Lee Smith is the former editor-in-chief of The Village Voice Literary Supplement. His work regularly appears in The Weekly Standard and Slate. He is writing a book on Arab culture (which I can't wait to read!) for Doubleday.
"So, if we're concerned about how we look to the rest of the world, we should at least recognize how much of the world looks at things. Laugh as some may about the Bush Administration's idea to export democracy to the Middle East, they had the basic principle right. The world needs our help more than we need to petition its approval. We are a people who choose our own faith, and, after a civil war and a civil rights movement, a nation where the dignity of each individual human being is accorded respect, and men and women are equal regardless of race, sex, religion or creed.
The Middle East is not like that and George W. Bush thought it wise, for the sake of Arabs and Americans, to try to do something about it, an initiative that inspired some Arabs while it enraged others. (So now guess who the good guys are in the Middle East and who are the bad ones?) What made them like or dislike Bush wasn't the color of the president's skin or his religious faith, but his ideas. It's not clear to me why Americans seem now to be trying to export a very un-American idea - that a man's color and his faith matter."
It's making me sad that even discussing these issues is making a tsuris between Democratic friends:(
Those of us who read extensively about foreign policy issues, Middle Eastern history, etc, are cautious about these factors (raised by Lee Smith for example), even as we admire Obama's style and his domestic policy certainly isn't a problem at all, in fact some of us would have preferred Edwards.
I've mentioned this to other people and think it striking: most readers of Michael Totten's site are more to the Conservative side. He himself is a liberal so I don't get it. Are liberals and (help me) "progressives" willfully not learning about the Middle East? If so this would explain a great deal.
I don't think that asking questions makes a person a "right winger". But that's the response I'm getting and it's making me sad (and also discouraged). It's very much in line with being accused of right-wingy-ness (in some circles the gravest of crimes) for supporting Israel; and of course the there's internal conflict on the Left regarding the "Z-word". In some circles zionism really is a dirty word, it's just a shame - and the greater shame is the ignorance and susceptibility to propaganda that has created this problem.
I think, as Americans and as citizens of the world, we need to grow up - a lot - and stop trying to avoid reading books, serious articles, and asking serious questions. It isn't wrong to learn and it isn't wrong to ask questions. Yet when I've tried to communicate with certain (other) people on the Left, for example about Ahmadijenad's visit to Columbia, I was immediately attacked by one opponent of Bollinger's harsh words to the saintly Iranian, and accused of being a Likudnik, a Kahanist, etc, and the guy doesn't know me from Adam.
This really has to stop. We can't communicate rationally under these circumstances, let alone get anything done here in America or help make real progressive change possible in the world beyond our borders.
I've mentioned this to other people and think it striking: most readers of Michael Totten's site are more to the Conservative side. He himself is a liberal so I don't get it. Are liberals and (help me) "progressives" willfully not learning about the Middle East? If so this would explain a great deal.
I think that most people who call themselves 'progressive' or 'liberal' object to any portrayal of war that isn't entirely negative. Totten's interviews show us soldiers who are ordinary (and sometimes extraordinary) people. They're intelligent, they're not psychotic, they don't hate America or the military and they don't have any lawsuits pending. He finds Iraqis who are the same way. That's not what the New York Times says about war, so of course they can't believe it.
The dividing line between right and left seems to be the issue of defense. If you support Zionism, wars of self defense or the second amendment, most 'progressives' will call you a right winger. I support the public schools, I think education needs more funding, I don't object to higher taxes and I think marijuana should be sold with the same restrictions as alcohol. I'm ok with Obama or Edwards. But I support the second amendment, Zionism and I think we need to stay in Iraq till it's stable. If I express those opinions among leftist friends and family, I'm a conservative death beast.
I don't know what we can do to improve communications between the right and the left, especially during election time. I do know that conservatives and liberals in America talk more often about civil war than Christians and Shi'ites do in Lebanon. Partisan politics sometimes seem to be on the verge of turning into sectarianism.
First of all, it gets me angry when manifestations of racism on the part of Arab terrorist groups (or "militants," in MSM terminology) goes unreported. It's as if anything that didn't conform to the formula Israel=racist/Anti-Zionist=anti-racist is never allow to see the light of day.
My second point is in answer to some of the comments on that article in Michael Totten's site. If Paul Krugman has it right, Obama is less progressive than Hilary Clinton when it comes to domestic policy. Indeed, his health policy only provides universal coverage to children. Be that as it may, both Hilary and Obama oppose single-payer coverage, which is depressing.
The fact that racism is so deeply rooted in the Arab world may demolish the idea of their culture being inherently superior to ours. However, setting aside the question concerning the right to invade any country unprovoked, the reality of Arab racism makes our aims seem quixotic. After half a century of civil rights activism, the USA is still struggling against its own heritage of racism--although the fact that it is struggling against it, with all good intentions, is itself laudable.
But given how hard it is to change any society root and branch--even a society that's willing in principle--I don't think we can impose a profoundly different set of values on the Arabs, especially not at the point of a gun.
But given how hard it is to change any society root and branch--even a society that's willing in principle--I don't think we can impose a profoundly different set of values on the Arabs, especially not at the point of a gun
Probably not. The best we can do is dismantle terrorisms' infrastructure, which is located in Muslim Brotherhood union offices in Egypt, in offshore accounts in the Caymans, in Swiss banks, at local branches of CAIR and MAS, and in the corridors of power in the UAE, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Oh, and in the heroin trade and smuggling venues worldwide.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Excellent piece.
