Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFor much of January, one might have thought that the Republican candidates for president were already competing against a single opponent. Not one called Hillary or Barack, but with a moniker even more chilling in the eyes of hard-line Republicans: Islamic fascism.
The American public, worried about mortgages, recession and a seemingly interminable war in Iraq, was unimpressed -- those who fear-mongered the most about Muslim terrorists have faltered at the polls. Even the remaining front-runners, John McCain and Mitt Romney, have said bigoted things about Muslims and their religion. But Islamophobia as a campaign strategy has failed, and it may well come back to haunt the Republicans in the general election.
Back when the GOP presidential field was still flush with tough-talking right-wingers, no one was more outrageous in targeting Muslims than Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who suggested that Muslim terrorists inside America were plotting the imminent detonation of an atomic bomb on U.S. soil. How to prevent this Tom Clancy scenario? "If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo declared. "Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do."
That sort of wild-eyed bigotry only fuels the cycle of mistrust and vengeance. One can only imagine how much more difficulty Tancredo generated for U.S. diplomats attempting to explain to America's Muslim allies why a presidential candidate was talking about nuking Islam's holiest cities, the larger with a population nearly that of Houston.
But the failure of Islamophobia as a campaign strategy is no better illustrated than by the spectacular flame-out of Rudy Giuliani. Throughout his campaign (deep-sixed after his dismal showing in Tuesday's Florida primary), the former New York mayor evoked the Sept. 11 attacks at an absurd rate. Giuliani and his advisors appeared to revel in demonizing Muslims. They also reveled in their own ignorance -- never learning the difference between "Islamic" and "Muslim."
"Islamic" has to do with the religion founded by the prophet Mohammed. We speak of Islamic ethics or Islamic art, as things that derive from the religion. "Muslim," on the contrary, describes the believer. It would be perfectly all right to talk about Muslim terrorists, but calling them Islamic terrorists or Islamic fascists implies that the religion of Islam is somehow essentially connected to those extremist movements.
Giuliani complained that during their debates, Democratic rivals "never mentioned the word 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamic extremist,' 'Islamic fascist,' 'terrorist,' whatever combination of those words you want to use, [the] words never came up." He added, "I can't imagine who you insult if you say 'Islamic terrorist.' You don't insult anyone who is Islamic who isn't a terrorist."
But people are not "Islamic," they are Muslim. And one most certainly does insult Muslims by tying their religion to movements such as terrorism or fascism. Muslims perceive a double standard in this regard: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols would never be called "Christian terrorists" even though they were in close contact with the Christian Identity Movement. No one would speak of Christofascism or Judeofascism as the Republican candidates speak of Islamofascism. Muslims point out that persons of Christian heritage invented fascism, not Muslims, and deny that Muslim movements have any link to the mass politics of the 1930s in Europe.
Giuliani's pledge to take the United States on an offensive against Islamic fascism, which he also said would be a long-term battle, failed to excite the imagination of voters. It may well have alarmed them in a way different from what Giuliani intended: If, by Giuliani's logic, the United States is only on the "defensive" now, with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, what would being on the offensive look like? Would Giuliani have started four wars? Interestingly, Giuliani did especially poorly in Florida among retired and active-duty military personnel.
Giuliani was also hurt when the co-chair of his veterans' campaign in New Hampshire, John Deady praised Giuliani for being able to stop "the rise of the Muslims," an effort necessary to continue, he said, until "we defeat them or chase them back to their caves, or, in other words, get rid of them." When asked if he was really condemning all members of the religion, Deady replied, "I don't subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They're all Muslims." Deady was forced to resign after a video of his remarks was put on the web by the Guardian. Other Giuliani advisors have had some bigoted things to say about Muslims as well. Rep. Peter King of New York complained that "unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country." Daniel Pipes, a professional Islamophobe advising Giuliani, once said it would be dangerous to let American Muslims vote.
Meanwhile, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has done well among evangelicals but has had difficulty attracting votes from other segments of the Republican Party, had a revealing response to the assassination of Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto. "I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border," he said. He added, "And in light of what is happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause as to why are so many illegals coming across these borders." In fact, there are almost no Pakistani illegal aliens to speak of in the United States. Only 13 percent of the estimated 12 million persons in the United States illegally are estimated to be Asian, but almost all of them are East Asian. Pakistani and Indian immigrants, moreover, are among the wealthiest immigrants in the country.
