds of men and women at random, so they will return home and teach their children to be nice to the White Man. There seems to be something mildly defective about this logic.”

Eagleton’s introduction doesn’t underestimate the virulence of the jihadists. But his remarks do at least have the good sense to acknowledge that humiliation is a weapon that will not work in the long run. (As an aside, let me note that some of us don’t have the luxury of either ignoring terrorism or regarding it as something that will be abated by a more aggressive posture in the world. Life in Washington, D.C., for the past several years has meant rarely getting on the subway without wondering if this might be the day. The “surge” did not reduce the faint background radiation of dread one little bit. Funny how these thing work out, or don’t.)

Anybody with an ounce of brains and responsibility can tell that fostering an environment of hysteria is useful only to one side of this conflict.“The best way to preserve one’s values,” writes Eagleton, “is to practice them.” Well said; and worth keeping in mind whenever the Islamophobofascists start to rush about, trying to drum up some business.

We shouldn’t regard them as just nuisances. They are something much more dangerous. Determined to turn the whole world against us, they act as sleeper cells of malice and stupidity. There are sober ways to respond to danger, and insane ways. It is the demagogue’s stock in trade to blur the distinction.

Scott McLemee writes Intellectual Affairs each week. He also blogs at Quick Study.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

So the sole concrete example given of this American tendency to small-mindedness, xenophobia, manifesting itself as pernicious Islamofascophobia is. . . Martin Amis? I object on geographic grounds.

Is it too much to ask that McLemee give us a single solitary example of what he’s talking about? He seems to be going after David Horowitz. But among Mr. Horowitz’s faults and virtues, I do not find reticence. How about McLemee tells us what Horowitz says that he finds so wrong-headed?

Dave Stone, at 7:45 am EDT on October 17, 2007

The fellow in the cave....

Lovely piece, Scott. I know that I, for one, will never see the name David Horowitz again without thinking, “oh yes, the cave man.”

Maurice Isserman, at 7:55 am EDT on October 17, 2007

Ain’t this America?

Scott, I used to live in D.C. (Foggy Bottom) and am also dismayed about the post-9/11 changes in D.C. (no more car-driving past the White House).

And, yes, your literary target is quite a bomb-thrower. As the Nixon Administration, Kennedys, Fords, and Rockefellers discovered.

In that vein — I’m always amused by those who naively opine, “well in (England, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, et al.), this (X, Y, Z) is so much better, so Americans should do like them.”

Right. This is America. Where even pet stores can get death threats —

http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/3...080_4044_b941_cec226782721__ER:11495

Having been in Chinatown on 9/11/2001 and 2/26/93, and remembering the U.S.S. Cole, Marine barracks bombing, two embassy bombings, an estimated 4,000 homosexuals murdered in Iran, Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, and watching taxi drivers at the Minneapolis airport act like would-be emperors — I’m not idly standing by.

George Will indicated this: the U.S. is now embattled as Israel is. Tight security everywhere. Not happy circumstance — just necessary.

BTW: the intent of this little aside — ” .. The “surge” did not reduce the faint background radiation of dread one little bit. Funny how these thing work out, or don’t ..” — is well-understood.

Iraq’s a ‘b,’ ain’t it? I’ve got students there, I got the download directly. They’d like to leave, I’d like them to leave. If the other side would stop shooting for six months, that would probably happen.

At bottom: I’m not surrendering to the perps behind all this blood-spilling. They’re not getting a free walk.

L.L., at 8:15 am EDT on October 17, 2007

Terrorism, Red in Tooth and Claw.

For those of us who lived through the debates about Israel that took place in the sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties, there is one ideological position whose memory continues to cause retching. That position was usually expressed as follows: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” I would wager a lot that 95% of academia continues to fully support this position. What you call ‘Islamophobia’ is nothing less nor more than a response in kind to that position. So, you are in error for presenting no context for what you call ‘Islamophobia.’ Granted, both positions are mistaken but you seem not to recognize the importance of the position that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

Your error becomes a grave one because you fail to realize that the difference has moved from the world of intellect to reality. Hamas now dominates the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Hamas is avowedly terrorist. When directed at Hamas, what you call ‘Islamophobia’ is nothing but accurate description. The only way to end the Palestinian-conflict is to end the terrorism.