"So, if we're concerned about how we look to the rest of the world, we should at least recognize how much of the world looks at things. Laugh as some may about the Bush Administration's idea to export democracy to the Middle East, they had the basic principle right. The world needs our help more than we need to petition its approval. We are a people who choose our own faith, and, after a civil war and a civil rights movement, a nation where the dignity of each individual human being is accorded respect, and men and women are equal regardless of race, sex, religion or creed.
The Middle East is not like that and George W. Bush thought it wise, for the sake of Arabs and Americans, to try to do something about it, an initiative that inspired some Arabs while it enraged others. (So now guess who the good guys are in the Middle East and who are the bad ones?) What made them like or dislike Bush wasn't the color of the president's skin or his religious faith, but his ideas. It's not clear to me why Americans seem now to be trying to export a very un-American idea - that a man's color and his faith matter."
Woot.
It's making me sad that even discussing these issues is making a tsuris between Democratic friends:(
Those of us who read extensively about foreign policy issues, Middle Eastern history, etc, are cautious about these factors (raised by Lee Smith for example), even as we admire Obama's style and his domestic policy certainly isn't a problem at all, in fact some of us would have preferred Edwards.
I've mentioned this to other people and think it striking: most readers of Michael Totten's site are more to the Conservative side. He himself is a liberal so I don't get it. Are liberals and (help me) "progressives" willfully not learning about the Middle East? If so this would explain a great deal.
I don't think that asking questions makes a person a "right winger". But that's the response I'm getting and it's making me sad (and also discouraged). It's very much in line with being accused of right-wingy-ness (in some circles the gravest of crimes) for supporting Israel; and of course the there's internal conflict on the Left regarding the "Z-word". In some circles zionism really is a dirty word, it's just a shame - and the greater shame is the ignorance and susceptibility to propaganda that has created this problem.
I think, as Americans and as citizens of the world, we need to grow up - a lot - and stop trying to avoid reading books, serious articles, and asking serious questions. It isn't wrong to learn and it isn't wrong to ask questions. Yet when I've tried to communicate with certain (other) people on the Left, for example about Ahmadijenad's visit to Columbia, I was immediately attacked by one opponent of Bollinger's harsh words to the saintly Iranian, and accused of being a Likudnik, a Kahanist, etc, and the guy doesn't know me from Adam.
This really has to stop. We can't communicate rationally under these circumstances, let alone get anything done here in America or help make real progressive change possible in the world beyond our borders.
I've mentioned this to other people and think it striking: most readers of Michael Totten's site are more to the Conservative side. He himself is a liberal so I don't get it. Are liberals and (help me) "progressives" willfully not learning about the Middle East? If so this would explain a great deal.
I think that most people who call themselves 'progressive' or 'liberal' object to any portrayal of war that isn't entirely negative. Totten's interviews show us soldiers who are ordinary (and sometimes extraordinary) people. They're intelligent, they're not psychotic, they don't hate America or the military and they don't have any lawsuits pending. He finds Iraqis who are the same way. That's not what the New York Times says about war, so of course they can't believe it.
The dividing line between right and left seems to be the issue of defense. If you support Zionism, wars of self defense or the second amendment, most 'progressives' will call you a right winger. I support the public schools, I think education needs more funding, I don't object to higher taxes and I think marijuana should be sold with the same restrictions as alcohol. I'm ok with Obama or Edwards. But I support the second amendment, Zionism and I think we need to stay in Iraq till it's stable. If I express those opinions among leftist friends and family, I'm a conservative death beast.
I don't know what we can do to improve communications between the right and the left, especially during election time. I do know that conservatives and liberals in America talk more often about civil war than Christians and Shi'ites do in Lebanon. Partisan politics sometimes seem to be on the verge of turning into sectarianism.
Two thoughts:
First of all, it gets me angry when manifestations of racism on the part of Arab terrorist groups (or "militants," in MSM terminology) goes unreported. It's as if anything that didn't conform to the formula Israel=racist/Anti-Zionist=anti-racist is never allow to see the light of day.
My second point is in answer to some of the comments on that article in Michael Totten's site. If Paul Krugman has it right, Obama is less progressive than Hilary Clinton when it comes to domestic policy. Indeed, his health policy only provides universal coverage to children. Be that as it may, both Hilary and Obama oppose single-payer coverage, which is depressing.
Oops, a third thought...sorry.
The fact that racism is so deeply rooted in the Arab world may demolish the idea of their culture being inherently superior to ours. However, setting aside the question concerning the right to invade any country unprovoked, the reality of Arab racism makes our aims seem quixotic. After half a century of civil rights activism, the USA is still struggling against its own heritage of racism--although the fact that it is struggling against it, with all good intentions, is itself laudable.
But given how hard it is to change any society root and branch--even a society that's willing in principle--I don't think we can impose a profoundly different set of values on the Arabs, especially not at the point of a gun.
But given how hard it is to change any society root and branch--even a society that's willing in principle--I don't think we can impose a profoundly different set of values on the Arabs, especially not at the point of a gun
Probably not. The best we can do is dismantle terrorisms' infrastructure, which is located in Muslim Brotherhood union offices in Egypt, in offshore accounts in the Caymans, in Swiss banks, at local branches of CAIR and MAS, and in the corridors of power in the UAE, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Oh, and in the heroin trade and smuggling venues worldwide.