September 22, 2001

5:56 AM

Joshua Marshall, a liberal pundit who publishes the Talking Points weblog, makes a spirited attempt in the New York Post to defend President Bush's statement that "our terrorist enemies attacked because they hate freedom and democracy."
posted by rcade (22 comments total)

Joshua Marshall defending Dubya?
Wow!
Everything really has changed!
I'd have to question the democracy part as of late. As I understand democracy it usually doesn't involve courts appointing heads of state.
posted by nofundy at 6:44 AM on September 22, 2001

Of the things listed by Marshall in his piece, which is much too reasonable for the Post, I think the biggest reasons the U.S. is the enemy are secularism and tolerance.

Looking at what these extremists do in countries where they have any power at all (in Pakistan you can be executed for blasphemy), it's easy to see that their biggest concern is not the loss of life caused by the U.S. during the Gulf war or subsequent strikes, but the threat of Westernization transforming their society.
posted by rcade at 6:51 AM on September 22, 2001

I read, on CNN, I think, that in Afghanistan you can be executed for watching a movie or listening to music. That's really hard to believe, but if true, is ghastly.
posted by fooljay at 6:53 AM on September 22, 2001

That's probably true... you can be jailed if you have a TV or other electronic device w/o having "permission".
posted by BlitzK at 7:09 AM on September 22, 2001

It is the same characteristics that make us both targets and heroes. Our strength lies in our differences and the desire - if not always the ability - to tolerate them. Fanatics believe that only one road can lead to salvation. Going through life with blinders on is a greater weakness than unpreparedness. We can recover from that mistake, but an outlook that doesn't recognize the possibility of fallibility cannot.
posted by sierray at 7:28 AM on September 22, 2001

...but the threat of Westernization transforming their society.

Exactly. THAT is why people allied with bin Laden hate our freedom, our democracy, our values. Our support of Israel, contrary to many recent claims that it is the primary reason for the attack, is merely an afterthought in their hatred of America.
posted by davidmsc at 7:29 AM on September 22, 2001

In most basic terms, no-one fights for or against abstract entities, other than deities -- and even in that case, the fight is constituted in concrete terms: reward or punishment in this or a future life. Marshall does a damn good job of grounding some of these freedoms in "rough-and-tumble, sometimes crass, Americanism": as rcade says, you're talking about tolerance and diversity, the buzz that makes New York my favourite place on the planet. Or, as Christopher Hitchens argues, like a true British expat:

America is the greatest of all subjects for a writer, in the first place because of its infinite space and depth and variety, and also because it is ultimately founded upon an idea. The idea, originally phrased in some noble document drawn up by a few rather conservative English gentleman-farmers, is that on this continent there might arise the world's first successful multinational and secular democracy.

But this is where I get to sound like a jaded European: just as many Americans are now realising that the rest of the world does not "think we're pretty neat" (as my girlfriend's brother-in-law put it), such vague talk of "our freedom" and "our values" simply doesn't translate that well overseas, because the concepts are nebulous, not attached to anything. (It's that tendency which is often -- wrongly -- interpreted by Europeans as a mixture of naivety and arrogance.) Anyway, I've spent years reading up and travelling around the US, and I still don't have a clue what they stand for. Frankly, Coca-Cola, Michael Jordan and Pamela Anderson's tits are better "culture-bearers" than talk of freedom and prosperity, and no less effective.

rcade: you'd probably be interested in the recent history of Islamic parties in Turkey. Ataturk founded his nation as an explicitly secular state, and over the last decade, there's been a tricky juggling act which essentially compromises some democratic rights for fear of giving power to those who wish to abrogate all of them. Not that the Turkish government has been a model of freedom (just ask a Kurd) but it's a good case study, which takes the fate of Germany in the 30s one step further: does true democracy allow its own undoing?
posted by holgate at 8:16 AM on September 22, 2001

...it is ultimately founded upon an idea.

Amen, brother! America didn't "evolve" from any sort of land-based monarchy, or simply via geographical accident (but we got lucky there, early on), or through colonialism, but it was literally created and based on ideas. As written earlier (can't recall who, right now), America did not create the principles of liberty, democracy, and capitalism...rather, those principles created America. Stunning in scope, impact, and import.
posted by davidmsc at 9:18 AM on September 22, 2001

Holgate, I believe you've gotten it. The whole point is that America doesn't stand for any one single thing. What we stand for is diversity. The reason you couldn't find one single thing is that there isn't any one single thing to find.

