July 17th, 2002

The Gift that Keeps on Giving: Me on Goldberg on Me on Goldberg on Real Terror Prevention


The other week, saddened and shocked by Lewis J. Goldberg's attempt to correlate Islamophobia with national defense, I fired off a companion piece. In it I tried - successfully, I think - to outline a much more effective end through much more practical and sane means.

Of course, fair play involves plenty of turnabout, so I was glad to see that Mr. Goldberg was kind enough to grace us all with a reply to my rebuttal: Ironclad Mediocrity - Suicidal Half-Measures (Which is, unfortunately, no longer archived). I was reassured by the fact that we agreed in some spots, and while it was inevitable that we disagreed on other solutions, I expected no less.

But some of his reasons for disagreeing - and some of his disagreements - were too far "out there" to be left unchallenged. I don't mind a bit of well-informed and reasonable criticism, but large portions of Goldberg's reply were both ill-informed and unreasonable - to the point where I'm seriously wondering if he's the one full of dream fairy dust.

And I'll be damned on my going in and going right back out again if such commentary can be capped with a suggestion that I'm promoting national suicide through "ignorance" - especially when I remain convinced that the exact opposite is true. That in particular demands a response from yours truly, hence this rebuttal to his reply to my rebuttal. (Whether this becomes a regular thing remains to be seen, but it's looking good so far)

In the interest of brevity, let's go over only those pieces of my plan to which Goldberg raised serious - and seriously faulty - objections.

Focus on Realistic Expectations: Goldberg's idea of a realistic expectation is to throw out all Muslims from countries who were on the State Department's list of nations who support terrorism and raze the Mosques. This after brazenly stating that he upholds freedom of religion! Perhaps Mr. Goldberg needs to go back to civics class and learn what all that entails.

Now, to be fair, his stance seems to have undergone some metaphorphoses. In the column I objected to, he said that we should deport all Muslim immigrants, and deny all Muslim visitors, regardless of where they were from. However, in an earlier column, he said that we should only expel those Muslims whose countries of origin are on our government's list of states that sponsor terrorism (a list, I might add, that he didn't seem so sure existed until I was kind enough to confirm that, yes, it did, via our forums). As of the no-longer-archived column, he'd slipped back once more to still wanting to raze the mosques, yet only deporting from those from suspicious states.

But in spite of his kinder, gentler form of saying "get out," (or, at least, "don't come") I still get the sense that he feels we'd be better off as a country if we were sans-Islam. What else can we conclude when he says that we should raze all mosques down to the ground, boot all American Muslims from the armed forces, consider all Muslims to be in possession of the "evil" Meme, live in fear of a Mosque revival in Chi-town, believe that the whole Muslim world (1.5 billion people in the most diverse mix you can get) are all spitting in our faces, etc.?

He says my claims of Islamophobia on his part are an "ad hominem avoidance of the real problems we face." But when you consider the sorts of statements he makes, and the ideas he professes on the subject, I don't know what else you can really call it. He might say "Christianity," based on a good chunk of his reply, but, as someone who once was Christian, I can't accept that view at all. All the rest of his previous attempts to remove malfeasance - or at least an unhealthy suspicion - on his part towards Muslims have come up far short of convincing, and with each new attempt to get himself out of the hole he only digs himself in even deeper.

But to his "ideas," such as they are: should we boot the visitors from the countries who harbor terrorists? I would rather not. A good number of them are trying to get away from repressive regimes, and a good number are also just here doing what they say they are. And considering how easy it is to forge documentation, so that someone from Yemen could pose as someone from the UAE, such a maneuver won't get the ones we really want to throw out.

On a more philosophical level, I can't help but chuckle at Mr. Goldberg's adoption of the same sort of "logic" that would have us banning all private gun ownership in America: the notion of air-tight prevention of tragedy prevailing over the rights of the individual, and the trust we give each person to do what society expects. If we outlaw all guns, only outlaws will have guns? Well, if we ban all Muslim immigrants for fear of terrorists, then the only Muslim immigrants we'll have will be...

That said, I could see such a mass deportation of folks from said terror-sponsoring countries as an eventual precaution if things get worse. However, I contend that a program of fingerprinting and profiling all entrants would work quite well, especially if coupled with my counsel to beef up the INS (more on that later). We've learned a number of valuable - but sadly-purchased - lessons from 9-11: let's use what we know to make what we have a lot more efficient and safe, rather than pulling the panic bar.

