TNR BLOGS

July 24, 2008 | 6:54 PM
July 24, 2008 | 6:53 PM
July 24, 2008 | 6:53 PM

July 24, 2008 | 6:37 PM
July 24, 2008 | 4:58 PM
July 24, 2008 | 2:31 PM

July 23, 2008 | 7:28 PM
July 23, 2008 | 7:06 PM
July 23, 2008 | 3:04 PM

July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
June 19, 2008 | 2:54 PM

July 23, 2008 | 1:31 PM
July 23, 2008 | 11:49 AM
July 22, 2008 | 8:06 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
24.01.2008
Are Candidates Exploiting "Islamophobia"?

The scapegoat of the 2008 presidential race is not the Mexican immigrant slithering his way through the Arizona desert. Neither is it China shipping dangerous goods to our unsuspecting shores. It is the Muslim. According to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, "Muslims are being used in the way reminiscent of the Willie Horton moment." This was the thesis behind a presentation Cole made yesterday at the National Press Club entitled "Fear for Votes: How Some 2008 Candidates are Exploiting Islamophobia," put on by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The hesitancy with which CAIR and Cole make their bold assertion was apparent in the very title of the event; apparently the "exploitation" of "Islamophobia" is only the work of "some candidates." Regardless, the use of  racist appeals to win votes would be wrong, if, of course, it were actually happening. It isn’t.

Cole’s chief example of the anti-Muslim fervor gripping the country was the erstwhile candidacy of Congressman Tom Tancredo, who ran on the single-issue platform of anti-immigrant hysteria. In passing, he suggested last year that the United States threaten to bomb the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina as a warning to jihadists contemplating a nuclear attack on American territory.

Tancredo’s statements were indeed “crackpottery of the highest order,” as Cole characterized them. But how emblematic is the far-right Colorado congressman of conservative opinion? Tancredo never polled above the low-single digits. In October, he announced that he would not run for re-election to Congress (a body where, despite serving five terms, he has accumulated no seniority whatsoever) and he dropped out of the presidential race in December with barely anyone noticing. The Bush State Department said that his threat to bomb Mecca and Medina was "absolutely crazy." To conflate Tancredo’s outlandish views and statements with Republican opinion is akin to saying that Cindy Sheehan is an accurate barometer of liberal attitudes. If anything, the fact that Tancredo’s candidacy never lifted off is a sign that Republican voters are hardly the rubes susceptible to anti-Muslim appeals as Cole would have us believe.

As for examples of mainstream (never mind actual) presidential candidates using "Islamophobia," Cole’s evidence was thin, and what he examples he did cite show him to be incredibly thin-skinned. Apparently, John McCain’s historically accurate statement that “the United States of America was founded on the values of Judeo-Christian values” is an instance of "Islamophobia," (at worst, McCain's original assertion that America is a "Christian nation" was ignorant and Jews had equal cause to find offense; but either way McCain hardly had any malicious intent towards Muslims). Also racist was his joke at a recent debate that "I am not interested in trading with al Qaeda, all they want to trade is burqas." With this quip, according to Cole, McCain is "branding the wearing of burqas as related to al-Qaeda." Cole then cited a New Hampshire co-chairman of Giuliani’s veterans outreach committee--clearly, a very senior position--who said that "one of the most difficult problems in current history" is "the rise of the Muslims." After the Guardian reported this utterance, he promptly resigned. The only example Cole provided that even approached "bigotry" was the obnoxious sermonizing of Mike Huckabee. But the former governor’s calls for amending the Constitution to make it explicitly Christian or his use of a cross in television advertisements are ecumenically offensive, and have annnoyed some conservatives, never mind adamantly secular liberals.

I asked Cole what he thought of Ron Paul's advertisement, in which he promises "No more student visas for terrorist nations."This would seem the archetypical example of the "fear-mongering" that Cole and his ilk so frequently complain, especially because the professor had explicitly denounced the whole notion of a "terrorist nation" as a racist construction earlier in his lecture. Cole said he had not heard about the commerical and was "surprised because Paul has been better on these issues than some of the other campaigners." CAIR's legislative director said he too wasn't aware of the advertisement. That Paul is so popular with people like Cole and CAIR is hardly a surprise; but neither is the news that he would issue overtly racist appeals for support.

 --James Kirchick

Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:30 PM with 12 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

What's with the funky line spacing? Can you guys PLEASE fix this?

January 24, 2008 5:43 PM

jdcarteriii said:

"Slithering"?  Does it never end?  I found your word choice offensive.  Very.  What did a Kirkchick do to get here?  Prolly dint "slither" through the desert.  You should be ashamed of yourself and appologize.  Maybe Coulter could use you for your awesome speechwriting!

January 24, 2008 5:53 PM

teplukhin2you said:

jd, chill. That's irony.

Re the line spacing, glad to see it's been fixed.

Re the article, well done. Another example of solid research from Kirchick. More like this, pls.

January 24, 2008 6:05 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Heck with line spacing, how did a piece with paragraphs this long get posted online in the first place? If a bit of text has to be as sclerotic as this post, then it belongs in print, not online.

None of the rest of the Planksters seem to have this problem with web-unfriendly hyperverbosity.

Finally, taking easy potshots at Juan Cole is old hat. Anyone who wants to read yet another Juan-Cole-is-a-doofus blog post is probably reading NRO right now.

