King Hearings on “radicalization of Muslims in America.”
The hearings begun by Republican Peter King have, not surprisingly, polarized the debate on homeland security. Leftists are calling foul, drawing comparisons to McCarthy’s Commie witch hunts. The problem with branding the hearings prior to the event is that what made the McCarthy hearings so reprehensible was the way they were conducted. It was, as described, a witch hunt based on shoddy evidence and with purely self-serving political aims.
Now, to be fair to critics of Rep. King, his résumé looks quite similar to McCarthy’s when one substitutes communist for radicalized Muslim. Which begs the question, if American security is the primary concern of these hearings, wouldn’t it have been wiser to appoint someone else to lead them? Of course, considering King’s constituency, there is a huge amount of political capital to be gained from appearing hard on terrorism.
In the end, appearing hard on terrorism may be the hearings’ great failure. Just as it is reasonable for Americans to be concerned about the radicalization of Christianity and how it increases the likelihood of domestic terrorism, it is reasonable to investigate any religious sub-group that promotes terrorism. The truth is, radical Christians who use the Bible to justify violence of any kind are an insult to my faith. I will do anything to foil Christians who distort my faith for violent or destructive ends.
The problem is, if I am addressed and treated as a radical first because of my faith, and a citizen only after I have proven my “loyalty,” I will inevitably become far less likely to cooperate. And that’s where these hearing become problematic. If American-Muslims are treated as suspicious first, then as citizens only after proving themselves, we lose a invaluable resource. Just as a sane Christian cannot tolerate violence against abortion clinics or homosexuals, a sane Muslim cannot abide terrorism. (Now may be a good time to point out the unavoidable irony, as Rep. King has historically supported a terrorist organization with strong ties to a particular brand of Christianity.) However, if these hearings take on the face of a witch hunt, we may actually weaken our national security. The fact is, most “homegrown” Muslim terrorists have been foiled by concerned Muslims (see Liz Halloran’s article or Jonathan Alter’s )
In the end, it is too early to judge the hearings, as we are yet to see exactly how Rep. King will conduct himself. The truth is, terrorism is a concern, and there are Islamist groups who seek to terrorize the United States. The test for King or any other group looking to improve American security is whether it can effectively isolate these groups while working to ensure that American-Muslim allies (the vast majority of Muslims) not only cooperate, but do so because they feel that their rights as American’s are being attacked by terrorists and not the United States government.
Wisconsin and the problem with dichotomies.
The battle currently brewing in Wisconsin has done exactly what most people expected, pushed both sides into their respective corners, using definitive moral language claiming the immorality of either unions or union-busters. Unfortunately, this dichotomy is an inaccurate representation. Whether it be Mr. Beck’s or Ms. Maddow’s analysis, the assignment of morality or value to the totality of unions is nonsensical. Each individual union is an institution that should be judged on its own merit. I am far less sympathetic of the NFL Player’s Association as I am of coal miners. Furthermore, judging the whole of an industry’s unions broadly is equally problematic. While I applaud the public sector unions in Wisconsin for trying to find a compromise and meeting the fiscal demands of the cash-strapped state, I have also had loved ones choose to leave teacher’s unions because their demands compromised what should have been their primary commitment, the education of young people. Simply put, saying unions are bad or unions are good is myopic, as there ar
e good unions and bad ones.
This does not get Gov. Scott Walker off the hook however. His party has leveraged their power, as per the majority afforded them by the voters of Wisconsin, to cut spending in order to bring the budget into balance. They have played hardball and the unions responded, conceding the proposed financial demands. Gov. Walker however is not satisfied with financial stability but instead insists upon the revoking of basic civil rights. Anyone can point to instances where unions were responsible for something positive or something negative, but when you limit civil rights, you are crossing the boundary into immorality. Raise the financial committment of public workers. That is why Wisconsin is now completely controlled by Republicans, because the tax payers want to them to cut spending. However, it is already clear that the unions in Wisconsin are willing to cooperate. Anything further is contrary to the social gains of a century ago. To limit collective bargaining RIGHTS is just that, a limitation of rights and freedoms. In fact, it is hypocritical that the party whose rhetoric is centered on the maintenance of basic rights is simultaneously so eager to limit them, especially when those rights are predominately protecting the well-being of those who vote Democratic.
My North African best case scenario
As governments continue to topple in North Africa I have far-fetched vision of what the New North Africa could look like.
Many apocalypse predictors see supranationalism as a mark of the coming of the beast, but I think we can dismiss their warped connections between the Book of Revelation and the UN and admit that supranationalism, especially in Europe, has had a markedly positive effect on global stability. A border that was once hyper-fortified during peacetime by the Maginot line is now as undefended as the Mason-Dixon line is in the United States today. Economic cooperation has led to a better Europe, even when one considers the hardships European economies are facing during this current recession. I personally have faith that as things turn around, Europe will be better as a result of its cooperation. Furthermore, economic interdependency has been one the great hedges of protection preventing another mass destruction of humanity on par with World War II. To think there was once a time not long ago when European fears were focused on the potential for the ascension of a Fourth Reich. Even as Germany controls the debt of Greece and Ireland, there is little chance that Germany could leverage such control in order to achieve domination of Europe.
