Clueless
Check this out.
In the past few years, the students and faculty of Columbia University have found themselves in the midst of a culture war. They’ve seen their Middle East Studies department targeted as “anti-Israel”…And at the start of this school year their own president, Lee Bollinger, seemed to pander to this right-wing pressure by slamming Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of “the modern civilized world.”
That’s interesting, isn’t it? It’s in The Nation, of all places. Apparently Esther Kaplan, who wrote a book called With God on Their Side: George Bush and the Christian Right, thinks that it’s ‘right-wing’ to be critical of Ahmadinejad. Because…what? Ahmadinejad is a lefty hero, another Che or perhaps Trotsky?
Maybe not, maybe it’s just that she thinks ‘slamming’ Ahmadinejad is part of the Cheney war-juggernaut. But if that is what she thinks, she could have said that; what she did say looks more as if she thinks only right-wingers are critical of Ahmadinejad.
This week they’ve got David Horowitz…His “Islamofascism Awareness Week” descended this week on dozens of college campuses across the country…At Wednesday night’s Oppression Panel, some eighty students and assorted gadflies had the chance to see a self-satisfied panel of Ibn Warraq (Why I Am Not a Muslim), Phyllis Chesler (The Death of Feminism; The New-Anti-Semitism) and the American Enterprise Institute’s Christina Hoff Sommers (Who Stole Feminism?) apply Horowitz’s patented PC-bashing technique.
Self-satisfied yourself, Kaplan. I consider Ibn Warraq a friend, and self-satisfied is one of the last things I would call him. But wait – there’s more.
Thus we had Warraq telling us that it was Edward Said, by means of his book Orientalism, who “encouraged Islamic fundamentalism” by teaching “an entire generation the art of self-pity.”
And? That’s wrong because…? Don’t wait too long for an answer, because there isn’t one. Edward Said is an icon, and that’s all there is to it; he is Not To Be Criticized.
That these self-annointed opponents of Islamofascism claim to speak on behalf of women, gay people and Jews only deepens the Horowitzian irony.
Well here’s some irony for you – has Kaplan ever read a single word Ibn Warraq has written? She can’t have, or she wouldn’t sneer such an ineffable sneer at his speaking on behalf of women, gay people and Jews.
The Nation is often clueless (or worse) about this stuff. That’s unfortunate.
OB: My opinion of Ahmadinejah is far from positive. I admire Trotsky, and I think that Che was a fool, but let’s be fair to Edward Said. He just doesn’t deserve to be classified with Ahmadinejah. Read his essays on Late Style. As a Palestinian, he defended the cause of a Palestinian state in a completely secular way, as the right to any people to have their own nation. He was not an anti-semite nor a Holocaust denier like Ahmadinejah. He may have been made in an icon in some quarters, as you say, but that is hardly his fault. It’s a bit like accusing Wittgenstein of being an icon in some circles. I bet that they even sell Wittgenstein tee-shirts. That Said made mistakes is clear, but haven’t we all? Said, as far as I know, was a lifelong defender of the Western literary and philosophy canon, inspite of the fact that that may have brought him some hostility in pro-Palestinian circles. He merely pointed out certain colonial prejudices that appear in writers like Jane Austen, Conrad, and Camus, to name three examples I recall, but Said recommends reading all of them, well, maybe not Camus, as great literature. Said, I’m sure, preferred reading Proust to reading The Nation.
While agree with the majority of your critique (not least of which is the point that criticizing Ahmadinejad is and has been an equal opportunity slamming) but I take issue with one thing: “Edward Said is an icon, and that’s all there is to it; he is Not To Be Criticized.”
No one is “not to be criticized”. Criticism needs to be respectful but no human is above it. The issue here is not the criticism of Said, but the disrespectful way in which it was done in the context of a pile of other purposeful mischaracterizations is another matter.
But that’s not really the point, amos (and I’m certainly not classifying Said with Ahmedinejad!) – the point is the effect Said (or rather, his book) had. Kaplan simply doesn’t say a word to show that it had no such effect.