What we stand for is not standing for any one single thing.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:14 AM on September 22, 2001

Stunning in scope, impact, and import.

...and in the perceived responsibility to endorse and enforce that idea, which so often dictates the poltical character of the republic. It means that it's too easy to hold the USA responsible for sins of omission, as well as action. I'm reminded of Mallarmé's conversation with Degas:

-- I have many ideas for poems, Mallarmé.
-- Ah, my dear Degas, but poems are made out of words, not ideas...

And yes, Steven, that's the American quandry: its struggle to keep affirming its commitment to a kind of social and political network effect.
posted by holgate at 10:28 AM on September 22, 2001

davidmsc: Capitalism did not exist when the nation was founded, really. Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" was published in 1776. Just for the record.
posted by raysmj at 12:13 PM on September 22, 2001

Christopher Hitchens (mortal enemy of Media Whores Online) tackles this subject in the current issue of The Nation. A quote: "the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there's no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about 'the West,' to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don't like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state."
posted by rcade at 2:41 PM on September 22, 2001

I have a lot of time for Hitchin, I think he's a good writer who thinks things through.

Still not sure though about this whole ant-freedom thing. I just can't believe that ever increasing sections of the world are banding together because they hate "freedom". I think we have to be careful about imposing our cultural analysis on the thinking of others.

There's an excellent opinion piece in todays Guardian. I don't have a link for it, so here's a section:

"The worlds poor have suffered while the west has prospered- four fifths of the worlds population lives in the developing world, but earn just 13% of its income - and the richest countries have bribed governments in the global south to privatise their commodities, expecting ordinary people to pick up the bill.
At home, we have become so defined by money, status and career success that we work ourselves into the ground. Perhaps it is no surprise that many assume the Muslim world's antipathy towards the west is down to envy of its wealth."

There's a lot more, but I didn't want to type it out for ever (I'll see if I can track down a link). Hope it makes some sense out of context.

I think it's interesting to note where these fundamentalist groups take hold, and see if that can provide answers as to why they do what they do. I'm just not sold that millions of people world wide are taking to the streets to demonstrate against the west because they are jealous or hate something as nebulous as a sense of "freedom".
posted by ciderwoman at 3:03 PM on September 22, 2001

Guardian piece here. Some of her arguments are slightly tenuous, but she uncovers a crucial irony: that the American response -- a sense of "community uncovered in adversity" -- is not something that you'd typically associate with the financial heart of NYC. (Nor perhaps even something that Wall Street would typically identify itself with.)
posted by holgate at 4:02 PM on September 22, 2001

Holgate wrote: the concepts are nebulous, not attached to anything

While I think it's entirely fair to say that "American values" is a phrase with a vague, nebulous, and heterogenous referent, it seems disingenuous to me to say that these ideas are "not attached to anything." The founding notions are articulated quite succinctly and explicitly in a few key documents. Indeed, Americans tend to have internalized our Bill of Rights to the extent that many forget that other Western nations do not share it.
posted by redfoxtail at 4:20 PM on September 22, 2001

I quite agree, redfoxtail, it's a great shame that other countries (such as here in the UK) don't have a Bill of Rights, I only wish we did.

I certainly didn't mean to infer that the US sense of itself is in anyway nebulous, rather that it means a very different thing to other people. What may seem a logical extension to people in the west does not always hold true for those in the third world or in other cultures.

I just don't feel that those who rise up against the west and the US in particular are doing so out of either some hatred of some vague notion of freedom, or the Bill of Rights. What seems to be driving people into the hands of the terrorists and extremists is a grave sense of injustice and a sense of powerlessness at what they perceive to be an Imperialistic west.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they all do just hate freedom. How, in that case, do we mollify them or negate the threat they pose? Short of extermination, I can't see how (and I certainly don't agree with this). If, however, as I believe, their reasons are as I stated, then I can see many positive ways we can combat this.
posted by ciderwoman at 5:15 PM on September 22, 2001

...but the threat of Westernization transforming their society.

