My man Danny Goldberg quoting some DC weenie named Peter Beinart:
The central question dividing liberals today is whether they believe liberal values are as imperiled by the new totalitarianism rising from the Islamic world as they are by the American right.
Danny rips him up for making a specious argument, and you should read that too but I'm gonna take a different track. I think the choice Beinart puts forward is indeed false and loaded, but even thought it's constructed to make him look "serious" and anyone who disagrees "unhinged," I still think he gets it wrong.
I'm going to take the question seriously. Where's the greater threat to our liberal values? If you're talking about our liberal values here in the USA, then I have to take Beinart's bait and consign myself to the political wilderness: there's not a goddamn chance in fucking hell that radical Islam is a greater threat to the future health of our country and cherished liberal values than the radical far-right Republican administration which currently has total control over our national government.
Terrorists are significantly more malevolent and loathsome than Republicans, but let keep it real: radical Islamic fundamentalists have very little power, and their "totalitarianism" has almost no reach here in the US. They could (and most likely will) continue to blow things up from time to time, but you know what? We can take it. We can lose a few skyscrapers and be fucking fine as a nation.
I lived through it here in New York; we got over it, bitches. We're still going strong. It's not at all that I want this stuff to happen -- Jesus, do I really even have to say that? -- just that I think outside some symbolic framework Islamic totalitarians do not pose a significant threat to our life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
"Serious" people like Beinart will be quick to point out that the "threat of WMD" cannot be discounted, and it's true that this theoretical threat exists. However, it seems a very remote possibility, and one which is relatively easy to counteract on a number of levels. There is no nuclear-armed terrorist group, and in spite of what Tom Clancy might have you think, it's extremely difficult for anyone, let alone margin-dwelling fundamentalists, to lay hands on nuclear arms or the expertise to make use of them. As for Islamic states, should Iran get the bomb or Musharrif go down and Pakistan's arsenal be in the hands of some band of Mullahs, I fail see why deterrence and containment would work any worse against these people than against, say, Joseph Motherfucking Stalin.
There is another potential threat which comes from the type of systems disruption that John Robb has outlined in his Global Guerrillas website/book. This is more possible in my mind than the WMD boogyman, but it still seems unlikely to me that we will really face this here in "the homeland." There are too few committed jihadis with too small a support network and too little intelligence or capability here to really make anything awful happen. We've got more to worry about from the weather, frankly.
Iraq of course is a whole different kettle of fish. The advances being made in systems disruption techniques there are going to spell trouble for the region for years to come. However, I don't believe that we have much to fear from this sort of activity being transplanted back to the US.
As for the rise of a truly "Totalitarian" threat, those who imagine some kind of unified Islamic Empire spanning from Java to Spain are also probably scared of monsters under their bed. There are too many cultural and religious divisions and too little infrastructure for this to be feasible in the 21st century, and the most effective tactic for terrorists (the aforementioned systems disruption) is not the sort of means which can be used to build and empire; it can only take one down.
That, in a nutshell, is why I don't believe that radical Islam is really much of a threat to our way of life, and why I do believe that the war on Terrorism, such as it is, is a sham. Certainly the rise of hardline Islam is having an impact around the globe, and definitely infringing on the personal liberties of people in other countries. But is this really something we can actively combat? Are we the global cops and the global ACLU? I don't think the world works that way, and I don't think using US military power (which is what we're obliquely talking about here) to project our liberal values is a winning strategy. Stopping genocide? You bet. Protecting allies? Sure. But when it comes to fostering democracy, you don't call in the fucking Marines. They kill people and blow shit up. Just ask 'em.
Another truth is that in most places where radical fundamentalism is taking hold, the existing civil society is largely a failure, and people are turning to Sharia as an alternative to chaos and uncertainty, which take their own toll on liberal values. From an intellectual standpoint, there is some threat here for other countries. Globalization is failing in many places, and fundamentalism (in various forms) is one alternative which is filling the void. Will life in Somalia be better or worse now that the Warlords are out of power? Well, if we bomb and invade it will certainly get worse, but all things being equal it seems likely to be a wash in terms of "our liberal values."
Now to the other possible threat: the far-right here at home.
Compared to terrorists, the far-right and their radical Republican government are far more humane, not bent on annihilation, etc. They are our countrymen after all. However, they wield enormous amounts of power. They're also greedy idiot prejudiced fatbacks... to quote from this Murakami book I'm reading: "Narrow minds devoid of imagination. Intolerance, theories cut off from reality, empty terminology, usurped ideals, inflexible systems. Those are the things that frighten me. What I absolutely fear and loathe."
Call me crazy, but I feel my future is imperiled much more by this powerful political movement and radical leadership which is actively running down the country though their stated intentions, uncontrollable avarice, and undeniable incompetence than I do a small number of religious fanatics with AKs, fertilizer and box-cutters. For what it's worth, I also think we'll whup 'em all in time, and I'm not actually afraid of any of this. But I do know how to weigh threats, and the modern GOP can't fall apart soon enough for my liking. The Big D will make 9/11 look like child's play.
Perhaps this makes me "unserious" in your eyes. That's fine. If you feel conversely, I think you're either a paranoid coward or a fear-monger so high on your sense of self-importance that you're unable to rationally assess reality. Or just plain old dishonest. So there.