It’s not right-wing to oppose Ahmadinejad, but it is right-wing to single him out and Iran out for special attention as human rights abusers, when there are many such abusers all round the world, some of whom, like Karimov of Uzbekistan, are supported by the U.S. I doubt if Mubarrak of Egypt, for instance, would have gotten the same treatment if he had given a talk at Columbia.
I also read and enjoy Warraq, but why does he sit on panels with people from the American Enterprise Institute, which most certainly is part of the Cheney war-juggernaut?
Certainly, Said can and should be criticized. I have not read every word he wrote, but I really doubt that he encouraged Islamic fundamentalism or that he promoted Islamic self-pity. Although I doubt that he was a believer himself, Said, as I far as I know, was raised as an Anglican Christian. Now, any book can be misread, and I’m not sure that Said is responsible for any misreadings of his books. What’s more, I suspect that most of the people who use Said as a pretext for their cause have never read a word he wrote. Said was basically an Adorno man, school of Frankfurt, criticism of mass society, an elitist variety of Marxism, Marxism without the revolution, Marxism without the working class, Marxism without the economic determinism and without that weird theory of value, Marx as read by Nietzsche, the farthest thing from Islamic fundamentism that I can imagine.
My first question on seeing this was “What the hell is Ibn Warraq doing with *those* people?” Seriously. David Horowitz is a right wing shill with all the ethical standards and intellectual weight of, say, Bill O’Reilly – albeit with considerably more cunning than the latter blowhard. At least, Horowitz is clever enough to dress up the most egregious Rethuglican nonsense with thinly disguising language claiming devotion to high ideals such as rights and freedoms – hence his wholly disingenuous “Academic Bill of Rights” campaign to use state power to silence free speech in the classroom.
And hence Horowitz’s “Islamofascism Awareness Week,” for which he recruited such feminist luminaries such as Anne Coulter and Christina Hoff Summers to speak out for women oppressed by Islamic fundamentalists. Say what? Summers has made an entire career out of anti-feminist backlash books, and the less said about Anne Coulter’s record on feminism (or any other subject) the better.
Whatever your personal relationship with Ibn Warraq, OB – or my own high opinion of him, for his courage in writing Why I Am Not a Muslim if nothing else – I have to admit that his willingness to sign on with Horowitz for this event leads me to think considerably less of him. Either Warraq is astonishingly naive, or he willingly chose to support (and by his participation endorse) the war-mongering so-called conservatives who already dominate altogether too much discourse in American politics. As you said on another thread about the right wing warmongers, “They should just shut up not least (also not most) because they taint any women’s rights or human rights or any other struggle they pay lip service to.” I couldn’t agree more – which is why I’m disappointed in Ibn Warraq for signing on to an event wholly invented and organized by David Horowitz, the master of right wing lip service to noble causes (to disguise wholly less respectable agendas).
I’ll certainly agree that Kaplan is kind of clueless in this piece. (Barbara Ehrenreich had a much more clearly argued takedown of this Islamofascism Awareness Week nonsense in her recent column.) But, while Kaplan may rely far too much on assumptions about Warraq’s politics based on his associates, Warraq did choose to associate with them. On one hand, it’s not always a good idea to judge a man by the company he keeps, and certainly anyone writing opinions for public conception ought to check their facts better than Kaplan did here. On the other hand, Warraq cannot reasonably expect to share a stage with these dishonest shovelers of right-wing bullshit and expect to come out smelling like a rose.
***
Oh, and Arnaud, if you happen to be reading? Now that I’m more aware of who in the mainstream media is making hay with the term “Islamofascism,” I hereby forswear using it forever and aye. Mind you, I still don’t repudiate the accurate insights conveyed by the term – but I wouldn’t want anyone to mistake me for a fellow traveler of Horowitz and company.
Good post. Thanks.