Exactly. THAT is why people allied with bin Laden hate our freedom, our democracy, our values. Our support of Israel, contrary to many recent claims that it is the primary reason for the attack, is merely an afterthought in their hatred of America.


An afterthought? Having the first's only superpower meddling in backyard doesn't make you hate their values it makes you hate their actions. Is one of our values the right to buy gasoline at low prices?

I'm sure there's lots of resentment on the success of the US but I'm curious as to how many people see this as some noble secular nation? In God we Trust is on all our currency and a politician cannot get into office without mentioning god or jesus, unless they have a really good excuse like being of a different faith. We're seen as a Christian nation and to preserve certain economic interests and allies we occasional flex our muscles in the middle east.

MeFi'ers complain about injustice and hypocrisy in the US, yet we expect that our image overseas is better than the one domestically? And that terrorists are angry at ideals and not angry at a mix of US foriegn policy and propaganda? That's ridiculous.
posted by skallas at 11:08 PM on September 22, 2001

Excellent article, and a good response to those who believe that if we change our foreign policy terrorist problems will fade away.

If only it were that simple.
posted by justgary at 11:45 PM on September 22, 2001

I think critiques of the US by Americans and other Westerners (perhaps it's wrong to say specifically American values. More accurately Western or Enlightenment values.) stem from the belief that America isn't living up to its own values (ex: US shouldn't be allied with Saudis because they're a nondemocracy, oppress women, etc.). People who don't possess these values (like the Taliban) see things in their own framework (ex: bin Laden thinks the Saudis shouldn't be allied with the US because they're infidels polluting the holy sites.)
posted by Charmian at 12:21 AM on September 23, 2001

What we stand for is not standing for any one single thing.

I wonder if that's why I'm so fucking confused about everything.
posted by Optamystic at 1:24 AM on September 23, 2001

A lot of these criticisms boil down to the same thing: I think these people hate the U.S. for the same reasons I don't like the U.S..

I think it's a huge reach to presume that the impoverished people of the Middle East, the recruitment pool for the bin Ladens of the world, are coming from the same worldview as liberals at Berkeley or isolationist conservatives like Pat Buchanan.

Many extremist Pakistanis believe that the Jews planned and executed the WTC attacks because "not a single Jew was reported dead in the attacks" (source). When they can believe things like this, I have my doubts that the architects of mass murder share the same concerns about the West as the Guardian.
posted by rcade at 4:38 AM on September 23, 2001

I quite agree with you rcade, I think it is stretching a point too far to say that these people are motivated by these things, but my point would be that their motivations, and the points raised to inflame them are different from some of the real reasons behind not only their actions, but the fact that these groups can gain support in the first place.

I'm sure there are groups out there who believe this all to be a Jewish conspiracy, but I would argue that there is a situation in the middle east which allows, possibly encourages, these obviously ridiculous ideas to prosper.

All the things we know are wrong with western (and it's all of us to blame, not just the US) create an enviroment where people find themselves against a massive economic and military power and feel unable to do anything about it. They see double standards between what Israel can do and what anything that may threaten oil supplies does. This background, compounded by extreme poverty, is a breeding ground for extremism.

I agree that many of these people aren't breaking this news down as the liberal press does, but I don't think that means that means that these interpretations are valueless.

Two quick examples: In WWI the British press carried stories of German soldiers killing and eating babies. A ridiculous notion, but one designed to unify hatred against the enemy.

And secondly, though this one may seem a little tenuous, it has been shown that the majority of child abusers were abused themselves. I'm sure this is not the only factor in their crime, and I'm pretty sure that they don't think this when commiting their crimes, but this doesn't mean that there is no correlation.

Hmmmm, on reading this one back I think I ought to just add that I'm not trying to apologise for these people actions or suggest that these people need to be hugged and understood, rather I believe that there are conditions that force people into a situation where they can become extremists, and our best chance of success is to remove these. After all, we've all been fighting a war ondrugs for years now, and that's done nothing. Maybe its time to spend more money trying to combat the reason for drug abuse rather than trying to stop it at source with things like giving the Taliban $43 million not to grow opiates.
posted by ciderwoman at 5:07 PM on September 23, 2001