Why Do They Hate Us? (Hint: It's Not the Freedom)

Not long ago a certain Gordon from Cranky Neocon wrote me an e-mail:

I have a sincere question for you. I'm listening to a Talk Radio program (I know, big surprise). Our morning guy is Micheal Smerconish and he is surprizingly moderate for a.m. radio. ANYWAY, he has this book author on whose name eludes me. But the point it that this author says he winces whenever he hears that the only motivation of the Islamists is that they detest freedom. Then he goes on to say something I've heard frequently from the Left and that is that U.S. foreign policy is partially to blame. Problem is, he never went any further than that.

Now, you are actually involved in politics and well read in these matters. So, what is it that America does that makes the Arab world hate us? Does the average Arab in the street get roughed up by CIA operatives? Do we build KFCs at gunpoint? I'm being serious. What, in your view, is the "root cause"?

I responded thusly:

Gordon,

Pardon if what follows is jumbled and incomplete. You given me a huge and complicated question.

But, to begin with, I might direct you to my recent post 'Dinar for the Guy?' in which I tried to explain the level of antipathy America currently receives from the Middle East. But, to recap, our troubles with the Middle East stem from four main interconnecting, overlapping causes:

1. Democracy (or lack thereof)

The Arab world (by which I assume you include Iran) does not 'hate America' in quite the way you think. Certainly we have a very different culture, but cultures across the Middle East tend to be as different as you'd expect to find among 300 million people. Rather, while many people admire the economic and political success of the United States and wish to emulate it, they believe that the US is standing in the way of their own progress. For decades past (and to a certain degree, even to this day) much of the democratic sentiment in the Middle East was tied up with Marxism. Bernard Lewis, author of What Went Wrong? even wrote a series of articles detailing how Arab cultures were all basically collectivist and thus our natural enemies. As a way to safeguard its own interests in the region, America supports a series of ultra-corrupt, undemocratic regimes from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. The common justification for this is that, if democracy were allowed, a gang of theocrats would be swept in. I don't believe it; despite their portrayal in the Western media, most people in the Middle East are extremely skeptical of religion. The appeal of ultra-Islamist groups and parties stems from the fact that they can say and do things other people can't, such as criticize the government and America. They're not supposed to, of course; they were supported by mostly secular dictators to fill the ignorant masses with religious fervor so that they can't pay attention to the injustices of their daily lives. At this point, of course, it's fair to say that such groups have gotten out of control. Yet they fill a void that calls for protest and change, even if ultra-Islamic law doesn't have much popular support. When people don't have good choices, they make bad ones.

2. Imperialism

Many Middle Easterners get outraged by what they see as the incredibly cynical and self-serving way America manipulates Middle Eastern politics with no regard for the well-being of the local populations. This includes the previously mentioned royal families and dictators, but a few of the more recent and vivid examples:

With Iraq, once the CIA helped overthrow the leftist government of Abdul Qassim and pave the way for the Baathists to come to power, and the emergence of Saddam Hussein didn't phase our support for the Baathist regime one bit. We gave him money, weapons, poison gas, just because he was fighting against the Iranians - though we were giving them weapons too, apparently in the hopes that the two countries would devastate each other. When Saddam was going to invade Kuwait, he made sure he had George H. W. Bush's approval before doing so. Unfortunately for him, there was a massive and unexpected international outcry and Bush was forced to reverse himself and help drive Iraq out. In the 12 years that followed at least a half-millions Iraqis have died as a direct result of the sanctions and bombings, while ensuring that Saddam would stay in control despite considerable domestic unrest. Now, after we've gone in and deposed him, we still refuse to let the Iraqis run their own country, and our free-market approach to rebuilding their economy has proved to be a dismal failure.

In Afghanistan, the Marxist government was making great strides in education, secularizing public institutions, and expanding the rights of women. Once this government was overthrown by the Soviet Union, Reagan decided that he'd rather see a gang of crazy religious fundamentalists - including a certain Mr. bin Laden - take control than those godless Commies who happened to be struggling against those other Godless Commies. The invasion of 2001 was easily accomplished, and with good reason - the military arm of the Taliban was mostly the creation of the Pakistani military, and once they allied with us the jig was up. Hamid Karzai was installed from outside by us and was later 'elected' via a process tightly controlled by the warlords who still hold sway over almost all of the country outside Kabul. In fact, in an effort to grant Mr. Karzai some legitimacy, the U.S. has recently made some diplomatic gestures towards - who? - the Taliban, who have emerged from the mountains, shaved their beards, and are now seeking to become part of a pro-US coalition government.

3. Oil

The people of oil-rich countries believe (correctly, I think) that the revenue from such a valuable resource is rightfully theirs. Instead, it goes into the pockets of bloated strongmen who continue feeding the West's voracious appetite for petroleum. Countries like Brunei and Saudi Arabia keep the population more or less under control by not collecting taxes and handing out generous welfare payments to everybody. But this is not constructive welfare as a good social democracy would have; this is just bribery to keep people quiet. When any attempt - socialist or capitalist - is made to put more economic power in the hands of the general population, it is instantly suppressed as a threat to state power, and the U.S. gives its full assent.

