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
/
|