But what does this have to do with North Africa? Imagine a North African economic zone, one that pools resources and wealth in order to improve infrastructure and ensure stability in an emerging economy? Libya has long closed its doors to outside development. Could the free flow of people, ideas, and wealth across the whole south Mediterranean coast ensure that another Libyan-type autocracy does not replace the current one? With Europe as a model, interconnectivity is a deterrent to radicalism. When economic development is an international activity, radicalism must convince the populace that the benefits of such developments are outweighed by whatever particular ultra-nationalist needs are not being met. (Another example of this moderating force is the lack of credence given to anti-UN American groups such as the John Birch Society.) The more Libya and Egypt depend on each other, the harder it is for autocratic narratives to stick.
Unfortunately, entering into such an arrangement is difficult, especially considering the nationalist fervor that has fueled these protests. The devastation of World War II was the strongest motivation for creating such structures that the world has ever seen. North Africa has not seen such devastation, and no one would wish it upon them. After so recently finding their democratic voice, North Africans will likely be wary of giving up any autonomy. However, such an arrangement could be the best solution for freedom and stability in North Africa.
Egypt (almost) a week later
Egypt’s recent revolution is portrayed as a resounding statement of the democratic will of a people, even the triumph of the Bush Doctrine (specifically the spread of democracy in the Middle East as a counter-terrorism measure.) But is this an accurate representations of what we actually saw?
A couple of questions come to mind when I think of the emergence of Middle Eastern democracy. George W. Bush elevated such developments as the ultimate solution for Middle Eastern instability. But is it really the key? A lot of people have criticized the American government for propping up Mubarak for so long due to the strategic advantage the United States gained through the Suez Canal and Mubarak’s strict adherence to the Camp David accords. But how much better will Egyptian democracy be?
Now, I am not saying that these comparisons necessarily reflect the true nature of Egyptian politics. I have not been there, I do not know. I am only presenting these things as possibilities that are worth considering.
Is democracy > peace?
The American narrative has imprinted upon the majority of the American citizenry that the freedom afforded us through our democratic tradition is worth more than peace. If we need war to ensure these privileges, so be it. But is this equation instantly transferable to the Egyptian or greater Middle Eastern experience? Presuming that elections would open hostility with Israel, is it in the American interest to support democracy in Egypt. Democracy in Lebanon has not yielded the assumed stability promised by Bush Doctrine definitions of democracy. Jury is still out in regards to true democracy in Egypt.
Is democracy > women’s rights?
Should the United States be more concerned with assuring a people’s democratic freedom or women’s freedom from terror and abuse? Not to paint the whole Egyptian protest movement with too broad a brush, but the sexual assault of CBS news correspondent Lara Logan may indicate that the movement is not so concerned with the right’s of Egypt’s women. “Democracy” in Iran certainly isn’t.
Is democracy > economic stability?
In Egypt, this certainly is a stretch. Egypt’s autocracy has done little of late to secure the economic security of its people. But it should be brought to mind, as Egypt is abundantly resourced, and, as opposed to homogeneous economies such as the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia, far more diverse in its economic ventures. If democracy dismantles Egypt’s economic advantages, is democratic freedom worth it?
Now, I certainly still hold an abundance of hope that this revolution will prove to be a shining moment for the Middle East. However, in the wake of the jubilation, I think it important to bring up some potentialities that might dampen such enthusiasm and remind us that it is not always reasonable to think of democratic freedom as the trump card when considering the United States’ stance in international diplomacy.
Why Michael Steele has to be pumped not to be RNC chairman
Last night on The Rachel Maddow Show, Michael Steele said something
that would surely send waves of icky feelings down the spine of any Republican: that he agreed with Nancy Pelosi. To be fair, he was agreeing with Pelosi’s assessment that opinions on the war in Afghanistan break along non-partisan lines, but that doesn’t diminish that being a spokesperson for a party must certainly be the WORST position ever. Steele has never sounded more level-headed. He is still conservative, but he must be relieved to finally be able to speak from a position where honesty is not a liability. And now he gets to eat all his accumulated cake he’s been storing up from his time as RNC Chairman. He is making the political talk show rounds with the same title in front of his name (albeit with a preceding ’Fmr.’) and speaking from a position of authority. But now he can be free from the anxiety of knowing that everything he says will have some sort of effect on every politician with an ‘R’ after his or her name. I must say, I’m jealous.
In other news, looks like peaceful demonstration still has clout these days, as Egyptian Pres. Hosni Mubarak is set to step down today. Let’s hope the election process does justice to the Egyptian people’s courage.
Update: False alarm, Mubarak apparently wants to stay in the palace while strikes bring one of Africa’s largest economies to its knees. I will try to analyze the situation more tomorrow.
1 comment