Current GOP front-runner John McCain has been prone to hyperbole and has let some bigoted statements escape his lips as well. He has said that the threat from Islamic extremism is greater than the one presented by the Soviet Union. Recently, McCain proclaimed, "I'm not interested in trading with al-Qaida. All they want to trade is burqas... " The senator seemed to be relating the Muslim custom of veiling to terrorism. The Detroit Free Press, whose city has one of the largest Muslim populations, reported on Jan. 12 that McCain's remarks were hurtful to American Muslims. "Local Muslims say that criticizing al-Qaida is legitimate, but wonder why he would make a snide remark about a dress? The remark was especially bothersome, some said, considering that McCain's adopted daughter, Bridget McCain, is from one of the biggest Muslim countries, Bangladesh." One would think that raising a daughter from the Muslim world in the United States today would be difficult enough, even without the adoptive father's denigrating the customs of the women from that culture.
On another occasion, asked whether a Muslim candidate for president would be acceptable, McCain replied, "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would -- I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead."
But according to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Secularists and Jews joined American Muslims in condemning McCain's assertion that the United States was founded on Christian principles, and that Christian faith could be a key determinate for taking the Oval Office.
McCain's misconceptions about Muslims and perceived hostility toward them predates his 2008 presidential campaign. In 2005, he said on "The Charlie Rose Show" that a Muslim had killed the Indian political and spiritual figure Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, the assassin belonged to a radical Hindu organization, the RSS.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has, like his peers, regularly invoked the dangers of "Islamic fascism." He allegedly told one Muslim-American he would not put a Muslim in his Cabinet, since there were not enough Muslim-Americans to justify it. (Romney later denied the charge).
Why might all this rhetoric targeting Muslims be unwise? For one thing, allowing the Christian conservative base to set an agenda that demonizes Muslims contains the danger of turning off more moderate segments of the GOP and American voters at large. McCain's comment on the importance of a president's being Christian appeared to have backfired on him in precisely that way.
Moreover, Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans are swing voters in key states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida. While they tended to vote for George W. Bush in 2000, by 2004 these groups overwhelmingly supported John Kerry, and the heavy-handed and bigoted rhetoric of the Republican candidates may drive them away from the GOP altogether.
The candidates who played to fears of "Islamic fascism" the most -- Tancredo, Huckabee and Giuliani -- failed to light any fire under partisans in the party, and they have now faded from the scene. But the campaign has already left behind a bitter legacy of sloganeering against a single religious and ethnic community. The Republicans have repeatedly asserted that Islam has been perverted by radicals; their rhetoric effectively reduced American Muslims to second-class citizens and branded them as suspicious. Perhaps most worrisome of all: If any of the remaining candidates does win the presidency, he is going to have to cultivate close relations with Middle Eastern regimes to even begin resolving the mess in that region. And that president will have to do so saddled from the start with a legacy of denigrating Islam and Muslims.
Salon contributor Juan Cole is a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan and the author of "Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East."
Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.
23 Comments so far
Show Allone of the reasons Rudy lost in Florida was a lot of firefighters and NYPD went to FL to talk about Rudy's legacy of 911: the inability of the fire and police departments to talk to each other on the radio ( a lot of good men died because of that fu*k up )
they followed right behind him to correct his misconceptions ( lies ) about what happened that terrible day
Further to FVhorn's contention that the Twin Tower attacks were largely symbolic, simultaneous attacks on the LA and Colorado aqueducts would disable the water supply to 39 million people for months. A few condoms of ebola thrown into the 4 reservoirs that supply water to NYC would shut it down for months as well. The net effects would have exceeded that of 9/11.
But the Twin Tower attacks made better TV images that could be played over and over and over and over and over..... Now that was a stroke of genius.
@FVHorn. The Ohio incident was an maintenance issue, and not endemic to nuclear power plant design. It was an exception, not the rule.