John Marshall, at 10:30 am EDT on October 17, 2007

Speaking Out

Perhaps if those who considered themselves peaceful, moderate Muslims would stand up to those on the extreme fringe of their religion, we wouldn’t need to do the job ourselves. Like them or not, Horowitz and his group are doing for us what others are unwilling to do, namely standing up against the tide of political correctness and tolerance. While Islamic terrorists are busy plotting our death, we bend over backward (literally and figuratively) to appease them. A quick survey of history should give us a clue as to the results of that naive approach. In an effort not to offend anyone of the Muslim faith, we gloss over the reality of the extremes of that faith, sticking our collective heads in the sand and hoping that our appeasement will satisfy. Am I scared of Muslims? If they want to kill me, then Yes! It’s that same healthy fear I feel when anyone, regardless of motivation, might want to chop my head off. In the meantime, those Muslims who are more moderate, who do not wish to convert us all to Sharia law but who wish to live peacefully among us with the freedom to practice their religion, continue to imply consent with their silence.

E.W., at 10:30 am EDT on October 17, 2007

Be Aware

If we are to be aware, then pay attention to the Patriot Act, illegal spying, the targeting of groups of ‘others’ by blaming them for all ills in society, preemptive war, renditions, secret courts, no-warrant searches, heightened and inflamed nationalism, the encouragement of xenophobia, a media that hypes Paris Hilton types because that sells...and news is entertainment. Is this 2007 or 1930?

TPS, at 10:30 am EDT on October 17, 2007

Missing the point?

It appears that previous commenters share the same poor aim. In their attempts to shoot down the author’s viewpoint, they seem to indicate that his target is the war in Iraq, current administration policy and even David H. I may be obtuse, but doesn’t the reference to the man in the cave plotting the destruction of our culture signify Osama bin Laden, who uses fanatacism on both sides of the issue to pit extremists against each other, hoping that the less-than-informed masses will then fall in line behind them?

A central idea of this essay is that fanaticism—the example in this case being a hatred of Islam by those who do not even know what it is and assume that radical jihadis speak for the majority of Muslims ("Islamophobofascism")—is a tool being used in an attempt to pull apart society from within?

Yrs., E. A., at 12:40 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

I can’t prove this for a fact, so you can discount my comment if you wish, but I have a very strong intuitive feeling that the same people who criticize the term “Islamofascism” think nothing themselves of spitting out venomous terms like “Fundamentalist Christian,” “Christian Conservative,” or even “Christian Theocrat.” If we used a term like “Fundamentalism Muslim” or “Islamic Theocrat,” would that assuage people’s linguistic fears? Except that in the case of the movements which have risen in the name of Islam, there are more swords and guns than Qurans, so you will also need to explain how we can with language express the idea that some of us feel in fact physically and mortally threatened by these movements moreso than we do of the various Christian ones. If Islamofascism is not the right word to describe a Fundamentalist Muslim Theocrat who would willingly use violence to overthrow the institutions of the west, then I await the proposal of a better one.

JVH, at 12:45 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

If you disagree, you’ve got a phobia

It is an ad hominem argument to claim that whoever disagrees with you has a phobia, an unreasoning fear. If he considers homosexuality immoral and you don’t, accuse him of homophobia. That way, you don’t have to consider whether he has made a moral judgement or why.

If he’s against illegal immigration and you’re not, you need not take his argument seriously whether it is based on social, political, legal or economic grounds. Just accuse him of xenophobia.

If he thinks the great majority of terrorist murders around the world are committed by Muslims and the only solution for it is to keep them out of your country or at least out of places where they can commit mass murder because even a small number of them who want to do so constitute a terrible threat, he doesn’t have a point of view you need to refute or even consider. Just diagnose him with the psychological condition of Islamophobia.

For that matter, you needn’t even consider why I regard the abuse of a psychological term, phobia, as a phony argument in political issues. I don’t have an intellectual reason for it, I’m just suffering from rubbishophobia.

Jack Olson, at 12:45 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Speaking back to “Speaking Out”

E. W. mentions that “we” must take a stand against violent radical extremism if peaceful Muslims won’t. Who are the people indicated by “we"? If the pronoun refers to Americans, well, then, doesn’t that fail to include the many Muslims who are Americans? Maybe it means non-Muslim Americans? Does that mean that if we remove all Muslims from the population, we are left with nothing but people who do not advocate violence? Oops! That surely doesn’t work now, does it? Take Christians, for example. Haven’t there been incidents involving radical extremist Christians murdering fellow Americans over the issue of, say, abortion? (And doesn’t Christianity have a long history of extremist violence? The Crusades? The Inquisition? The persecution and execution of Catholics and/or Protestants in England and France, depending upon who sat on throne at any given time? The “witchcraft” hysteria in our own New England colonies a few hundred years back?)

