Martin Peretz surveys the violence in Iraq, and discerns the cause -- the country turns out to be full of Muslims. Meanwhile, in comments SkipChurch gets more explicit: "Has anyone calculated the rate at which Islamic sectarian violence will get the Muslim population down to a manageable number, like two dozen or so? Then maybe some sort of Right of Return deal can be worked out for those people in Dearborn, Israel, etc."
« Opting Out | Main | Airborne Toxic Event »
Moral Clarity
18 Oct 2006 12:47 pm
Comments (19)
Isn't it amazing how far-sighted we are - the way we only oppress people who were going to be violent criminals anyway?
Martin Peretz surveys the violence in Iraq, and discerns the cause -- the country turns out to be full of Muslims.
Priceless.
I hope there's some sort of cosmic balance, and someday an insane liberal purchases the Weekly Standard. Weekly rant on the conservative christian menace and lack of republican moderation wedged in between Kristol and the Reuel Marc Gerecht columns.
Most Arab-Americans are Christians, not that it should make a difference to the likes of SkipChurch.
Jeez, I cancelled my subscription to TNR just to get away from Peretz's spittle-flecked Arab-baiting rants, and now you and God knows how many others post them up in public for the unwary.
Why can't he just post "the Muslim is our misfortune" once a week and let it go at that? The rest is just details.
The fruits of our clarification campaign in the Middle East. When do we clarify Iran?
Let's be a little easier on Peretz. He's at least discovered that Iraq is populated by Muslims. That's a start. Now, if we can get him, and our leading lights in Congress and the executive branch to study (or at least look up on the Internets somewhere) the difference between Sunnis and Shias, that would be super.
Most Arab-Americans are Christians, not that it should make a difference to the likes of SkipChurch.
That was the point. Once the Muslims are gone, the good Christian Arabs can return.
"Martin Peretz surveys the violence in Iraq, and discerns the cause -- the country turns out to be full of Muslims."
If the New Republic isn't going to be the voice of the rational (if middlebrow, and tedious [as practical politics usually are]) center who will be?
A couple years back someone (William Lind I think, citing Martin Van Cravel or someone else...) talked about the possibility of failure in Iraq precipitating a genuine crisis of the state in America (much as the Afghan War did to the Soviet Union). I don't mean to suggest any moral equivalence between the US and former Soviet Empire, or that we are on the verge of the sort of meltdown (leading either to totalitarianism or some kind of post-human world) one often reads about on the dailykos, but nearly all of the ingredients exist for some genuine peril ahead. The country is famously more divided than it has been since the Civil War (and perhaps more accurately the Revolution: with two opposed tribes who can't agree not only on policy but on what constitutes reality, and a mushy, often indifferent middle lacking answers of will), and the world may well be on the precipice of serious, long-term disruptions in the lifeblood of our economy: oil (for both political and supply reasons). Perhaps the country will rally around some new center, but there seems little appetite for dramatically raising taxes to fund a long-term commitment to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the broader region (I believe this is a structural change in American politics, having much to do with racism and xenophobia in the body politic). And we're also on the verge of an explosion in entitlement and pension costs, as well as the potential for a serious economic downturn.
I'm not talking about a second American Civil War, or Revolution, but something more like a new and much more radical sectionalism, and a certain amount of chaos, followed by a necessary devolution of power to regions, states, and localities. Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been increasingly circumscribed by the forces of globalization on the one hand, and fragmentation on the other. Globalization is old hat by now, but America hasn't resolved its culture war (which is really a conflict over a broad range of policies - over taxation, education, entitlements, etc).
The thing that keeps us from the fate Linus discusses is that we are so damn wealthy. Whatever foolish acts our government does, our economy generates enough wealth to pacify most everybody. It's actually pretty amazing that there is so much bile and stupidity and warmongering afoot in the easiest and most comfortable place to live in all of human history.