Also, earthquakes cause considerably more damage than, e.g., a crashing plane. The magnitude 6.8 earthquake that damaged the Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant (but did not destroy it or even damage it permanently - it will reopen soon) released energy equivalent to a 0.5 - 1.0 megaton nuclear weapon.
Like I said, nuclear power plants are tough (but I hate them anyway).
Oh, and holding ponds are NOT radioactive. Never have been, never will be. Holding ponds are there to let the hot water cool for the heat-exchangers.
"Call me naive - or even a bigot - but I'm perfectly comfortable with, and recognize the legitimacy of, the term "Christofascism:" I've seen and experienced attitudes that couldn't be adequately described any other way."
For the word "Christofascism" to have meaning, it has to refer to the merger of state and corporate power, said merger having at least a gloss of Christianity to it. That does describe the current U.S. system, for what it's worth.
From the article:
"Giuliani's pledge to take the United States on an offensive against Islamic fascism, which he also said would be a long-term battle, failed to excite the imagination of voters."
Giuliani's pledge also failed to excite people with, you know, actual brains.
Repeat after me, all you rock-ribbed Republicans: "Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power".
As what I consider a reasonable Coloradoan, I want to thank you for your critique on Rep. Tom Tancredo. We can all be grateful he has decided not to run for re-election. The problem, though, is that his district is rich, radical right-wing and bigoted, so we'll probably see another one like him in the House next year.
juan cole, thank you for teaching me and some of the other people who read the article that islam is a religion and muslim is a person. now if we can change the antimuslims in our society...
Merwan.....I agree completely. As a believer in Christ I can think of no better term to describe what passes for Christianity today in this country than "Christo-fascism."
Merek....you too are exactly right IMHO.
Zionists play us like a cheap fiddle to do the dirty work of the Likud Fascists in Israel and this country and elsewhere.
The PNAC and the Neo-Con movement in this Nation is nothing but a front group for "Zionofascism".
And it IS NOT anti-semitic to say so.
Just imagine the outcry if we treated any other religious like this--especially Jews. There would be accusations of anti-semitism and forced resignations of politicians. Well, why aren't more people speaking out against this outrageous attack on Muslims?
AdeleTheCzech said "Special Ops guys hunting for bin Laden found detailed architectural plans for that site in an Afghan cave." I would appreciate a source for this claim as I couldn't find any mention of it in several search attempts online.
Hey, WTF, I seem to remember several incidents with sloppy-built nuke plants. Extraordinarily well-built? I have my doubts, as when one in Ohio recently rusted through and when Japan had an earthquake break one. But, WTF, let's pretend they are anyway. Just like we can pretend our multi-billion dollar air defenses 'worked extra-ordinarily well' on Day 9-11 (and I mean extra-ordinary as in 'out of the realm of possibility').
I do think, however, that, if the 9/11 planes were not just hitting symbolic-targets to rev-up America for war, and instead were really going for maximum destruction in America, then they should have been flown into spent-fuel holding facilities at Indian Point and elsewhere, where the jet fuel and impact from the planes would have vaporized the holding pond's radioactive rods into a dirty-bomb-cloud... that would then be blown all over the entire New York City/Tri-State area, rendering it uninhabitable for centuries.
But it doesn't take a Muslim group to do this... just a determined group. Watch all fanatical religions carefully. Judge them not just by their words alone, but by their actions.
And yes, if Israel was not discriminating against Muslims and remained a democracy, it would soon be voted out-of-existence. So Israel has an existential threat that leads to unsavory actions. It is in fact a theocratic state, with the very symbol of the religion on the national flag
But in this it is just like the region, with most states being theocracies to one degree or another. So what a mess religion continues to make. (Our founders wisely left religion OUT of our government. Only cretinous nut-jobs or conniving charlatans think religion or capitalist business principles have any room in the public governance of the United States under the Constitution.)
And Israel's underhanded participation in America's politics is the one card Israel thinks it must play (see the book THE ISRAEL LOBBY & US FOREIGN POLICY). Israel has hijacked and steered this nation into attacking at least A DOZEN Islamic states - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Eritrea. the Philippines, and the Balkans.
