The War Of Ideas

by hilzoy

Steve Benen linked to this, um, fascinating article by Michael Medved on why America should never elect an atheist President. He offers three main reasons. The first two are risible: (1) How on earth would an atheist issue a Thanksgiving proclamation? or say the Pledge of Allegiance? and (2) a President needs to have a real connection with the people; since Americans are religious, how could an atheist manage this? (Answer, in both cases: easily.) The third is more interesting:

"On one level, at least, the ongoing war on terror represents a furious battle of ideas and we face devastating handicaps if we attempt to beat something with nothing. Modern secularism rejects the notion that human beings feel a deep-seated, unquenchable craving for making connections with Godliness, in its various definitions and manifestations. For Osama bin Laden and other jihadist preachers, Islam understands that yearning but “infidel” America does not. Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him. The proper response to such assertions involves the citation of our religious traditions and commitments, and the credible argument that embrace of modernity, tolerance and democracy need not lead to godless materialism. In this context, an atheist president conforms to the most hostile anti-America stereotypes of Islamic fanatics and makes it that much harder to appeal to Muslim moderates whose cooperation (or at least neutrality) we very much need. The charge that our battle amounts to a “war against Islam” seems more persuasive when an openly identified non-believer leads our side—after all, President Atheist says he believes in nothing, so it’s easy to assume that he leads a war against belief itself. A conventional adherent of Judeo-Christian faith can, on the other hand, make the case that our fight constitutes of an effort to defend our own way of life, not a war to suppress some alternative – and that way of life includes a specific sort of free-wheeling, open-minded religiosity that has blessed this nation and could also bless the nations of the Middle East."

Leave aside the obvious point that an atheist President need not be amoral or materialistic, and could therefore appeal to a whole host of values, and the further fact that citing one's own Christianity or Judaism is unlikely to convince Muslims of one's benign intentions. (Crusades, anyone?) What fascinated me was the fact that, at last, a columnist at TownHall acknowledges that it is important not to play into Muslims' worst stereotypes about us. Personally, I think that it would be a mistake not to elect an atheist, regardless of his or her qualifications to be President, and regardless of his or her opponents', in order to secure a benefit in the "war of ideas" that might most charitably be described as speculative. But I absolutely agree with Medved that it is important to take into account the effects of our actions on moderate Muslim public opinion, and not to foster the impression that we are fighting a war against Islam needlessly; and I was glad to see him acknowledge that fact.

I was curious about one thing, though: does Medved make this kind of argument in any context other than atheist Presidents? So I searched his website, which seems to contain his various columns, for terms like "torture", "Abu Ghraib", and "Guantanamo." I also searched for "Iraq", to see whether Medved had ever made the same kinds of objections he makes against atheist Presidents to either our invasion of a Muslim country with no connection to 9/11 or our conduct of the war.

Curiously, I couldn't find a single column (or blog post, or anything) in which Medved made any such argument. Apparently, torturing Muslims, disappearing them into legal black holes, invading their countries without provocation, and little things like that do not provoke him to bemoan the fact that we are playing into people's worst stereotypes of us, or losing the battle of ideas. Only the thought of electing an atheist President does that. I wouldn't normally note the fact that someone didn't blog about something as evidence of much of anything, but for someone who purports to care about Muslims' ideas of us to mention Abu Ghraib only once, in passing, and Guantanamo not at all, seemed pretty striking.

Coming from someone who argues that slavery has gotten a bad rap, though, I can't say I'm surprised.

Comments

[ral]

How can one regard the American Civil War as an accomplishment to be proud of? To me it seems to be a great tragedy. Yes, one great outcome was the end of slavery but as russell says, that is hardly a matter for pride.

Also, how am I to take pride in the actions of people who died long before I was born? I can marvel at their moral courage or brave deeds but I can take no credit for them. I can understand taking pride in the accomplishments of, say, one's children, but not of one's ancestors or unrelated long dead predecessors.

For me to be proud of my country it has to be for the fidelity to its founding principles that we hold today and for what we do now and in the future. The Declaration of Independence is a stirring document and its authors are greatly to be admired, even revered, but that is not a cause for pride in ourselves today. Our own actions must be the source of that pride, not those of our forbears.

