Americans planning American building project in America

Life’s too short to address everything that’s comically irrelevant and confused in Andrew C. McCarthy’s “Ground Zero Thought Experiment,” a what-if? exercise that opens with the destruction by “Christian extremists” of the holiest site in Islam, and that therefore, considering the source, reads more like “wish fulfillment” than “experiment.” Phase two, which I’ll focus on, runs as follows:

Now let’s say a group of well-meaning, well-funded Christians – Christians whose full-time job was missionary work – decided that the best way to promote healing would be to pressure the Saudi government to drop its prohibition against permitting non-Muslims into Mecca so that these well-meaning, well-funded Christian missionaries could build a $100 million dollar church and community center a stone’s throw from where the Kaaba used to be…

The post then moves on to some rhetorical reprimands of un-righthinking types, whom McCarthy clearly wants us to imagine being considerably less enthusiastic about such a project than they have been about the Ground Zero-Desecrating, Totalitarian Sharia- Advancing, 9/11-Celebrating, Osama Bin Laden-Idolizing, Terrorist-Enabling Islamic Muslim Victory Super-Mega-Mosque.

A couple of lefty bloggers (one for Fuster, one for Bob) with time on their hands have already done the dishonors, but there is one thing they missed:  McCarthy either does not realize or does not wish to recall that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an Arab-American who’s been operating for 27 years in Lower Manhattan, and that all of the backers of the project are American citizens.  For the experiment to make even a little sense (a stretch, I know), he would have to conjure up some well-placed Christian Saudis who… well, I could go further, but this one is already so silly that even Andrew C. McCarthy would probably move on to some other pretext for railing at the Izzies.

Most likely, the result would be yet another portrayal of Muslims in America as agents of an alien and hostile power, as that’s McCarthy’s speciality. It works – well enough to sustain his NR gig, anyway – in part because a certain reasonably sizable segment of American opinion is receptive – as among the participants in the following chain e-mail that turned up in my inbox, having gone through at least six or seven re-sends by the time it reached me.  Its text and image appear under the subject line “Fwd: This photo will stun you”:

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, in three days, all people in The United States of America  would have the message. I believe this is one proposal that really should be passed around.


The name of the book Obama is reading is called:
The Post-American World
,  and it was written by a fellow Muslim.

“Post” America means the world After America !  Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal.  We must expose Obama’s radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America !

Life is too short…  Let’s just say that the kind of people who read and re-send an e-mail like the above are going to include many who find, say, Glenn Beck a little too suspiciously intellectual… a category that probably includes many more people than watch Glenn Beck.  An even larger number of people, much larger, would include all those who never were inclined to like Muslims much even before 9/11, and who would presumably be subject to some of the same xenophobic impulses.  These, in turn, match up with the assumptions underlying much public discussion of Park51.

Consider the widely cited polls documenting majority opposition to Park51.  Here’s a typical “key question,” from the CNN poll, posed after a battery of set-up questions regarding attitudes toward Islam and Muslims in general:

As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan?

To me “a group of Muslims in the U.S.” reads as “fish out of water” – “Muslims who happen to be here for some mysterious reason.”  The question of their nationality is left open, in a way that suggests that some non-Americans probably are involved.  Otherwise, the all-knowing pollster could have said “American Muslims.”  A poll respondent might be forgiven for resorting to stereotype:  The group in question, serious question, could consist of wealthy Saudi princes looking for trouble, or maybe poor Somalis overstaying their visas, or maybe other Muslims making some other kind of… drop-in visit…

The Quinnipiac version uses a two-part question, first asking respondents how much they have heard or read about “a proposal by a Muslim group to build a Muslim mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero,” and then asking whether “you support or oppose this proposal.”  CNN is interested only in “a mosque.” Quinnipiac is aware of the cultural center, but puts the mosque first, and gets the word “Muslim” in twice.  They don’t ask about a “911 Victory Mega-Mosque,” as I’m sure the “Great Champion of Freedom” Pamela Geller would have preferred, nor are they asked about “a Muslim proposal by a Muslim group to build a Muslim mosque and Muslim cultural center for Muslims two blocks from Muslim-attacked Ground Zero Muslim Muslim Muslim,” but the questions are loaded all the same.