G. you seem to be saying that Horowitz should be shunned even if he is right about this particular isue? why shouldnt they share a platform with him? he is just a mainstream centre right political commentator who you happen to disagree with so why dont you take on his arguments rather than label him as a right wing shill? I guess what I am trying to say (badly) is that you have an extra ordinary gift for the use of the language so why do you resort to unecesary name calling.O.B. The nation seems to be suffering from the same kind of blindness that the Guardian and the B.B.C have no wonder Hitchens threw in the towell!
Richard, David Horowitz is NOT a “mainstream right” political commentator. Among his other recruits to speak at Islamofascism Awareness Week events were such stars of the ultra-right wingnuttery pantheon as Rick Santorum and Anne Coulter. Horowitz also happens to be very well known in this country for exactly what I said he’s well-known for – dishonest, pleasant-sounding rhetoric used to disguise radical right wing agenda. If you don’t even know who Horowitz is or what his very public reputation is, how can you possibly accuse me of “unnecessary name-calling”? Did you even do the minimal investigation of clicking on the link I put right there in my comment?
Richard, you can’t walk around with your eyes closed and call other people blind. It’s rude, it makes you look bad, and you’ll bump your shins on the furniture.
@ Tim: Not to defend Kaplan’s cheap rhetorical ploys, but I think you miss out on the obvious possibility of the intention of that first quote: The idea that College Republicans actually give a shit about people suffering under tyrannical regimes is what is laughable. And, having spent a fair amount of time around College Republicans, I’d have to say she has a point there.
As someone who has spent a good deal of time and energy defending the historical/political parallels between other forms of fascism and political Islam, I think Elizabeth Castelli is… probably more right than I’d like. In the hands of Horowitz and company, the rhetorical function of the term “Islamofascism” is more or less what she says it is. And so many people use the term with those intentions, I’m not sure the term can be rescued to mean what you and I think it ought to mean.
G, for all I know the College Republicans are a load of Arab-hating neo-Nazis who secretly hope for a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.
Let’s assume that’s true. What difference does it make to the merits of the point being made? Kaplan is obviously suggesting that it’s an overblown or empty statement in itself. All you have to do to see that is imagine what difference it would have made if they were College Democrats or College Marxists commemorating “the untold millions who suffer under tyrannical Islamic regimes”. Do you think Kaplan would suddenly stand to attention? Or would she call them right-wing shills for sharing a platform with David Horowitz?
Even if you’re right and Kaplan wants to suggest that they’re being insincere, she’ll have to do more than say “But they’re Republicans”. After all, parts of the Right were much more willing to support Soviet dissidents than many leftists; some right-wing students saw the barbarity of the Taliban before some left-wing students. It won’t do to dismiss them with a wave of the hand, saying “Oh, if you knew these people you’d know they’re amoral jingoists.” Much of David Horowitz’s politics are repulsive to me, too, but when he speaks alongside Ibn Warraq in defence of secularism and women’s rights, I’m not obliged to cover my ears.
Well I must say my first reaction was to wonder why Warraq was wanting to be part of anything that Horowitz had organised. Warraq is a voice of sanity and reason and Horowitz a neo-McCarthyist heid-banger. Warraq in the recent Spectator debates was excellent but if you want to hear frothy mouthed right wing craziness listen to an exchange Horowitz had with Nick Cohen (can’t find the sound version but the text is here but it’s much better to listen to than read) http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={7404B5CA-0BA1-445C-A5FE-F4FB8D41CB22}). Horowitz’s Red detecting cones are developed to a grossly abnormal degree.
This is a larger question of course of platforms and whether sharing them with certain people does your cause more harm than good.
G.I am fully aware of who Horowitz is,I visit his web site front page aprox twice a week and although i would agree with you about his unwise asociation with Coulter and Santorum,I would still maintain that his views are well within the mainstream I dont happen to share that many of his views but I think this campain on facism is a first class idea and see no problem with others sharing a platform with him.I also didnt call you blind I was addresing the remark about blindness to O.B.in referance to the nation artical that I thought was remarkably simlar to the sort of stuff that the B.B.C and the Guardian write. I would also say that Horowitz has been exposing rather ugly left wing anti semetism on colledge campuses as well and that can only be a good thing, athough his unwillingness to condem Coulters recent remarks makes him look less than even handed.
amos, have a look at this article.