[Juandimensional]

"To me, personally, taking pride in the fact that we finally abolished slavery, and have made the progress we have made in race relations, is kind of like taking pride in the fact that you no longer get drunk on the weekends and beat the crap out of your wife and kids.

It strikes me as kind of unseemly."

Wow, tough crowd. But to use your analogy, then it's unseemly to be proud of the better angels of our conscience who convinced us to stop drinking and beating our wives and kids. Lincoln, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Fredrick Douglass, all the abolitionists, and all the Union soldiers. And to carry what I think is an inapposite analogy further, we didn't just put up the bottle, we chopped off our own hand so we couldn't use it to drink or strike our family.

I'm not a member, but I've heard AA members tell me their years sober with the pride of accomplishment. I don't think that's unwarranted.

As for Medved's American exceptionalism I agree that it's ugly and prideful, but I still don't think it warrants claiming he thinks slavery got a bad rap. That's equally ugly.

[Juandimensional]

ral writes:

"Also, how am I to take pride in the actions of people who died long before I was born?"

If you can't take pride in their actions, then you can't be ashamed of their actions either. And the slaughter of the Indians and slavery are then nothing to be ashamed of because they were perpetrated by individuals who died a long time before you were born.

I don't believe that. I'm proud of George Washington in a way that I'm not proud of Ghandi. Why? Because I live under the system Washington helped bring about. Call it nationalism, but I feel like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson et. al. are my ancestors and I take ancestral pride in their accomplishments, and ancestral shame in their cruelties. Without that continuity, I have no guilt and so bear no responsibility for actions that happened before my parents set foot here in 1953. I've never oppressed anybody, so why should I redress wrongs I haven't committed?

Fairness is a good answer, but because of that collective guilt I feel we owe more to African American, and Native American society than to Hispanics or Asians or any other group that hasn't gotten a fair shake here. I don't think that's a bad way of looking at it.

[matttbastard]

DNFTT.

[russell]

Wow, tough crowd.

Hey Juan, you've made your point. We've all made ours.

Let it be.

Thanks -

[DaveC]

Hey Juandimenional,

Maybe you're originally from Cuba, I don't know, but their healthcare is so much better than the US that you should be ashamed to live here. There are countries that are 95% egalitarian, such as North Korea or Zimbabwe, where almost every person is equal. (I'm saying over 95% of the people are equal to each other.)

Shame on you Juan. You should forsake any idea of working for a living and thinking "I got what I have on my own". That is typical thinking for the benighted. You should take what the government gives you, and vote to take more. Don't cling to this religion and freedom stuff. If you only submit, then you will have more entitlements, which if you think about it the correct way, will make you vote for your economic interests. See, this whole "Middle-classness" stuff is overrated and you should not aspire to that. Rather, you should allow the majority of money to be doled out by the government, and be grateful to your overlords for taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Sure, there may be problems with the distribution, and you will have to be a political activist for your interests. You can't walk away from the government and do something else as easily as you could change churches or changes jobs (which are pretty difficult things themselves). So maybe you have to side with the correct political group If you are angry at the past actions of Americas government, all you have to do is buy in to more government control in the future. Except that you don't have to wear a flag lapel or say The Pledge of Allegiance.

[ral]

It's all rather confusing, really!

[Sean M. Brooks]

Dear Turbulence,

Just a quick note to say I have read your replies to me. And I hope to respond. However, I've gotten entangled in other debates. That's making it hard for me to keep up.

Apologetically, Sean M. Brooks

[Sean M. Brooks]

Dear Turbulence, I've changed my mind. I'll comment now on your note to me (posted April 13).

I fully agree with your view that we need to take NUANCED views of complex situations. Like the steady migration of Christians from Muslim countries. I agree that economic plays a big role. It made SENSE for your relatives to leave, say, Syria, if by doing so they could make better lives in the UK, US, or Australia.

