Prior to Donald Trump's latest expectoration, which has proven to be a bit much even for hard-core conservatives, the Republicans were worked up over a pressing question of semantics. In their telling, if you describe the threat we face as coming from “Jihadism,” then you are a politically correct pussy who just doesn't get it. The proper term, they are quick to tell us, is “Radical Islam.”
I was planning on writing a post about how silly this was, but then Kevin Drum went and said everything I was thinking. And since he said it better than I would have, I recommend just following the link and reading his post. Here's the opening:
I decided to watch President Obama's Oval Office address on Fox News so that I could understand just how bad he sucked tonight. And sure enough, he sucked! His speech was a complete failure, ladies and gentlemen. There was nothing new. He showed no emotion. He refused to say “radical Islam.” He did nothing to assuage the fears of the American people. It took him four days to say anything about the San Bernardino shootings. And what was with the lectern, anyway?
Conservatives sure get bothered by some weird things. I mean, what's the deal with their endless obsession about “radical Islam,” anyway? Hillary Clinton keeps getting asked why she doesn't like the phrase, but shouldn't the real question be why conservatives are so intent on everyone using it? How come no one ever asks them about this? Over at The Corner, Ian Tuttle insists the problem is that “The liberal mind...cannot take seriously the claim of religion as an animating force in human lives,” which is a singularly strange assertion to make. Then he ends up with this: “Until we identify the religious conviction at the heart of Islamic terrorism, we'll continue to wage an ultimately futile war.” That doesn't make much sense to me. I think everyone understands perfectly well the religious motivations that make up a big part of the stew of beliefs that inspire Islamic terrorists. Literally everyone. But why obsess about it in public? George Bush didn't, and for good reason: he wanted all the non-terrorist Muslims in the world to be on our side. Why is this so hard to understand?
Well said! Now go read the rest.
- Log in to post comments
I understand the power of dog-whistles but even so this is beyond weird. Jihadism is a concept that comes from islam, so how is saying "jihadism" ignoring the religious dimension ???
Jason and Colin: here's what's up with that:
The word "Jihadism" points to a very specific group of people, "jihadis." People who know anything about Islam know that the term "jihad" more accurately refers to the spiritual struggles of individuals with their own faith. But for the vast majority of Americans, "jihad" equates to war, and jihadis is a synonym for terrorists.
The phrase "radical Islam," by using the name of the religion, indicts the entire religion and all of its members by association. That is _exactly_ the intent of the American religious right. They, along with ISIL, espouse an End Times ideology that seeks a "final conflict" as the gateway to their theocratic paradise.
The extreme religious right and ISIL both want the same thing: to duke it out, or nuke it out, in the Middle Eastern desert, to determine whose deity (and, importantly, whose theocrats) get to rule the Earth and all its peoples for centuries or until the righteous are lifted up into a glorious Other World.
--
What I'd like to ask those Republicans is whether we should refer to that guy Dear who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic, as a "domestic terrorist" or as a "radical Christian." After all: goose, gander, and all the goslings too. This tactic is called "prescribe the symptom" or "make them eat their own horse s---."
--
Information we should all be aware of:
Keyword search "Dominionism." That's the religious right's root ideology. Keyword search "Seven Mountains." That's Ted Cruz' specific version. And see also talk2action.org for in-depth coverage of the religious right by some of the most insightful journalists and scholars in the field (no, I don't work for them;-).
@1 - As G said, the goal here is to mention the name of the religion in the hopes that, even with the 'radical' adjective attached to it, the whole religion will be smeared. It appears the Dems buy into this logic too, because of their unwillingness to use the phrase. Frankly I don't see any reason why a reasonable person shouldn't treat them as synonymous. How much brain power does it really take to figure out that "radical X's" refers to a subset of X's and not the whole group?
But I think another motivation is simple political anti-talking. Whatever phrasing Hilary (or Obama) uses, the right will say it's the wrong phrase and shows weakness.
That's just the way campaign politics is played. Don't think for a second that if Hilary started using 'radical Islam,' that the right would approve. They'd just find a complaint to make about the new phrasing.
"He did nothing to assuage the fears of the American people. It took him four days to say anything about the San Bernardino shootings. And what was with the lectern, anyway?"
Well, that's his problem isn't it, he keeps trying to talk to people like they're rational adults, but they just aren't buying it. Not saying that his policies are great, just that that's the sad reality of American politics today. We're becoming bloviation junkies.
"People who know anything about Islam know that the term “jihad” more accurately refers to the spiritual struggles of individuals with their own faith."
G is totally correct. As my female counterpart is a muslima and my ex-wife was one (after her second marriage she reconverted to christianity) I can confirm this.
An appropriate quote here:
Islam is just a religion and, like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it.
If you’re a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism is going to be violent. There are marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not.
People are violent or peaceful, and that depends on their politics, their social world, the way that they see their communities, and the way that they see themselves. --- Reza Aslan
sean s.