With the Oil Boys and the MilitaryIndustrial Moguls as the American ruling classes, there didn't need to be so very much prodding to put the spurs to America. Just a 'special event', as the (Zionist) Project for A New Anerican Century put it, "a new Pearl Harbor" with which to delude the mass population into getting with The War Program. American Fascism, as FDR put it, will come not from outside and in plain view, aka Islam-o-fascism or Commie-o-fascism or even fasces-o-fascism, but from within, within our nation, our government, and our selves.
To papiowhisperer: You may find interesting my latest editorial column which is about Ron Paul, by link at top of page from http://tomsager.org. While I'd feel a little more comfortable endorsing Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, by far the best we have on the ballot is Ron Paul. Interestingly enough, he is, perhaps, the only Republican candidate not mentioned here by Juan Cole! -Yusha
AdeleTheCzech wrote: the possibility of a Muslim terrorist attack on, say, New York City by striking the Indian Point Nuclear facility just up the river is hardly out of the question, is it? (Special Ops guys hunting for bin Laden found detailed architectural plans for that site in an Afghan cave.)
Yes, quite out of the question. Even a cursory glance at architectural drawings of a nuclear power plant will show that they are quite immune even to a fully fueled 747. It is probable that significant damage would be done, and that the plant may never re-open in the event of a successful attack, but nothing on the order of Chenoble or even Three-Mile Island. Nuclear power plants are extraordinarily well-built and armored. Certainly a nuke or a 10,000 lb bunker buster would do it.
Like the word "myth" being relegated by common usage to equate with a lie, "fascism" is merely a cuss word to express and arouse strong passion.
Certainly "no one" running for office would use Chritofascism or Judeaofascism, but like merwan there are many around the world who would be comfortable with the terms. This statement is true because the comments are biological expressions emanating from biological creatures.
Lizard brings us to this biological point with the statement about fatness and the feeling of wanting to be fatter: this is a most important observation if humanity is to overcome "fascist" behavior; and that yes, even "Muslims" are susceptible to as shown by their initial embracing of Bush/Cheney and the predominate Republican behavior that includes the callous sadism that masks their underlying fear(s).
How to address the desires for "fatness" and becoming "fatter" (it could be characterized as a desire to burst or cut as an effort or desire to change the current biological flow form that thwarts the "natural" creative expansiveness), how to address this in the moment, as well as the masked fear, is the true survival "game" of the moment (considering "depleted" uranium is now part of the equation).
The "game" of "fascist" domination/submission is being played out in the majority of homes, workplaces and play stations in the United States if not the world. How to interject and create a state change in any instance whether worldly or local one on one is the task at hand.
Myth can be recognized as the natural organizing function of human intellectual function, and the use of "fascism" should be recognized as a cuss word being used to express a severe fear based character structure (at least as used by fear-mongering politicians).
Thanks to Mr. Cole and the commentators for raising and partaking of a most important conversation.
(of course the most effective group action to confront "fascism" is for the citizens of the United States to impeach Bush/Cheney)
Re Adele TC, I think the idea is that religions are not to be judged by the actions of statistically negligible percentages of their adherents; rather explanations for these behaviors might better be found in more generalized theories of psychopathology or something.
Maybe that's overstating the case. Extreme behaviors should probably be weighted to some extent when thinking about an institution as a whole. What any curious person in the US has had to endure over the last 6 years--make that 28 years--however, has been almost total smirking and scoffing disregard for the "institution as a whole", really childish extrapolations. And quite a complex institution it would seem to be...the word itself barely seems to apply.
I know bin Laden has his material supporters among a clearly-delineated minority sect within a clearly-delineated minority portion of the Muslim world. And he is a rock star to many Muslims who hate the US and the liberal culture and government with which it justifies everything it does in the world. Still, for a leftist, isn't it kind of surprising there's not more "Islamic terrorism" than there is? And isn't the reason because we don't understand the fundamental disconnect between Islam and terrorism? Even between Islam and fascism?
I think we can't speak intelligently about the role of Islam in "Islamic terrorism" if we can't speak intelligently about Islam...
Terrorism and everything else is not important. The only important thing is how fat I can get. In my opinion, I am not fat enough yet.