Regarding the “peaceful Muslims": What, specifically, would you have them do to stop the fanatics? Any time we single out a group of people and claim that they are responsible for stopping the wrong-headed actions of a few fanatics who happen to call themselves members of the same faith, we are trying to shift society’s responsibility to their shoulders to save ourselves the effort.

Oh, and expressing disdain for tolerance—a core value of our American society—by linking it with political correctness is just plain off-base.

Cactus Ed, at 12:45 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Red and tooth and claw—but LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT IT!

Mr. McLemee:

1. Is it “hate speech” to condemn the terrorist murder of innocents specifically done, as the terrorists consistently proclaim, in the name of Islam? It is not Horowitz who is demonizing Islam. It is the terrorists who act in the name of Islam who are demonizing Islam. Do you wish to prevent this problem from even being spoken about on campus?

2. Horowitz didn’t fly planes filled with screaming civilians into office buildings holding thousands of peaceful office workers—an act done specifically in the name of God. Horowitz doesn’t behead people on video and use it as a *recruiting* tool—something no western terrorist group ever attempted, because it knew that *its* audience would be repulsed. Horowitz didn’t rocket school yards filled with children at Sderot (inside the 1967 borders of Israel). Horowitz didn’t blow up 150 children in Beslan, Russia, in the name of God. Horowitz didn’t kill 200 partying Australians on Bali in the name of God. Horowitz didn’t blow up trains in Madrid and London, filled with peaceful people going about their business, in the name of God. Horowitz didn’t try to blow up nightclubs in London, patronized by “immoral women,” in the name of God. And Horowitz didn’t murder 34,000 civilians in Iraq (UN estimate) in the name of God either. I repeat: do you want to prevent this problem from being pointed out on the campus for serious discussion?

3. If Christians were the ones committing terrorist atrocities on this scale all over the world, instead of Muslims, would you want to ban this topic, as “hate speech", from any discussion of the problem? (Come on, Mr. McLemee—answer honestly.)

4. A leading textbook of the 1960s, Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa (1963) by the late Princeton professor of Middle Eastern History Manfred Halpern included the thesis that the neo Islamic totalitarian movements are essentially fascist movements. They concentrated on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader, their form of Islam, and the solidarity of the movement. Halpern pointed especially to the totalitarian and fascist elements in the ideology and the practice of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the time Halpern wrote, the Brotherhood had been weakened by repression by Nasser. But with the fall of Nasser and the breakdown of Arab nationalism and communism the Brotherhood, and Islamism, had its reviva The Muslim Brotherhood, with its branches in various Arab countries, is both the ancestor of Hamas, and, through Ayman al-Zawahiri, exercises strong influence in al-Qaeda.

5. And for those of you who find this intellectual ancestry of the term Islamo-fascism too abstruse, just google-image “Hezbollah + salutes” and check out all those terrorists making the Nazi salute.

But of course—no no, let’s not talk about any of this!

Ethan II, at 12:45 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

First, Amis spoke of an ‘urge’, not a policy. He was remarking on the dangerous tendencies such conflicts unleash, not advocating unleashing them. Second, Eagleton is a buffoon, who seems to be growing closer to his religious roots by the year — to the extent that any religion, provided it annoys the secular intelligentsia seemingly will do.

Dave, at 12:45 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

a purposeful and orderly note

I generally enjoy Scott McLemee’s pieces — if for nothing else than that they often force me to confront and ponder something that he has brought up. Generally, the comments are part of that exercise for me as they are here. I frankly don’t have much to complain about in this piece. The Amis reference might have been geographically off as noted above but I don’t think it was out of place — if this was a student’s essay I might suggest that Horowitz provides enough fodder that he need not look across the pond. But perhaps given the “wooly” nature of Horowitz’s many irons-in-the-fire approach the Amis was such a nice petit four that it was too nice to pass on given a word-count concern? My issue actually is perhaps a meager one, the off-handed manner in which McLemee simply offers that “Fascism proper was, above all, purposeful and orderly. . .” Purposeful indeed, orderly — only in the sense that street violence might be organized and a hazy political atmosphere of terror limned by the disappearance of neighbors can be construed as tidy. I think the divide he posits might not be so thorough-going as suggested and might actually be more related to his point than he might think at first blush. Just a thought — or two.