Rebecca – about the putatively disrespectful way the criticism of Said was done – the fact remains that Kaplan simply dismissed it without argument, as if it were self-evidently wrong. As if Said were, indeed, above criticism.
G, I know – I have misgivings about Ibn Warraq’s presence on that panel too. All the more so since Chesler wrote a blog column about it referring to all of them as part of the Judeo-Christian whatnot. Oh really? Ibn Warraq is an atheist.
And ‘Islamofascism’…I think Hitchens was and is right to detail the ways it is genuinely and accurately descriptive, but at the same time, I don’t use it myself. Too Horowitzian…
Muslims Against Sharia congratulate David Horowitz FREEDOM CENTER and Mike Adams, Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler, Ann Coulter, Nonie Darwish, Greg Davis, Stephen Gale, David Horowitz, Joe Kaufman, Michael Ledeen, Michael Medved, Alan Nathan, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Daphne Patai, Daniel Pipes, Dennis Prager, Luana Saghieh, Rick Santorum, Jonathan Schanzer, Christina Sommers, Robert Spencer, Brian Sussman, Ed Turzanski, Ibn Warraq and other speakers on the success of the Islamofascism Awareness Week.
Islamofascism (or Islamism) is the main threat facing modern civilization and ignorance about this threat is astounding. We hope that this event becomes regular and reaches every campus.
A great many Westerners do not see the clear distinction between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism). They need to understand that the difference between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism) is the same as the difference between Christianity and Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy Movement).
Original post
OB: Said wrote Orientalism about 25 years ago. I don’t have the book here, so I can’t say whether or not Warraq takes things out of context or not. The book is probably out-dated, based on a 1970’s model of anti-imperialism, but from that point to accusing Said, a secular humanist, to fomenting Islamic fundamentalist is not a big step, it’s a Kierkegaardian leap of faith into the absurd. I can hardly imagine anyone less fundamentalist, more skeptical, more worldly, more tolerant, more open to rational debate than Said, who I did meet on more than one occasion, in whose apartment I once attended a party. Thanks for the link.
@ Muslims Against Sharia
Unfortunately, I don’t think people like David Horowitz and Ann Coulter and Rick Santorum and Mike Adams – just to name the ones on this list whose previous writings I know fairly well – really care very much about the difference between Islam and Islamofascism. Certainly, the bombs they have all repeatedly advocated dropping on some country or another – Iraq then, Iran now – are not capable of making that distinction.
It is good to have allies. It is also good to make sure those allies really ARE allies. If I were Muslim, I would have reservations about many of the names on that list.
Sincerely,
An atheist who is also very much against sharia
G:- good comment, neatly & elegantly expressed.
What puzzles me, and this is because of my ignorance of the American political scene, is why Horovitz should be teaming up with Coulter when presumably he wants this IsFash Awareness campaign to be treated as a serious issue. Coulter strikes me as an unfunny clown, the kind that embarrasses her own side, and teaming up with her surely removes any credibility from the issue. I think her equivalent in the UK would be someone like Richard Littlejohn. And his equivalent here would be someone like Melanie Phillips. And I can’t see Melanie Phillips joining forces with Richard Littlejohn in such a campaign.
Orientalism was published in 1978, almost 30 years ago. Said, in the 1970’s, went through a Foucault phase, in which he seems to have played with Foucault’s idea that truth is just the product of a discourse of power. However, I’ve read later interviews (don’t ask me where)in which Said explicitly rejects Foucault’s thesis, in which Said speaks of truth as the product of rational dialogue, in which Said insists that rational dialogue is possible and desireable. 1978 was a long time ago. There’s a statute of limitations on crimes; maybe there should be a statute of limitations on books.
amos, as I’ve already said, the point is the effect that Orientalism had and is having, not that Said himself was a fundamentalist. There shouldn’t be a statute of limitations on that particular book, because it’s still having the effect. Kaplan’s own article betrays that fact.