But while you rightly stress the economic factor, I still say Muslim hostility to Christians is at least a CONTRIBUTING factor. Persecution does not have to always take the forms of official or unofficiai mass violence. It can include deliberately preferring to hire Person A becaues he is a Muslim instead of Person B (even if B is better qualified). Much more of this kind of social pressure, and it's not surprising many Christians will give up and leave for more friendly countries.

And naked violence by Muslims against Christians does occur. Along with demands by fanatical Muslims that the old degrading laws of dhimmitude be again imposed on non Muslims.

So, I would insist that any nuanced study of Christians in Muslim countries have to include the political, economic, social, and religious factors. Which I'm sure you would agree with.

I wish I still had Bat Ye'or's book on this topic. Then I could comment in more detail.

Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

[spockamok]

Gary Farber and Juandimensional - a couple questions/comments on the slavery debate

Gary - northwest-europeans were the ethnic majority in the USA in the 19th century, both north and south. The pro-Union northwest Europeans did not go to war free slaves in the states, but they knowingly risked secession by not compromising over slavery in the territories. this was for self-interested and moral reasons, without a combination of voters motivated by both, Lincoln never would have won in the electoral college. Is there any other country in the world where the ethnic majority divided into a civil war over treatment of an ethnic minority? There may be actually, but not comes to mind.

Question # 2 - Why do those with abolitionist sentiments not "count" as representative of white America but slave-holders or slavery-tolerators do?

Alot of the people who supported first free-soil and abolition, and later who supported civil rights, were not the same people who supported slavery and segregation earlier, they came from families or communities that had objected for decades. That makes the sacrifices they made to first contain slavery and then to end it a little different from the individual who stops beating his wife. They probably don't belong in the same collective as slaveholders or pro-slavery people, or the "swing voters" who brought Lincoln to a majority twice.

-------

Juandimensional - I think there's a reason for the conservative versus liberal divide over whether one should look upon American historical actions as half-full, a la Medved, or half-empty, a la Hilzoy and Farber. Basically, from a liberal POV, self-congratulatory statements are useless because they can justify complacency rather than reform. A country should always be progressing to something better, so constructive or incisive criticism is useful, happy talk is not.

Gary F., does that sound about right to you?

For the conservative like Medved, historical self-congratulation justifies complacency and an excuse to attack people who focus on progressive or corrective reform in the system. If you're a conservative or reactionary and would like certain traditions to stand still or move backward, then historical self-congratulation and current complacency is just what the doctor ordered. Historical self-criticism is useless for conservatives because it can justify changes in society they don't want. Liberals figured out that's why conservatives like self-congratulation, so that's why they hate it more.

Is that about right Gary F.

[Amos Newcombe]

Liberals figured out that's why conservatives like self-congratulation, so that's why they hate it more.

(Bold face added.)

WTF? Cite, please.

[Fraser]

Juan, I'd need context on Medved's "five million Jews" to decide if he's a Nazi apologist. If he's simply saying that historical records show the Nazis only killed five million Jews, even if he's wrong that doesn't mean he's defending them--five million is still a horrific figure, a long way from the No Dead Jews position embraced by the Holocaust Deniers. In terms of Nazi vileness, cutting the death toll by 16 percent isn't what I'd consider a white wash.

If, on the other hand, Medved also said that by embracing Communism, the Jews forced the Nazis to act against them (an argument I have heard made) or that the Nazis weren't noticeably worse than any other anti-Semites, you might have a point.

As for British slavery, the book "Bury the Chains" makes it very clear how much the slave trade contributed to the British economy.

[Sean M. Brooks]

Dear Jesurgislac. Thanks for your remarks. I will offer a quick response.

Can hypocrites be found among Christians? Yes.

Can Christians be liars and scoundrels? You bet!

But that does not mean Catholics or Protestants can't run for office or other Cristians to vote (or not vote) for them. Christans have as much right to take parting in governing the country as atheists, liberals, leftists, and other people I disagree with.

I also point out how OFTEN liberals and leftist can be liars, hypocrites, scoundrels, criminals, etc., as Christians. The unspeakable Teddy Kennedy comes to mind as one example.

Your comments about the NT were interesting. I fully agree Our Lord and the Apostles taught that we should give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to honor our leaders and obey them in all rightful ways.