jv, dr. at ncc, at 12:45 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Please Become Theologically literate

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

One can not conflate the widespread violent admonitions in the Koran with the rare war metaphors in the New Testament. The verse from Matthew is a metaphor used by Jesus to explain how his message of redemption will often cause division of relationships. The sword metaphor is used elsewhere (notably in Revelation) to refer to the power of Jesus words to destroy falsehood. It is a rare Christian commentary (and almost non-existent in the modern era) which will use this as a justification for violence against non-believers. In fact, Jesus tells his followers to love the enemy. Whereas, in the Islamic commentaries (the hadith) encouragement to violence and hatred of the non-muslim are commonplace. I would encourage you to read both Christian and Islamic commentaries and judge for yourself whether Christianity and Islam are comparable when it comes to scriptural encouragements to violence against the non-believer.

James Love, at 12:45 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

What is the point of this article? Perhaps, some “Islamophobes” go too far in their characterization of the Muslim community; however, the author resides on the exact opposite side of the spectrum. Would he acknowledge the problem of radicalization in the Muslim Community? Would his solution to terrorism (and creeping Sharia) be more dialogue and more tolerance (without asking for anything in return)?

As for nomenclature, I agree, “Islamofacism” is not the best descriptor of the problem. I find the term “Islamic Supremacism” to be more accurate. After all, there isn’t much difference between fundamentalist Islam and the ideology of White Supremacists. Yet, I’m sure the author will find some objection to this term as well. . .

John, at 12:50 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Theological literacy means zilch

“One can not conflate the widespread violent admonitions in the Koran with the rare war metaphors in the New Testament.”

And... so what? Yeah, indeed, Christianity and Western civilization is so peaceful, and the way to show just how peace-loving We™ are is to “like to see the lands of Allah turned into a glass parking lot".

The weird thing with many people who like to praise Jesus’s teachings is that they don’t bother to follow the teachings themselves, instead they just use Jesus as an excuse to bludgeon other people.

http://wonkette.com//politics/dept%27-of-it.s-good-to-be-king/

bi, at 1:40 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Speaking Back

Cactus — Good questions. Let me try to clarify my position...

The “we” to whom I am referring is anyone, American or otherwise, currently threatened by Islamic terrorism. Now that I think about it, that includes a heck of a lot of people around the world. If we cannot even have a rational discussion about the dangers we face because of the scourge of political correctness and/or the fear of being labeled with some pejorative, then we don’t stand a chance. It would be nice to see those of the Muslim faith who do not agree with extreme tactics take a more aggressive stand. If they claim that Bin Laden and others like him have “hijacked” their faith (what an ironic term), it would seem to me that they would be doing more in public and behind the scenes to lessen the influence and power of extremsist philosophy. Since they seem unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility does fall to us, the target of such animosity. Equating Muslim terrorism with Christian error in the past is a specious argument. Show me something that an organized group, working under the banner of Christianity, has done to terrorize the world within the past 200 years. Every society and religious group has its extreme adherents, but in terms of the size and scope of today’s Muslim extremists, there is no fair comparison. And, when a sniper takes out a physician who performs abortions, Christian leaders go out of their way to condemn such activity, reminding their followers that the Bible teaches love for sinners even while hating the sin. I just don’t see that type of message coming from influential Muslim leaders in the Middle East or even here in the U.S. So, Bin Laden and others are continually aided and abetted by those who publicly claim to have a distate for their ideology and methodology but who, evidently, have a hidden admiration for them.

On one issue, though, we agree. Tolerance, as classically defined, is truly a core value of American society. The term, however, has been modified through political correctness to mean more than simple acceptance of differences (agreeing to disagree). The new tolerance demands that nothing critical be said or thought about philosophy or religious belief with which one disagrees, especially if that belief is held by a minority of the population (not referring to racial minorities). Christianity is fair game, but God forbid we criticize Islam (and the mere mention of God in this sentence just offended the atheist reader). I do not subscribe to the position that all cultures are morally equivalent, and, therefore, above criticism. This trend toward the “new” tolerance has its roots in the multicultural movement and political correctness that are both paralyzing Western civilization. So, cartoonists receive death threats, foot baths are installed in airports, and Muslim terrorists are not even identified in major newspapers as Muslim all for fear of offending. That’s not simple tolerance. That’s acquiescence and, in my opinion, disdainful.