But then, what about razing the mosques? Ignoring the obvious - if cynical - call for fairness (can we raze all Christian Churches, too, if some of them are being used as operation centers for home-grown terrorists? Synagogues? Scientology centers?) this is the point where I'm wondering about Mr. Goldberg's fairy dream dust habit. Indubitably, some of the mosques in America are being used as meeting places and organization points for those who wish us ill; He was kind enough to point out one example in an exchange in the forums. But razing all of the Mosques would only temporarily inhibit the activities of said individuals, while having three very unhappy consequences for our War on Terror:

* Driving the bastards deeper underground. If we know these people meet at mosques, we can monitor the mosques. Take away the mosques, and we're stuck > with trying to search the whole damn city, instead. We want these individuals to think that they can parade in and out in broad daylight without being noticed. And then we can follow them, monitor them and swoop on in when the moment comes.

* Giving "truth" to the lie that America hates Islam. It's obvious - based on other things that he's said - that Mr. Goldberg doesn't really care about such a consequence, but he should. This course of action would not only prove the point of those radical Imams who claim that America's out to get Islam, but it could send those Muslims who are teetering on the edge between believing in our government's good intentions, and not, careening into the 'not' category. Never, ever, ever prove your enemy right.

* Putting the lie to our Freedom of Religion: Since Goldberg thinks the Founders only had Christianity on their "radar" when the Constitution was written, maybe he doesn't mind if people outside "the body" of his God are excluded from full and fair participation in their religion of choice in America when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

But that's missing the big point. I'm of the belief that the Founding Fathers would have all eaten their hats if someone had raised the notion that the government of the United States could criminalize a form of religion. Does Goldberg forget that some of the earliest settlers in America - the Pilgrims - were fleeing religious persecution at home? The Founding Fathers didn't: that's why the First Amendment says what it does.

So, again, let's focus on realistic expectations. We aren't going to catch every last one of these bastards, now or ever, and putting a cross-eyed lockdown on all Muslims in America will do nothing but create new bastards - thus exacerbating the problem. There are things we can do, and should do, that will lessen the chances of these things occurring without lessening our principles. They'll also keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot.

Make Our Policy Walk our Principled Talk: I guess Mr. Goldberg thinks that our cries - however specious at times - for freedom, democracy and human rights aren't "principled." I'll admit that these words mean different things to different people, but we tend to be upholding our own system when we encourage others to follow our lead.

Warts and all, we are the best country on the face of the earth. That's one of the many reasons why so many people want to pack up and move here, rather than the other way around. But we have an obligation to keep our mouth and our hands in sync with one another, and in my time I've seen says when those two organs are so far apart that it's hard to imagine them belonging to the same body.

I'm not the only one who's noticed this: this is one of the reasons that some people loathe us as much as they do. If we got the two back closer together, if not right on top of one another, this might solve a lot of problems for us. Goldberg can whine and moan about the bygone days of Franklin Pierce, but I'd be more interested in what we can do with Colin Powell.

As for the notion of withholding foreign aid from countries who won't play ball with our program - especially Israel, for the time being - Goldberg is in serious error when he claims that doing such things with our cash is unconstitutional. (He's also in serious error in thinking that such a matter is a minor point to yours truly, but he's been so wrong so far that one little ad hominem isn't too awful a problem.)

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that puts a limit on how we, as a country, choose to give away, or loan, our money. It is given unto Congress the right to regulate commerce with foreign bodies, and it is given unto the President the right to make treaties. Within those two poles, there's ample room to hand out, or deny, cash to foreign nations under any conditions we choose to name. And I think it is high time that we started putting conditions on our cash, so as to lessen the number of banana dictators and "freedom fighter" blowbacks we have to deal with - especially like Osama bin Laden.

Beef Up the INS - now: It's clear from Lewis' statements on the matter that he doesn't understand how the INS works. He seems to think it's a merry-go-round that lets people into the country willy-nilly. In reality, it's a slow crawl through a House of Horrors that leaves most applicants stuck in the outer chambers, if not ejected from the ride via a cleverly-hidden trap door or two. And then, once the visitors are in here, the feverish attention to detail that keeps so many out is eschewed for a criminal lack of attention to detail - the same lack that aided the tragedy of 9-11, I might point out.

But this isn't just about efficiency: it's about philosophy. I get the distinct feeling Goldberg feels that immigration to the United States is a privilege that should only be extended to Christians (and, one would assume, Jews) rather than "heathens." In fact, he as good as says this, suggesting that had our Founders "known better," they would have placed "written religious tests" into the Constitution, because if too many of the "heathen" enter at once, it would degrade the foundations of our society.