4. Israel and anti-Semitism

Before the end of WWII, there very little anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, especially when compared to Europe and America. After 1948, when the great nationalist and pan-Arabic movements began, there was an effort to free the Islamic world of 'imperialist influence' from Europe and the US. Once the secular nationalist movements died down and the current system of oil-dictators and their attendant clerics began to take power, they needed an enemy to focus people away from their current miseries and onto something conveniently foreign.

Israel was the natural choice. It was non-Muslim, backed by American power, most of its citizens were interlopers from other parts of the world, and it had made hundreds of thousands (later millions) of Palestinians into stateless refugees. The fact that it explicitly billed itself as 'the Jewish state' put it apart from the rest of the Islamic world, and The situation wasn't helped by a long Israeli PR campaign to equate Israel with the Jewish people, and thus any criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitism. It worked a bit too well; 'Israel is the Jews' was repeated so many times a lot of people started to believe it.

Concern for the Palestinians is, on the official level, mostly for show, but quite genuine among the lower masses of society. Whether you think the occupation is justified or not on the grounds of Israeli security, it still deprives millions of Palestinians of their civil, economic, and political rights. Yasir Arafat was an absurdly corrupt, awful leader, but he didn't create the situation.

Israel may be 'the only democracy in the Middle East' (as is often repeated), but this is simply because the US hasn't seen fit to overthrow it like every other would-be popularly elected government in the region. If we ever feel our interests are threatened by Israel, their democracy will be gone before you can say "Moshe Dayan".

That being said, at this point, no sane person is going to suggest that Israel either simply melt away or accept the millions of refugees back into Israel proper. Once the Palestinian issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the Palestinians (and, of course, the Israelis) the one trump card in the deck of the quislings will be played, and there will be no one left to blame but themselves.

Now, let me be clear on a number of things. There is no excuse for anti-Semitism, for abuse of women, for killing civilians, or for committing terrorism. I am not trying to absolve the culprits of such crimes of their responsibility, I am merely trying to illustrate how American actions have exacerbated and encouraged them. I have sufficient faith in Arabic (and Persian and Kurdish) humanity and desire for freedom to let them choose their own path. As a neo-conservative, you claim to be trying to spread democracy around the world. If this is the case, then you must believe that the Arabs have the capacity to be free also. I think it's time they had the chance.



This far, Mr. Gordon has thanked me for my efforts but not yet posted my response on his own blog. Even so, here it is.

Senator Sanders?

The House of Representatives can be a frustrating place. Most people there have no power and receive zero press coverage, at least until they screw up somehow. On the upside, it's also a safe, comfortable haven of incumbency wherefourth-tier party hacks can live out their lives in peace, obscurity, and interns.

Due to the anonymous nature of the place, it's hard for someone to make a name fo themselves. One way to do it is to one of two Independents serving in American national office. In the Senate, it's Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords. In the House, it's... Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders.

Those who follow Sanders' career will know him as the upstart Independent who won the mayorship of Burlington back 1981 and quickly gained popularity through his dynamic program of urban renewal. He lost races for Governor in 1986 and Representative in 1988, but won a House seat in 1990, where he's been ever since. In the House, he founded the Progressive Caucus, which now counts 54 members.

With the recent announcement that Jeffords would retire in 2006, Sanders emerged as the leading left-wing candidate to replace him. If he wins, it will make him the only unabashed socialist in the Senate, instead of the only unabashed socialist in the House.

While his sense of style may be lacking, his prospects for election are looking pretty good. According to polls, he leads all likely opponents by at leadt 2 to 1, and consistently ranks as the most popular politician in the state. Since he already caucuses with the Democrats, they see no reason to challenge him. Howard Dean has indicated that he will not put a candidate up against Sanders, paving the way for an easier victory against any Republican opposition. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have also announced their support for him. When asked if allowing a self-proclaimed socialist to be part of their caucus might hurt the Democrats, Saners replied:

Afraid of being red-baited? I’m being red-baited already. Everybody in Vermont knows that I’m a democratic socialist. It’s so well known that nobody talks about it anymore. But suddenly, now all over the national media, it’s socialist, socialist, socialist. Believe me, they’ll be talking about the Socialist-Democratic Caucus if I’m elected. Of course the Republicans and the corporate media are going to red-bait me. The Republican Party is so bankrupt in terms of ideas that they have nothing to say on health care, the economy, education, the environment or the real issues that affect the American people. All they can do is wage smear campaigns and wars of personal destruction. Do we expect that? Of course we do.

Full disclosure: my dad once helped organize a conference about health care reform with then-Congressman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sanders. The great Ron Wyden, however, refused to stand at the same stage as that collectivist Jew, while Mr. Sanders behaved with great dignity and respect.

Here's the best to you, Bernie, with the hopes that you will continue to be the eloquent voice for social justice and democratic principles that you've always been.

Dinar for the Guy?