E.W., at 1:40 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Horowitz? The factophobic?

“Like them or not, Horowitz and his group are doing for us what others are unwilling to do, namely standing up against the tide of political correctness and tolerance.”

Horowitz is standing up against facts, evidence, and logic. His “academic freedom” campaign is based on nothing but stories from nowhere, and he’s perfectly fine with that.

Since when did this sort of man suddenly become a champion of truth and candour?

bi, at 2:15 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Since When

Since when is the term “fundamentalist Christian” “venomous"? It is the term many Christians apply to themselves. It is also historically descriptive of a specific movement within Christianity.

Ann Arc, at 2:25 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Jihad

It may well be, as the author claims, that the term “Islamofacism” paints with too broad a brush. It’s a pity the author didn’t see fit to give us another label for what seems to me to be a violent polical ideology that claims Islam as its motivation. What do you call people who are trying to conquer the world through the mass murder of civilians in order to establish an Islamic theocracy? I guess if “Islamofacist” offends you, I could live with “Jihadist.”

How about that, folks, we’ll have a “Jihadist Awareness Week.” I expect CAIR and all its fellow travelers to join in support.

DBL, at 4:45 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Change A Few Words Here And There

Scott, I am struck by the fact that if you changed a few words ... Islam to communism, Islamophobes to anti-communists, jihadists to KGB, left-wing idiots to left-wing idiots, then your theme would ring as true today as it rang back in the 50s.

After all, the Commies were promising to bury us at the time, they were transporting big time WMDs right up to our back door, and they were just itching for their pal Fidel to have an excuse to light the fuse.

And if David Horowitz and Ann Coulter are our guys in the cave today, our cave dwellers back then were that lovely couple, Robert Welch, Jr. and Joseph R. McCarthy. You could throw those four protectors of American freedom in a hat, pull one out, and you and your family could rest assured you were in good hands.

I recall my father telling me on many, many occasions that if one had nothing to hide, he should welcome an opportunity to respond to Senator McCarthy’s interrogation (my father was a rare bird ... a straight-ticket Republican and a union member).

I also recall McCarthy’s Lincoln Day speech at the Republican Women’s Club of Wheeling, West Virginia when he said “I have here in my hand a list of 205 ... a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.” One can almost imagine Horowitz at the same gathering, “I have here in my hand a list of 101 ... a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of Education as being among the most dangerous professors in America and who nevertheless are still contaminating the minds of our children.”

David Stone wrote, “Is it too much to ask that McLemee give us a single solitary example of what he’s talking about? He seems to be going after David Horowitz. But among Mr. Horowitz’s faults and virtues, I do not find reticence. How about McLemee tells us what Horowitz says that he finds so wrong-headed?”

But of course. Unfortunately, David Horowitz – brilliant polemicist that he is — is just too clever for the likes of Scott McLemee. Horowitz writes and speaks in stereotypical generalities in which there is no need to define his terms or formulate arguments constrained by logic. Since it is quite impossible to pin him down, it is equally impossible to refute anything he says ... and that is especially so in the clever, substantively vacuous sound bites that excite his followers.

Horowitz accuses the 101 professors of “engaging in indoctrination rather than a disinterested pursuit of knowledge.”

He states ...

“If blacks are oppressed in America, why isn’t there a black exodus?”

“Leftists want to regulate everything but hard drugs and sex.”

“Baghdad is liberated. In the days to come let us not forget that if it were not for one man, and one man alone — George Bush — the people of Iraq would not be celebrating in the streets and pulling down Saddam’s statues today. We have entered the era of a new civil war between the forces of freedom and the powers of Islamo-fascist and communist darkness, and once again the left is clearly determined to take its stand on the other side. The good news is that America is back. Our military has performed superlatively. Our leadership has stood tall. We ourselves can celebrate over this and look confidently towards what lies ahead.”

“If Rodney King had obeyed the orders clearly given and had laid down in a ‘prone position’ on the night of his famous encounter with Los Angeles police, 58 people would be alive today, $16 billion would be circulating in the economy and four dedicated LAPD officers who were working to the book that night would not have been forced to endure two trials (the first had acquitted them) and had their careers destroyed to appease the liberal conscience. But liberals had to make their point.”

“Of course insufferably self-righteous liberals will take no responsibility for the fact that they have worked relentlessly since the liberation of Baghdad to cripple our efforts in the war. Attacking the cost of the war, the fact that there is a war, the credibility of the commander-in-chief, and so forth. Invoking Vietnam, they have in fact divided America’s home front on a scale approaching that of the Vietnam War, a division that forced our defeat.”

About Cindy Sheehan he said, “She has made herself a willing tool of anti-American forces in this country that want America to lose the war in Iraq and the war on terror generally. She is promoting a cause—immediate withdrawal from Iraq—that would lead to a bloodbath in the region and in the United States. She has joined forces with an Unholy Alliance on the other side in the epic battle for freedom in the Middle East and has shown that she will do and say anything to discredit the United States and its commander-chief—acts which serve the enemy and endanger American lives.”

In response to John Hawkins who noted that “... a lot of the anti-war people seemed almost glum that things went so well,” Horowitz said “Of course, because they want America to lose. That’s what defines the left.”

Hear that Scott, DEFINES the left. Take that!

I could enumerate many, many more Horowitz gems of wisdom, but, Scott, I have thrown down the gauntlet ... if you cannot respond to these accusations by the number one public intellectual of the right – perhaps tied with Ann Coulter – keep your opinions to yourself.

http://www.thoseshirts.com/coulter.html

Frizbane Manley, at 4:50 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Scott, why do you feel that the jihadis are our problem? It’s only ‘our’ problem because ‘we’ deliberately decided to make it our problem. But they don’t have to be our problem. Just like, say, the Lord’s Resistance Army — those folks aren’t ‘our’ problem, right?

abb1, at 4:55 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

At the top of this discussion thread, Dave Stone decried the lack of examples.

At the bottom of this discussion thread, it would appear that additional examples will not be necessary.

Stephen Downes, at 8:55 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Islamofascist straw man

Scott McLemee offers us a straw man: He equates those who use the term “Islamofascist” with those suffering from Islamophobia, then tears into the latter under the pretence of criticizing the former.

“Islamofascism” may be an infelicitous term, but it in fact distinguishes between those Muslims who seek to impose Sharia upon all people whethor they be Muslims of the correct sect or not (Islamic fascists), from those Muslims who do not. “Islamofascism” does not group all Muslims under it’s rubric, otherwise there would be no need for any term other than “Muslim".

Perhaps “Islamists” would be a better term for the former, but Mr McLemee’s condescention to those he cannot even bring himself to criticize save through a straw man argument hardly makes a case against the term “Islamofascism” or those who employ it.

Wudndux, at 9:00 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Islamophobia Justified

Once again, Islam puts up big Ramadan numbers: 1,327 dead bodies in 282 terror attacks in 20 countries during its holiest month. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Don’t worry Scott, help is on the way:

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/09/15/10153803.html

“African and Islamic countries welcomed the report and called for moves to draft an international treaty that would compel states to act against any form of defamation of religion...’Islamophobia today is the most serious form of religious defamation,’ Doudou Diene told the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is holding a three-week session in Geneva.”

http://kalapanapundit.blogspot.co...07/09/islamophobia-is-justified.html

Grant Jones, at 9:00 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Dear E. A:

You say:

“I may be obtuse, but doesn’t the reference to the man in the cave plotting the destruction of our culture signify Osama bin Laden, who uses fanatacism on both sides of the issue to pit extremists against each other, hoping that the less-than-informed masses will then fall in line behind them?”

The point of my comment, “Terrorism, Red in Tooth and Claw,” is that whatever rhetorical overkill is embodied in Islamophobia was preceded and caused by the fanatical claim that Israel is a fascist state and that Israel is doing to “the Palestinians,” whoever they are, what the Nazis did to Jews. That fanatical claim is embodied in the incredibly popular position among academics that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

My final point is that Hamas, among others, makes all of our arguments moot. Hamas is a self-declared terrorist organization dedicated to destruction of Israel today and restoration of the Caliphate tomorrow. No fear of Hamas can possibly be considered phobic or in some way irrational.