But amos, what would be the point of such a statute of limitations? If there are books around that make foolish claims or bad arguments and nevertheless influence people, why on earth should there be a statute of limitations on saying so? Said is very influential, so what reason could there be for declaring one of his books off-limits to criticism? Give it up, will you? Dispute the substance by all means, but enough of this rather silly ‘hands off’ stuff. B&W rather obviously isn’t into ‘hands off.’
G. I didnt say Horowitz wasnt partisan I just said his views are well within the mainstream! I even made the point that he exposes anti semetism on the left but ignores it on the right,but here is were I think he is right the U.S. left is stuck in the 1960s amber of their glory days of civil rights and anti Nam protests and just as they ignored the atrocities of Ho Chi Min they ignore the threat of facist islam! As for balanced centre right commentary I use Boortz.com not front page.
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “mainstream,” Richard. If Rick Santorum and Ann Coulter and David Horowitz are “mainstream” conservatives – and yes, he is on the same ideological page with them and others of their ilk, no matter how often you deny it without providing evidence – then I shudder to think of who the extremists are. I mean, yes, there are people with more extreme views – but not many, and not much more extreme!
And I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about with the rest of the guff about the U.S. left. What you’re saying sounds exactly like the kinds of distortions about the left that people like David Horowitz regularly spread: Horowitz has an oft-rehearsed story about how he used to be a leftist but got all disillusioned with them, but the left he describes in that story isn’t anyone *I* know. I won’t deny that the U.S. has some tired old hippies (and even tireder and older old Marxists) hanging around the left, but for the most part the progressives I know are not of that type. Certainly they care about and oppose terrorists and radical religious fundamentalists and authoritarian dogmatists of all stripes – Muslim, Christian, Communist, or whatever.
Your little snippet characterizing how you see the U.S. left has about as much truth to it as Horowitz’s characterization of U.S. feminists in that interview I linked to above. That isn’t to say there is NO truth to it: Only that there’s such a tiny amount of truth in it that it becomes more useful in putting over the big distortion.
If you look hard enough, you can find some people who call themselves feminists who are so lost to postmodern ultra-relativist idiocy that they can’t bring themselves to condemn female genital mutilation – but they are few and far between, and get no respect from other feminists. Same thing with the left: If you look hard enough, you can find some people on the left who matches the caricatures drawn by Horowitz (or Hitchens, for that matter) – but they are in the minority, and the activists who actually fight the good fight (instead of sitting on their asses talking about it) don’t pay those gits any attention.
The thought that Neal Boortz is anyone’s definition of “balanced” is a laugh and a half.
Although it is good to finally get an admission that you are in fact getting all your talking points from Republican talk radio.
I didnt say he was moderate dzd just balanced he will critique the right just as harshly as the left.
G. I was talking about the main stream left,no problem can be solved without either a tax increase or a goverment program they fight battles that were won 20 years ago on rubish like afirmative action, battles they should fight they dont like capital punishment instead they take a craven me to position,to me it seems like every bad outdated idea that new labour threw out swam the atlantic and took root in the American left.Even their rhetoric is remenisent of the 1960s with meaningless crap about working families,less fortunate people,corperate greed ect.
Here’s Horowitz’s speech: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C4E44D2B-9A12-4C23-ABA1-12B71D02ADD7.
It’s pretty good.
Also G. the fact that Hillary Clinton is the most likely Dem candidate tells you everything you need to know about the state of the U.S left.
G. for the most part I would agree with you about the Clintons although most of the left you speak of will probably vote for Ms Clinton, I never had any time for the Clintons from the day he had that photo call execution of the black cop killer with half a brain,by some acounts the clintons were so busy dealing with a bimbo eruption that they wouldnt even take a call from the lawer of the condemed man requesting clemency! that says it all about this pair.