There is an element of truth to this: too many folks let in from areas where the notion of freedom as a birthright is alien and unfamiliar could change our demographic to the point that some drastic changes may occur. However, you would have to let in truly massive amounts for this to be a credible danger. At the rates we employ now, this is a largely baseless fear.

But I get the feeling that Goldberg thinks that even having too many "heathen" in at once is bad for American society. This is a notion that's been floated by folks like Patrick J. Buchanan in recent days, and, like most of Buchanan's views on immigration, it's pure poppycock. The massive shipments of "heathens" from Africa, brought to work as slaves, did not stop the Constitution from being written, much less degrade its framework. And the boatloads of Chinese brought in to work on the railroads in the 19th century didn't make so much as a dent in the Victorian era. (I have the feeling Goldberg may have forgotten about them...?)

So is it just their presence that degrades, or the fact that they can, once they become naturalized citizens, vote? Well, guess what: that's the risk any truly open democracy runs. There are going to be people - of foreign birth or domestic - who don't like certain aspects of our society, and want to change them drastically. They will form voting blocs and run for office. And if unopposed, or - worse - ignored, they will succeed in at least some of their aims.

The only antidote to such maneuvers - whether spawned by Christians or "heathens" - is for their fellow American citizens to keep abreast of the issues and (gasp!) vote. That is the way the system works. That is the way the system has always worked. Goddess willing, that's the way it will always work.

Past that, I stand by my other statements: fingerprint and put a make on everyone who wants to come in. Keep a real eye on them when they're here. Make sure that those who come are where they're supposed to be, that those who come are those who leave, and that they leave on time, if not sooner.

Encourage Muslims to Visit, Work and Stay: I suppose I should clarify something that I didn't take the time to mention in my previous discussion of Memes. We're influenced not only by our neighbors, but by the society we live in. And the society almost always trumps the few, or the one, when it comes to spreading the mental virus.

So when Mr. Goldberg wonders what effects the profession of Islam in America might have on the wishy-washy, I can only say that while some - who, doubtless, were already leaning that way - might embrace it, the vast majority of Americans would say "no, thanks." That's the culture of their origin talking: the weight of the neighbors, friends and ancestors who've imprinted themselves onto the landscape.

On the other hand, most Muslims in America will slowly find any sharp corners beveled away by the glory of the new world after several years spent here. It's those same, endless messages from the culture that reinforce our views, but in their case, it's changing them. And that's not the fairy dust talking - that's just the way it works.

As for his views on Islam itself, I think I've covered them with enough depth in other points to leave it with one simple observation: Mr. Goldberg knows just enough about Islam to be ignorant, but not enough to be well-informed. I'd highly suggest he get well-informed if he wants to keep dancing this tango with me, because I can burn up the floor all day long.

In closing, I will agree with Mr. Goldberg that America needs righteous truth, righteous action and righteous results, and that we need them now. This is why I have taken him to task for his clearly unrighteous suggestions. His ideas are more based on xenophobia masquerading as patriotism than any true concerns for balancing the needs of national security with our civil rights. And as someone who is not a moral relativist, but one who very much believes that there is such a thing as right and wrong, I find that less than contemptible.

I can't say for certain whether my ideas would carry the day in the end - that is an answer known only to the Gods, and they don't always speak clearly on What Could Be. But I stand firm in my belief that, contrary to Goldberg's views, the majority of his ideas cannot do anything but fail. They're mostly nothing but the same old cries to give in to our phobias - the urge to live in mortal fear of "dark skinned" truck drivers, and shudder at the "evil" the "riff raff" brought along with them. Such a course of action would have us trash what our society truly stands for just to buy ourselves some cosmetic solutions and false security. And we all know what a certain, other Founding Father had to say about such things... don't we?

What worked before isn't always working now, and what didn't work before certainly isn't working, either. We need a better policy to take us through these times - a policy that is grounded in sound principles and unquestionable practicality. I maintain that my steps to deal with our current problems are at least a reasonable start towards that policy. Meanwhile, Mr. Goldberg's recent comments to the contrary have done nothing more than reveal why most of his steps were flawed in the first place.

Anyone else care to give it a go?

 

"Let this not be so much a rebuttal of his opinions, recognizing that such are common among the vast sea of middle-manager-types and sundry state and federal employees, and require correction not for the man, but for the multitude." - Lewis J. Goldberg, from "Ironclad Mediocrity - Suicidal Half-Measures"


/ Archives /