January 24, 2008 6:09 PM

porkido said:

Um...didn't the Right Honourable Mainstream Senator McCain sing "Bomb Iran" in front of rolling cameras?  Oh, it was a joke?  Ha ha.  That McCain is quite a card.

January 24, 2008 7:12 PM

davidsmith192 said:

The only "islamophobia" I've seen in the presidential race are the emails I've received claiming that Obama is a muslim.

FWIW, the emails I've received probably didn't originate with the Clinton campaign but are instead the product of right-wingers who fear that Obama is more electable.

January 24, 2008 7:36 PM

Rhubarbs said:

davidsmith192, the scare thing is that that sort of hateful rumormongering is most often not tactical. People on the right really believe a lot of insane stuff like that Obama is a Muslim who swears the oath of office on a Quran and wants to confiscate your gun and give it to bin Laden.

January 24, 2008 7:59 PM

amidut said:

Islam is not a race. It is a religion. As such, it is subject to close inspection like any other religion in Western society. Juan Cole and CAIR want to frighten off legitimate criticism of Islam.

While many westernized Muslims are genuine liberals, Islam has, on the whole, been violent, expansionist, and intolerant. Today, especially with the petro-dollar-fueled spread of Saudi Wahabism and Iranian Shi'ism, it is at war with the rest of the world. It is the main threat to the tolerant, liberal society created by the West since World War II. It evokes concern and, yes, demagoguery

Islam's pretense to moral superiority over the West is pretty transparent. Age 9 is the age of consent for females in Iran because their prophet Mohamed had a 9-year old bride. Never mind the frequent honor killings and female genital mutilation found in Islam.

January 24, 2008 9:55 PM

Androscoggin said:

Islamophobia is an insidious term. The goal is to equate criticism of Islam with anti-Arab racism. The former is perfectly legitimate (morally required, even); the latter certainly isn't.

January 24, 2008 10:18 PM

asnevitt said:

androscoggin, thank you. You captured what I couldn't quite articulate.

amidut, you are right violence and inhumanity in the halls of Islam. Women can be treated so cruelly. But I'd be careful to assign these traits to all form of Islam. Wahabists are quite bad. And we get to see the effects of the most extreme versions. The Quran, however, is open to interpretation. Arabic is a very symbolic language. Followers choose an Imam based upon how that person is interpreting. (Looking at why they might choose more extremists in the 20th century might be telling.) Not all sects believe or accept the heinous applications. We only hear about those because they're sensational. And, because, being more extreme and fanatic, they tend to be more militant and to gain political control.

Be careful about judging Mohammed's marriages, as well. (I'm not defending him here, because I don't know the details) In Islam many marriages are for the purpose of alliances, or even to provide a safe haven for a woman who might not otherwise have it. As for age, I don't know what the norms were back then. Lifespans were different. Puberty was certainly earlier. And to this day, puberty is different for people of different ethnic backgrounds just because of climate and diet. It was so long ago, that we can't apply today's standards.

It is a crime that Muslim leaders can't adjust things like this to reflect current reality. Girls are being tortured. It makes my stomach turn. When I read "Princess", the biography of a woman in Saudi Arabia, I almost couldn't finish the book. It was horrifying to know the things that people are subjected to and to feel helpless to do anything about it.

I used to have a dream that all the women in the world would line up at the borders of Afghanistan and just march in, millions of them, stepping between abusive men and the women. Ah, the idealist in me.....

Finally, I would remind us all that Christians don't exactly have a great history with regards to violence and the treatment of women. In many fundamentalist Christian homes today, women are treated as second-rate human beings. Most of our leaders still use prostitutes and not always for gentle purposes. In the US rape is rampant and it is still the case that the victim carries the shame and therefore it is under-reported and rarely prosecuted. Just sayin'......

January 25, 2008 12:25 AM

nancyirving said:

'John McCain’s historically accurate statement that “the United States of America was founded on the values of Judeo-Christian values"' -

Give me strength, O Lord...

January 25, 2008 12:57 AM

jm_rice said:

Why did I know before I got to the byline, that this shallow, precious. politically-correct sanctimony would be TNR's hysteric-in-residence Miss Kirchick?

If we forget to be racial, ethnic, gender, GLBT, etc. -conscious, then, to Kirchick's exquisite sensibilities, we are bigots.  Thus, he opines, Jews might well be offended if McCain makes the ("ignorant") faux pas of saying that America was founded on "Christian" rather than pedantically-correct "Judeo-Christian" values.  I realize that in context Kirchick was defending McCain...faintly, but Kirchick's trying to patronize anybody, much less John McCain, is risible.

As has been pointed out, criticism, even censure of Islam is not racism.  It has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity, but with values and behavior, though Kirchick will jump on it to parade his fancied moral superiority, having ordained that criticism of others on any basis is taboo because, in his fatuous frame of reference, it's simply not nice -- it may hurt someone's feelings.  You see, Kirchick wants us all to be nice, like him.  If not, we're what he considers, "ilk".

Kirchick, Islamophobia is not about fear or (as you render the misnomer) hatred of Muslims, but about the well-founded belief that Islam is fundamentally at odds with humanist values and civilized behavior.  You may not agree, but unless you establish it first, you have no right to present your take on Islam as axiomatic, nor to equate what you call "Islamophobia" with bigotry.  Until you establish that Islam is not what the evidence says it is, your Islamophobia-is-bigotry badge begs the question, and anything you argue that's founded on it is, like most of your opinions here, sanctimonious, puerile garbage.

January 25, 2008 1:57 AM