Tom Tancredo was madly obsessed with illegal immigration (his one-trick-pony campaign quickly collapsed), but the possibility of a Muslim terrorist attack on, say, New York City by striking the Indian Point Nuclear facility just up the river is hardly out of the question, is it? (Special Ops guys hunting for bin Laden found detailed architectural plans for that site in an Afghan cave.)
Professor Cole tells us we must understand the difference between "Islamic" and "Muslim" so that our rhetoric doesn't sound bigoted: "It would be perfectly all right to talk about Muslim terrorists, but calling them Islamic terrorists or Islamic fascists implies that the religion of Islam is somehow essentially connected to those extremist movements."
Well ... recently some scholar on television (sorry, forgot his name) was explaining the intellectual/political history of al-Qaida, starting back with Q'utb, who influenced al-Zawahri, who influenced bin Laden. He opined that a great turning point occurred with acceptance of the "takfir" concept -- it is possible to kill your fellow Muslims (not just non-Muslims) under various circumstances. The 21st century Muslim weapons of choice -- car bombs and suicide bomb vests -- doing their ghastly work in Iraq and Afghanistan, are, he said, a logical outgrowth of "takfir." So how is it that Islam is NOT essentially connected to these extremists, professor?
The attempt to start a religious war on Islam was deliberate.
Israel's long-term strategic position is horrendous: the Israelis have few natural resources (not even enough water), are vastly outnumbered by their enemies in the region, and are widely hated for their slow ethnic cleansing-by-bulldozer of the Palestinians. The Jews are in big trouble and they know it. The neocons' solution was to sucker the U.S. into destroying the Muslim states surrounding Israel. Remember all the talk, after the triumphant Shock 'n Awe of Iraq in 2003, of seven more wars, beginning with Syria and Iran? Had this happened, it would have been perfect for Israel: they spend not a cent, while we do the heavy lifting and the heavy dying.
There was no way we would make that bargain in our right minds, so of course the Neocons needed to sucker us into doing it. The WMDs and the uranium-from-Niger lies were a part of a huge deception. And another part was the long, slow beating of the drums against Islam: if the Jews could stoke a religious war between Islam and Christianity, then Israel would have a chance of surviving.
This why we have been hearing so much anti-Muslim bigotry over the last few years. It is also why there has been such an enormous increase in religious talk, years before the election of Bush II, in the parts of the media that are dominated by Jews (many of the newspapers and TV channels, and nearly all of the book publishers and movie producers). A religious war cannot happen if Americans are apathetic about religion, so religion must be promoted wherever possible.
And the Jews tried; they tried hard. Injecting religious conflict into a democratic country risks destroying that country, even if that country is the mighty U.S. But the Israelis were desperate. Fortunately for the future of the United States, they failed to ignite much anti-Islamic fervor. And people are not totally stupid; most of us can sense when someone is trying to manipulate us, especially when the manipulation is blatant. So now we are seeing the beginning of a backlash.
If one replaces the word Islam with Communism and terrorists with communists, one will be reunited with the McCarthyist Crusade of the early 1950s--a Crusade that started in the same bipartisan manner as the current Crusade.
The unasked question by Cole is Why did these Republican candidates try to instill/whip-up fear of Islam and Muslims--to go far beyond current Whitehouse rhetoric? The overwhelming majority of the world's remaining liquid/gaseous fossil fuels are located in Muslim countries. The importance of this for those unaware is shown by Klare's article.
Call me naive - or even a bigot - but I'm perfectly comfortable with, and recognize the legitimacy of, the term "Christofascism:" I've seen and experienced attitudes that couldn't be adequately described any other way.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian, no matter what he calls himself now. And since I'm not an anarchist, I'm not voting for anarchy-lite, thanks though.
"Islamo-fascism" is a stupid phrase, confusing two very different anti-liberal ideologies. And people worry more about losing their homes to banks than suicide bombers from Pakistan.
With Dennis Kucinich out of the race Ron Paul is
our only hope. Change parties and vote RP in your
local primary/caucus if it's not too late already.
I don't agree with RP on everything, but he is the one
DK endorsed. They voted against all the wars, the patriot
acts, etc.
Audio of Kucinich talking about Ron Paul as a running mate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_zxa1qnj4