And despite the wistful wishes of some on the far left that oil supply problems will derail the gravy train -- ain't gonna happen. Which is good, since the erstwhile leftists would be the first to be killed and eaten.
and on the post -- please, keep the Peretz self-parody watch coming! We're all as incredulous as you are, Matt.
"Perhaps the country will rally around some new center, but there seems little appetite for dramatically raising taxes to fund a long-term commitment to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the broader region (I believe this is a structural change in American politics, having much to do with racism and xenophobia in the body politic)."
No, its because, deep down, people know their day to day life does not hinge on what happens in those countries. They aren't existential challenges, and people know this. As such, people are more concerned about things that REALLY impigne on their lives on a day to day basis.
The "center" - essentially WaPo editorial board - has bankrupted itself intellectually with the Iraq War - from all sides. Because the theory(ies) upon which it was sold, that were based on a reading of human history mistakenly drawn from a particular moment in history - the collapse of Communism in East Europe in the late 1980s and the subsequent "end of history."
The fact of the matter is countries like Iraq and Afghanistan aren't really countries in a sense Americans would understand, and are governed by values and historical referents fundamentally different from "western" values. In the main, the Middle East and Central Asia are tribal, Islamic, anti-western, with an out of touch leadership whose place of authority rests on western sources of power.
Martin Peretz is a super-wealthy man, right? Why doesn't he just compile all his thoughts on the subject into a self-published and self-promoted book called "The Eternal Muslim"? It worked for an earlier magnate.
Rambuncle,
You give them far more credit than they deserve.
"And despite the wistful wishes of some on the far left that oil supply problems will derail the gravy train -- ain't gonna happen. Which is good, since the erstwhile leftists would be the first to be killed and eaten."
Hoover may have "outlived the sons of bitches," but denying the depth and magnitude of the Great Depression certainly didn't help his political fortunes, or the tens of millions of unemployed. Nor did the general denial about the threat of Nazism by Chamberlain and the British public.
The end of cheap oil is equally serious.
That the right continues to have its head in the sand on this non-trivial matter, and the left continues to have its head in the sand about the threat of Islamist totalitarianism suggests to me that a crisis of the state may be forthcoming. That reality keeps crapping on the faces of centrists like Thomas Friedman makes me even more pessimistic.
Also, I agree with Ben P.
Also (also), I believe this is a period of not only crisis but consolidation for American civilization (empire). I expect this country (as well as other parts of the world, including Europe) will undergo a fairly radical transformation (toward greater localization and greater global integration at the same time, and the continued erosion of national borders, privatization of services, and weakening of central governments) over the next two (or so) decades, but I believe this is only the beginning of the American imperial era (something like 1st century CE Rome).
"Hoover may have "outlived the sons of bitches," but denying the depth and magnitude of the Great Depression certainly didn't help his political fortunes, or the tens of millions of unemployed. Nor did the general denial about the threat of Nazism by Chamberlain and the British public."
1) Hoover did not deny the depth of the Great Depression. He boasted that he had intervened more in the economy than any previous peacetime president -- and he was right. In fact, it was largely his (and Roosevelt's) muddle-headed interventions that made the thing "Great."
2) Chamberlain did not deny the Nazi threat. But he knew Britain was militarily unready for war. He was busy building up its army.
"Hoover did not deny the depth of the Great Depression. He boasted that he had intervened more in the economy than any previous peacetime president -- and he was right. In fact, it was largely his (and Roosevelt's) muddle-headed interventions that made the thing "Great.""
That's right. And John Kerry had a comprehensive plan to radically reduce the threat of Islamist terrorism if only the American people weren't bamboozled by those swiftboaters.
"2) Chamberlain did not deny the Nazi threat. But he knew Britain was militarily unready for war. He was busy building up its army."
Just like Bush is building up America's post-oil infrastructure. He said it in the State of the Union. It must be true.
Comments closed November 01, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What is the world coming to that I laugh at posts like this?
Posted by Steve | October 18, 2006 1:16 PM