I do try to show patience and respect for reasoned arguments with which I disagree — for which I’m often unpopular with everyone who cares about contested issues. But the Bush administration has truly exhausted my capacity to imagine what it would be like to develop plausible positive arguments for policies from which I dissent.
The occaasion for my impatience was quickened when Seabury sang “Morning Has Broken” (a song of which I’m good and tired) at Morning Prayer. Now, be it admitted that George himself did not command that Yusuf Islam be barred from visiting the United States (at least, I assume he didn’t, although maybe he’s sick of “Morning Has Broken” too). The policies by which the Bush administration claims to work toward making the U.S. safer show a consistent lack of imagination and effectiveness. Simply repeating the word “leadership” doesn’t make one a leader; simply repeating the word “security” doesn’t make one safer.
Sadam Hussein was a brutal despot, and Iraqis are well rid of him; but how much better off are they — if at all — subject to chaotic and capricious violence, as opposed to Hussein’s more-or-less predictable violence? How much safer are inhabitants of the U.S. now that Iraq has fallen into civil war, some participants of which are active sympathizers with Al-Qaeda, than we were when Hussein kept Iraq under iron-fisted control without any WMDs or any productive links to terrorist organizations?
How much safer are we now that the Bush government is spending vast sums on defending us from a musician and educator, on developing black-box “do not fly” lists, while the front line of protection against direct attacks on civilian air travel falls so far short of adequacy.
And on what is, I hope, an entirely unrelated note, Jimmy Swaggart. . . what is there to say? I hope that my meetings this morning are encouraging, because the news certainly isn’t
Posted by AKMA at September 23, 2004 11:48 AM | TrackBackWell, I think the combination of Morning Has Broken and Moonshadow is what tipped the department over the edge. Maybe Cat/Yusuf will rewrite tha latter...
"I'm being followed by a Department of Homeland Security goon,
Homeland Security goon,
Homeland Security goon"
And as for Jimmy Swaggart... (sigh)
Posted by: dave paisley at September 23, 2004 12:17 PMOn the other hand, I have quite a lot of sympathy for Juan Cole's take: "So, to steal from Bill Maher: NEW RULES: If you advocate the execution of novelists for writing novels, you and John Ashcroft deserve one another."
Posted by: Dr. Bonzo at September 23, 2004 01:42 PMNo, but repeating "terror, terror" does seem to make people more afraid. Rather well, acutally.
Posted by: Kathy at September 23, 2004 04:11 PMDr. B — I entirely reject his support for the fatwa directed against Salman Rushdie. Of course, that’s partly because I’m a pacificst, and partly because I’m a writer nervous about his own mortality, but there’s a principled reason mixed in there too.
On the other hand, I don’t see his position as unprincipled or incoherent, and I’m not sure I can advocate excluding from the U.S. everyone who regards blasphemy as a basis for capital punishment. It would help clarify my thinking, I expect, if I heard assessments of that verdict from articulate pro- and anti-fatwa Muslims. And people who allow for the death penalty in some cases owe a lot of explaining if they vigorously reject the death penalty in others. Capital punishment seems to take a variety of forms, with a variety of rationales, in the various cultures we encounter it; though I abhor Islam’s invocation of the death penalty for Rushdie, I don’t find it puzzling or inexplicable.
Posted by: AKMA at September 23, 2004 06:05 PMIsn't one's acceptance or rejection of Islam's support (and the nature, context and timing of that support are relevant) of the Rushdie fatwa somewhat beside the point? It did not lead to fighter jets scrambling to divert his commercial flight 600 miles and his eventual deportation.
I must say, his expulsion from the U.S. on the grounds of decidedly dubious intelligence has generated enormous sympathy for Muslims worldwide, spurred anti-Americanism disproportionately, and left U.S. watchers shaking their heads in dismay.
That said, balanced perspective is needed. Better the Bush administration picks on a former pop star and peace activist than Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. Although I've no doubt it will get around to dealing with these "imminent threats" to its hegemony sooner rather than later.
Kathy's correct. In the run up to November, the administration couldn't give a damn what the world thinks. It needs FUD on the home front and it will engineer it by hook and crook.
Posted by: Mike Golby at September 24, 2004 02:13 PMAccording to Yusef Islam, he *didn't* support the fatwa explicitly, tho' he is no fan of Rushdie's. He could be backpedalling, but this statement strikes me as fairly believable.
http://catstevens.com/articles/00236/index.html
Posted by: ARJ at September 26, 2004 09:11 PM