Sincerely. Sean M. Brooks

[spockamok]

Turbulence -

You're right my comments were obscure.
They were more of a roundabout statement that muslims are not just on the receiving end of overgeneralizations, some of them also craft overgeneralizations about you and me.

A point more germane to the thread is coming below:

Hilzoy, turbulence, et al. -

Point 1 - Medved's article is obvious hackery and I don't perceive it as a good faith argument.

Point 2 - "But I absolutely agree with Medved that it is important to take into account the effects of our actions on moderate Muslim public opinion, and not to foster the impression that we are fighting a war against Islam needlessly; and I was glad to see him acknowledge that fact."

Point 3 - I would add that hardly anybody who says or thinks that the US is at war with Islam is making a good faith argument. To characterize the political wars of the United States against some states or political factions who happen to be Muslim (while it has Muslim allies, and also fights non-Muslims, and has plain old normal relations with most Muslim states, people and institutions of worship most of the time) as a "war on Islam" is a very strong indicator that the person who says it is using tendentious logic that fits an identity politics agenda of their own. They want to believe it, they are not waiting to be relieved of that belief. In other words, they are probably not arguing in good faith, and you're not going to be getting off their bad side whatever you do.

I think that's a nontrivial point to remember, even as we ackowledge that alot of people feel like there is a war on Islam and taking actions that add to that feeling *needlessly* as Hilzoy aptly put it, is a bad move. Lots of needless actions from many quarters contribute to the feeling that there is a war on Islam- they can come from the US government, they can also come from preachers, ideologists and other political opportunists who try to build a following of muslims by telling them that their religion is under siege.

[magistra]

Is there any other country in the world where the ethnic majority divided into a civil war over treatment of an ethnic minority? There may be actually, but not comes to mind.

In the UK there wasn't a war over the ending of slavery. Why? Because the slave-owners weren't so desperate to hang onto slavery that they were prepared to go to war for their right to practise it. I suspect the same is true of most other countries which abolished slavery. So the point is not that there were abolistionists in the US (like many other countries), who'd I agree were admirable, but that the pro-slavery resistance was far fiercer in the US. And also there are still people in the US trying to play down the suffering involved in slavery, like Medved; I can't think of anyone in the UK who would do that apart from members of the far-right British National Party.

Lots of needless actions from many quarters contribute to the feeling that there is a war on Islam- they can come from the US government, they can also come from preachers, ideologists and other political opportunists who try to build a following of muslims by telling them that their religion is under siege.

I don't believe that the US and UK governments are waging a war on Islam. But when they were already (justifiably) at war with one Muslim country (Afghanistan) they attacked another Muslim country (Iraq) on blatantly trumped-up premises, a country whose ruler was a secular dictator bitterly hostile to Islamists (and where Al Qaida had no support), arguing that it was part of the same war. What do Afghanistan and Iraq have in common, except that they are Muslim countries? It's not surprising that a lot of Muslims put 2 and 2 together and made 5.

[Juandimensional]

Fraser,

You say you'd need context on Medved's comments, and I agree. I don't mean to sound like a broken record on this, but I'd just like to know I'm not crazy (at least on this point). If you knew nothing about Michael Medved, and you read "Michael Medved argues Slavery has gotten a bad rap." What would you think about Michael Medved? Hilzoy thinks that "bad rap" simply means that the Nazis were made out to be worse than they were, or were unduly criticized in an objective sense. That there's nothing pejorative about the words. What do you think?

[Juandimensional]

Fraser, Miswrote previous entry, please read this one.

You say you'd need context on Medved's comments, and I agree. Medved doesn't have any soft spot for Nazis, and I don't think he has a soft spot for slavery, but that's not what you'd think reading Hilzoy's link to his article. I don't mean to sound like a broken record on this, but I'd just like to know I'm not crazy (at least on this point). If you knew nothing about Michael Medved, and you read "Michael Medved argues Slavery has gotten a bad rap." What would you think about Michael Medved? Hilzoy thinks that "bad rap" simply means that the institution of Slavery were made out to be worse than it was or was unduly criticized in an objective sense. That there's nothing pejorative about the words. What do you think?