John Marshall, at 9:00 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Ok So Respond

“if you cannot respond to these accusations by the number one public intellectual of the right – perhaps tied with Ann Coulter – keep your opinions to yourself”

Good idea, Frizbane. For the most part they seemed like perfectly obvious, rather indisputable statements. Why don’t you respond to them if Scott won’t? It should be interesting.

Tired Ajunct, at 9:05 pm EDT on October 17, 2007

Wary of awareness

Late to the party, folks, but you’re all missing David Horowitz’s point by a metric mile. The point, as “Islamofascist Awareness Week” clearly suggests, is that American college students, particularly those who are being indoctrinated by Women’s Studies programs, are completely unaware of Islamist radicalism. A recent study confirms this. Truly, this is appalling. These kids today are “aware” of breast cancer and gay pride and even mental illness, but very, very few of them have ever heard of phrases like “jihad” and “Islamist radicalism.” And as a result, there is a severe shortage, in this country, of fear and hatred with regard to Islam. Indeed, thanks to leftist political correctness, no elected official or television commentator or Presidential candidate would dare admit publicly that we were attacked by Islamist radicals on September 11, 2001, and that is why there is such widespread ignorance of 9/11 in the United States today. (Why, some people even believe that Iraq was involved!) David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Center for Freedom and Democracy and A Pony are simply trying to fix all that — by breaking the silence and doing a little old-fashioned consciousness-raising. And after all the pro-Islamic propaganda our children have been fed these past six years, I find it typically hypocritical of “liberals” to refuse to hear the other side for once.

Michael Bérubé, at 3:55 pm EDT on October 18, 2007

Berube

Michael Berube’s position above is, apparently, that if Islamic terrorism is talked about outside of campus, there is no need to talk about this issue on campus. This is illogical.

ethan II, at 9:55 am EDT on October 19, 2007

Response To Tired Adjunct

I’m afraid you didn’t read my post closely enough. Therein I said the brilliance of David Horowitz is unassailable ... certainly by mortal minds, let alone the mind of a crusader like Scott McLemee.

Personally, I would be no more successful in taking issue with Mr. Horowitz – even if I were so disposed – than would be Oliver Douglas in taking issue with Mr. Haney.

http://www.maggiore.net/greenacres/museum/museum.asp?NumberOfDisplay=3

This discussion has inspired three limericks of admiration, two for Mr. Horowitz ...

Debate Horowitz dogma ... no way! // His brilliance will always hold sway. // I’ll do what I must do // Not to be 1-0-2, // You’ll love my right-wing dossier.

D’Ho eschews logic my friend, // ‘Cause his truths have an obvious end // “Liberals hate the U.S., // And they’ll make it a mess.” // He hopes bashing Islam’s a new trend.

And one for Ms. Ann Coulter ...

Invade all of those country’s my prayer, // And killing their leaders ... so there!!! // If they can’t be enticed // We’ll “make them love Christ. // Oh the world will be better, I swear!

http://www.thoseshirts.com/coulter.html

Frizbane Manley, at 11:25 am EDT on October 19, 2007

Michael Berube’s position above is, apparently, that if Islamic terrorism is talked about outside of campus, there is no need to talk about this issue on campus. This is illogical.

Not at all, Ethan II! I’m applauding David Horowitz for finally bringing this issue to light, and challenging the hegemonic Islamophilia of our college campuses.

Michael Bérubé, ME, at 5:15 pm EDT on October 19, 2007

Fair Enough Frizbane

I’ll consider Horowitz rebutted. But as for Coulter, hopefully you’re not so staid as to be taking her literally. It would be like taking the Marx brothers literally and completely missing the whole point of their genius.

Tired Adjunct, at 10:25 pm EDT on October 19, 2007

To Tired Adjunct ... Once Again

But, of course, I’m with you all the way vis-� -vis Ann Coulter. Let’s see, there Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, Zeppo ... and now the Marx sister, Bimbo.

God, I love that thought!

Frizbane Manley, at 3:00 pm EDT on October 20, 2007

İnteresting. If he’s against illegal immigration and you’re not, you need not take his argument seriously whether it is based on social, political, legal or economic grounds. Just accuse him of xenophobia.

Anarsist, Serdar, at 10:15 am EST on January 5, 2008

Jobs Related to Be Aware (Beware)

or search for jobs directly.

Government: Political Theory
Wesleyan University, CT

The Department of Government at Wesleyan University seeks applicants for an appointment as Assistant Professor in the area of ... see job