“Also G. the fact that Hillary Clinton is the most likely Dem candidate tells you everything you need to know about the state of the U.S left.”
All that Hillary Clinton’s likely Democratic presidential nomination shows about the U.S. left is exactly what I said it shows – that the Democratic Party is not really the party of the left anymore. In fact, I could easily add Hillary Clinton to that list of people who count as examples of the “center right” from the other thread.
And it’s not just the American left that’s screwed up. The American right is just as lost, because the theocrats and ultra-right neocon wingnuts have taken over Republican party politics to such a huge degree. Ordinary conservatives and center-right politicians and thinkers have no more influence in the Republican Party than the progressive left and center-left have over the Democratic Party. The party of the supposed left leans toward the center/right part of the political spectrum, and the party of the right leans towards the right to such an extreme that it borders on totalitarianism. Worse, virtually every elected official and appointee is completely beholden to the wealthy and powerful to such a degree that 95% of our citizens have no one advocating their actual best interests or real concerns – although manufacturing new pseudo-concerns by generating fear and exploiting religion gives the powers that be the appearance of addressing their concerns.
Left or right, the American political scene is a disaster area. There is some sign that the Republic party might be improving, with backlash against the religious right building among political moderates and disillusion within the religious right taking shape among evangelical Christians.
G. for the most part I would agree with your take on the state of American polotics as it stands at the moment,the point you make about 95% of people having no representation is a very fair one I am not even sure this can even be fixed because the amount of hard cash needed to run campains seems to almost guarantee that this will happen, Mc Cain-Finegold was supposed to deal with this but they all cheat on it.
Actually, by the time the McCain-Feingold Act got to a vote, it was such a watered-down travesty of campaign finance “reform” that it has absolutely no impact on the corruption of the American political process whether the law is violated constantly or followed to the letter. The final version of that law simply did not address any of the real sources of the problems – and a law that *did* address those problems would never pass because the people who would have to vote ‘yea’ are the beneficiaries of the current system’s manifold failures.
G. I would be intrested in your opinion on what if anything could be done to fix the problem? also do you think your(probably reasonable) figure of 95% of people being un represented could have something to do with the fact that aprox 95% plus of cogresional districts never change hands due to gerymandering by the parties of the districts? also do you think independant boundry commisions would help to deal with some of the problems you mention?
Frankly, I don’t think anything short of completely publicly financed elections will even make a dent in the problem. There are other steps that might improve things somewhat, and there are many further steps beyond public financing of election campaigns that would also be good – but I’d say that’s the essential ingredient without which there is no real hope for the survival of the U.S. as a democracy. Or rather, the revival of the U.S. as a democracy: It’s not a democracy now, it’s a plutocracy. Kevin Phillips is dead right on that.
G. I am not sure about public finance of elections, couldnt that be vunerable to the same sort of gerymandering that takes place now because it will be the people in office that will direct the funds to suit themselves?
Well the lion may not yet have lain down with the lamb, but to see G and Richard chatting amicably about something is almost as wonderful.
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox!
It is a nice change of pace, innit? :-)
Well, Richard, I imagine there are better and worse ways to go about public financing of elections. But public financing has actually been put in place in a few U.S. states, and is starting to have a real impact on state politics (although it will take more time to really see results, I think). You can read a little about which states have clean election/public financing laws at Wikipedia, and read more about the campaign to expand these reforms to every state and to the federal government at PublicCampaign.org.
G. it is one of those things that look good in principal but what I think would happen is the parties would shift huge amounts to advocacy groups that support their aims,they are allready doing this with Mc Cain Finegold,I also think it would be vunerable to the parties setting almost imposible threshholds for public funding to make it dificult for third parties just as they do with ballot acces?
G. I still think you would get more sucsess by having an independant boundry commision, that would stop the parties in power from drawing up ludirous districts to potect encumbants, if these guys cant protect their own it would lead to new blood and maybe change.
Could someone help “Richard” with his spelling-or is it political?