Monday, August 16, 2010

The Democratic Left and the Ground Zero Mosque

How far left does the Democratic Party want to go in support of the Ground Zero Mosque? Apparently not as far as Obama is willing to go: "The president's statement on Friday that Muslims have a right to build an Islamic center two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center attack immediately prompted outraged reactions . . ."

"Having the president comment on the proposed Islamic center, however, has turned it into a national political issue.

"One of the few voices of support for the president came from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who told a news conference today that he "applauded Obama" for his remarks."

Harry Reed has jumped ship: "The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."

The Democratic Left reminds me of the Islamists in one respect: They might win a popular election (as they did in Algeria), but once they have power, their excesses cause their supporters to be appalled by them.

COMMENT: I consider the view that the Islamists do not represent a serious threat to Liberal Democracy to be a Leftist viewpoint. Prior to 9/11 Edward Said and John Esposito were very vocal in support of the idea that Islamism didn't pose a serious threat to the West. Not that they approved of the murders and bombs, but they saw them as just another cry from the "Wretched of the Earth"; which is a view consistent with Marxism. Thus, the Left, continues to treat Islamists rather more than less like just another anti-colonial liberation movement.

If that is what Islamism is, an anti-colonial liberation movement, then the solutions you hear from the Left might work, e.g., give them more jobs, improve their standard of living, and let them have a larger part of the world's economic pie. On the other hand, if Islamism is what it claims to be, money isn't going to satisfy it. What Islamists say about themselves (as opposed to what those committed to Marxist solutions say about them) is that they are on a Jihad, and nothing short of conquering the entire world is going to satisfy them.

Leftists are rather sheepish about hanging onto their Marxist views. They'll tell you they know this "tiny minority called Islamism" is dangerous. They will support going after them as police authorities might go after a criminal gang. But they won't credit what the Islamists say about themselves, that they are committed to conquering the world. Thus, they will support going after Al Qaeda, but they won't oppose Hamas or Hezbollah. They will support going after terrorists in Aircraft terminals, but they won't oppose Islamist dominated nations like Palestine and Iran. Oh it might seem that they oppose them, but no more than they might oppose any other nation that doesn't agree with all their policies. Iran, for example, would be welcomed by the Left with open arms if only it would give up its nuclear ambitions. After that, we are led to believe, we will be able to welcome them back into the Western fold.

We see the die-hard commitment of the Left in regard to the Ground Zero Mosque. These Mosque builders are just another religious group. They give little thought to discovering the relationship of the Mosque builders to Islamism, because that isn't an important consideration to them. Does Rauf sound moderate, well that's good enough for Bloomberg and Obama. Does Rauf want to build the mosque in the rubble of the demolished twin towers? Well they have to build it some place and the land is available. These views, the views expressed by Bloomberg and Obama are not the views of people who take the threat posed by Islamism seriously.

I have read the Islamist literature. I have read what they say about themselves and what they say about their intentions. I have read many of those who have studied Islamism, and I see no reason not to accept the Islamists at their word. They say they want to continue Mohammad's Jihad. They say they want to give infidels the choice of joining them or being killed. They say that a dedicated Muslim should kill as many infidels as he can. That is what they say about themselves and I believe the evidence that they intend to put their beliefs into action is overwhelming.

Will the Islamists succeed in accomplishing their goal? Will we go on as the Left wishes us to, ignoring what they say about themselves and insisting that they should be treated like any other former colonial people? Will we accept the Left's view that their commitment to their Jihad will fade away as soon as their pockets are set to jingling? Or will we be able to generate the will to oppose them as the fanatical force the claim to be, a force committed to our destruction?

Their attempt to build a symbol on top of one of their greatest victories against the infidel, the destruction of its Twin Towers, is not all bad. It is forcing a lot of people who might otherwise have remained apathetic, to pay closer attention to the Islamist threat than they've ever done before.


Slave Revolt said...

Come on now, play fair. There have been many Euro-Christian/American Pie-addled fanatics from the West that have engaged the task of conquering the entire world.

As far as the "Islamists" are concerned, which are you speaking of?

You do know that there are 1.6 billion people that practice variations of "Islam". You paint with a rather broad brush. That worked at the heights of abstract expressionism, but the world has changed in half a century.

You grope for metaphors and tropes that have long since lost their intellectual chache and spark.

But the guilt-by-association of the McCarthy era are still quite potent, and especially suited for this internet age of blog screeds.

Lawrence Helm said...

See response at