In early November, 1605, Guy Fawkes was arrested for plotting to explode several tons of gunpowder beneath the British Parliament building. When asked his motives - which me made no secret of - Fawkes claimed that he wanted to kill King James I and destroy Parliament for (among other things) their persecution of Catholics, as well as to be revenged on the Scottish nobles for their betrayal of the Scottish people they had left behind. He also said that, on the day the gunpowerd was to be ignited, he fully intended to stay behind and make sure everything worked out, assuring his own death.

In modern parlance, Fawkes would undoubtably be a terrorist, and a suicide bomber at that. Yet no one says he was inspired by hatred of the Protestant way of life; it was the Protestant hatred of the Catholics that did it for him. Simply because his means were terroristic doesn't make his grievances invalid. Even today, some Catholics continue to celebrate Guy Fawkes for his efforts to strike back against their persecution.

In a video released on Augist 4th, al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri stated that "Your salvation will only come in your withdrawal from our land, in stopping the theft of our oil and resources, and in stopping your support for the corrupt and corrupting leaders."

Well, few Middle East scholars would disagree that the West in general and the U.S. in particular exert a negative influence on Middle Eastern society. The lapdog regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. are among the most corrupt and repressive in the world, and exist solely on U.S. support.

Of course, they are not bin Laden's lands, or al-Qaeda's, or any one group of people's; bin Laden cannot possibly speak for all Muslims or all residents of the Middle East. He and his cohorts offer no positive alternative, but only (to borrow Tariq Ali's phrase) "a nightmare Pax Talibana".

It is not 'appeasement' to do something simply because bin Laden says he supports some aspects of it in theory. Besides, allowing Arabic self-rule without foreign coercion is the last thing he wants; his fundamentalist message would be powerless against a genuinely free and democratic system. For example: before the American invasion of Afghanistan, the radical Islamist parties never received more than 5% or 6% of the vote in Pakistan. After the invasion, their support shot up. Why? Because the US-backed Pakistani government supressed all other criticism of their government or ours, cutting off any chance of a secular, democratic movement taking hold. But they couldn't totally silence the far-right clerics because Musharaff (along with many Arabic leaders) had an understanding that the clerics would use religion to keep the commoners in line while the dictators used the army to keep the elites in line. Now, of course, the fundamentalists have gotten out of control. Who could've seen that coming?

If the US wished, it could make its puppet governments do practically anything in the way of electoral reform or allowing personal freedom. This, however, is viewed as a bad idea. Give people a little freedom, and all they want is more. That's the last thing we want to happen in the Middle East.

If the Middle East is going to be prosperous and democratic, it will not be under the control of America. Partly because so much of the secular, democratic sentiment in the region is tied up with Marxism, and partly because nobody likes being ordered around by gas-guzzlers across the sea. That is a fact we will simply have to deal with if we ever want peace and stability to reign in that region.

Four hundred years hence, I doubt that Osama bin Laden will have become a Muslim folk hero (or, at least, I hope not). Let's not make him into one.

The Ballroom or the Streets

Not long ago I was dragged by a certain female member of my family to see 'Mad Hot Ballroom', a charming documentary about a mandatory afternoon ballroom dance program in certain New York public schools, all provided and staffed by the American Ballroom Theater's Dancing Classrooms. This leads up to a citywide dance competition in which the underdogs come out on top. At least, for this movie.

It's a wonder these dance lessons ever got taught. The sense in America is that extracirricular programs, especially those in the arts, are just that - extras, and unnecessary. Why bother teaching these poverty-stricken immigrant kids to dance the foxtrot, even if it will improve their lives? The only solution social conservatives ever offer is 'two-parent families'. The fact remains is that you can't mandate two parents when there is only one, or replace the parents if both are gone. Besides, you can have a dozen parents and it won't cure all ills in a school district with a 97% poverty rate like Washington Heights.

Politically, this opposition to creative expression is not hard to understand. Few if any noteworthy artists have been uncritical admirers of the status quo, and the ascendant right-wing philosophy views 'art' as pleasant, soothing sounds and images without meaning behind them. Anything, be it music, writing, theater, painting, sculpture, or dance which causes people to be upset with the current order of things is to be discouraged.

This phillistine mindset continues even after the kids are all grown up, and supposedly have more sophisticated tastes. The ugly little fact is that culture is not profitable. The public arts budget for the city of Berlin is greater than that for the entire U.S. Anyone in England can go and see the opera for ten pounds. The entire NEA is equivalent to one fighter jet.

This isn't simply a matter of pedants whining that no one appreciates Mozart anymore. There's a wealth of evidence suggesting that involvement with after-school programs, especially those of an artistic nature, can help enormously in achieving academic success and reduce rates of truancy, drug use, teen pregnancy, and most other ills that people pretend are new. But too many people had already given up on these children as soon as they were born, and the opportunity is usually not given.

Arts are the proverbial canary in the mineshaft. If they die, our society dies with them, and our consumerist culture has precious little to replace it with.

Cartesian Political Diagrams

Are you a self-described 'moderate'? Of course you are. Who isn't? Put that idea to the test with the Political Compass, and see where you stand.

I scored a -8.00 on Economics and a -7.08 on Authoritarianism, making me part of the Libertarian Left.

Your turn.