As with almost all such polls on a social issue, merely posing the question tends to favor one side of the debate:  The mere existence of the poll, and then the battery of set-up questions, legitimizes the idea of worrying about Muslim this and Islamic that…  So here’s my very thoughtful thought experiment.  What if Quinnipiac had asked this:

As you may know, a group of New Yorkers plan to build a cultural center two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Is it your business?

Or what if CNN had asked this:

As you may know, long-time area residents and American citizens who happen to be Muslims plan to build a cultural center with worship area two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you think people getting agitated about it should find other things to worry about?

Or how about a battery of questions on the trustworthiness of far right internet agitators and cable news shows, leading finally to this:

As you may know, assorted hate-mongering nutjobs, fanatics, and opportunists have been spearheading an attack on a law-abiding Muslim-American religious leader, seeking to stir up and exploit fear, anger, and pain associated with the 9/11 attacks of 9 years ago.  Do you support or oppose this absolute disgrace and complete contradiction of everything this country supposedly stands for?

I experimentally-think, I rather hope, that even more people would “oppose” than seem to oppose Park51.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

9 comments on “Americans planning American building project in America

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. If he had read any of Adjami, including the Foreigner’s Gift about Iraq,
    or Walid Phares’s many tomes, instead of a clueless character like Zakaria, whose earliest outing for the New Republic described Reagan’s NSC as a junta because there were too many military man detailed to it. His marked disdain for any expression of Christianity that is not Reverend Wright’s or Phleger’s toxic radicalism, his open endorsement
    of Arab autocracy in Cairo, the obeissance to the pieties of the Salafist
    ‘the freedom to wear the hijab’ all sends signals that he is kind of off.

  2. The name of the book Obama is reading is called:
    The Post-American World , and it was written by a fellow Muslim.

    Almost 1 in 5 now believe it, or will say that they do, if someone asks them.

  3. It was a stupid question, you get a stupid response, among those who who deign to answer. A better question would be, why do the policies
    Obama advocate fail to make sense, or be effective, like closing Gitmo
    despite the increasing evidence that those released were making mischief, and I’m being very charitable here, or giving a blind eye to
    the Iranian protests (now Imam Rauf’s suggestion to lend more legitimacy to velayat al fagih, was actually a worse move if possible)

  4. @ miguel cervantes:So you think that the 18-20% who believe Obama to be a you-know-what is because of ill-framed questioning and that it’s a coincidence that 18-20% of the population is Catholic and Mormon?

    Just a coincidence, eh? No need for a smell test?

  5. miguel cervantes wrote:

    now Imam Rauf’s suggestion to lend more legitimacy to velayat al fagih

    Yeah, it was almost as bad as when that traitorous appeaser Ronald Reagan called upon Jaruselski to lift martial law and negotiate with Solidarnosc, then followed it up by negotiating arms control agreements with the Communist Menace!

  6. @ miguel cervantes:

    Well, I guess someone like you can fault President Feisal Abdul Rauf for not ordering the CIA to follow up with aid to the Iranian rebels. But that President Abdul Rauf is a pretty deceptive guy. Most people aren’t even aware that he’s running American foreign policy!

    McCarthy’s analogy is imperfect

    Does that mean that it’s mostly “right on” in the miguel-universe – but maybe has a minor flaw?

    Imam Rauf has explained his interpretation of Islam at great length. That you don’t want to get it, and that you and geniuses like Surber are rejecting it when you should be promoting it, is why you’re completely useless to anyone in the world except for the people you claim to oppose, and the few others who take perverse pleasures in observing human folly.

    When Surber gets to “so not only are opponents anti-Islamic, but anti-Jewish,” that’s such a feat of acrobatic misreading and offense-seeking, I can see why you’re a fan.

  7. Well there was a President Rauf, in Fitzpatrick’s war, somewhere in the 2020s, although they say he was not Arab. Bernard Lewis does speak
    on consultation with the Ottoman Sultans, but I don’t think that’s really what they had in mind.

    The Times is amusing, after 50 straight days of doing the Clockwork
    Orange about Abu Ghraib, after burning agency interrogators, after
    revealing the TSP and SWIFT programs, after condemning Petraeus
    and arguing for partition, they are the arbiter of what aids the war

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins