| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| How long until the "Clash of Civilizations" becomes a campaign issue? |
| 2006-10-04 |
| Jim Geraghty, National Review Online So - in light of today's hijacking... how long does it take before a "clash of civilizations" becomes a campaign issue? I don't mean the war on terror in general; I mean, how long until candidates begin talking about issues like the Danish cartoons and the resulting violence, the Pope's speech and the resulting violence, the threats against Ali and the murder of Van Gogh in the Netherlands, the death-threat-for-conversion-to-Christianity of Abdul Rahman?How long until all of these events, signs of Islamic fundamentalism declaring war on modernity, come together to become a potent political issue? Because this really puts "Macaca," or even Creepy Foley into perspective. There are five op-eds on today's Washington Post. Four, by George Will, E.J. Dionne, Richard Cohen, and Eugene Robinson, are all variations of "Bush stinks/his cabinet stinks/his administration stinks/the GOP stinks." The fifth, by Anne Applebaum writing from Berlin, looks at the cancellation of an opera. The cancellation was spurred by concerns of how Germany's Muslim population would react to a scene that depicts the king of Crete lugging onstage the severed heads of Jesus, Buddha, Poseidon and Muhammad. (By the way - notice that there wasn't any concerns of violent protests by Christians, Buddhists, or those who worship the Greek god of the sea.) So we have four op-eds lamenting the great damage to the Republic done by a cabinet that disagrees on the best course in Iraq, mind-reading Freudian issues into the President, arguing that Foley indicates corruption in the soul of every House Republican, and how Democratic governors are the Great Hope on the Horizon. And then one op-ed indicating that maybe, just maybe, there's a greater threat from without that we ought to keep an eye on. (And it comes from the one woman — almost enough to make me a feminist!) My sense is, this is a big issue, lurking below the surface of the body politic. President Bush obviously won't address this head-on; he's staked his claim on Islam being a religion of peace, and needs to maintain that position, if for no other reason than diplomatic relations with Muslim countries. But members of Congress don't need to be so circumspect, and my guess is, if we loaded every candidate for the House and Senate with sodium pentathol, we would get some very different answers from representatives of each party. My guess is, many Republicans don't buy Bush's optimistic vision of the Muslim faith. To many of them, the evidence is stacking up that way too many adherents of that religion can't play nice with others. At some point, we're going to have it out; either they learn to live with our freedom of expression, or we learn to live under their blasphemy laws; our public discussions of religion will be under the arsonist's veto. I suspect the Democrats are split on this. I'll bet if you asked a lot of working-class, blue-collar Democrats, they wouldn't sound all that different from the Republicans. I'll bet they think Bush is too kind to the Saudis, and want to see a full-throated defense of the American principle of freedom of speech. Nobody comes into our country and tells us what we can and can't discuss. And that guy who held up a sign saying "ISLAM WILL DOMINATE" at Ground Zero is asking for trouble. But the elites? Perhaps it's the elites of both parties, but someone is spurring the New York Times to denounce the Pope for his lack of sensitivity to Muslims and demand an apology. Someone spurred that paper to illustrate stories about the Danish cartoons with a picture of the painting of the Virgin Mary in Dung. Someone believes the only interesting angle to the Abdul Rahman story is the potential fight between the President and the religious right; someone believes that this is all fallout from the crusades, and that we have no right to demand the Muslim world treat us with respect, and non-murderous reactions. I don't know if this issue will really break out into the campaign trail this year. But I'll bet it starts cropping up on the road to 2008. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #4 Ignore the bleating bravado from the MSM and the left that "Americans are tired and want to get out" and look at their votes. For all their squealing, only the far leftyist loons have dared to vote against anything but support of this war. Almost everything Bush has asked for in the war on terror he has been overwhelmingly given - though you'd think just the opposite if you only listened to the Dems and MSM. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-04 15:56 |
| #3 3dc you might be right but I think anyone with half a brain understand the RoP bullshit is designed so that we don't end up fighting the entire Islamic world and our own left at once. I think this has been a campaign issue since Sept 11 even if the politicians themselves don't make much of it the voters see. Bush was very beatable in 2004, the only thing that sqeeked him through was this issue and the fact the Dems picked a terrible candidate. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-10-04 15:17 |
| #2 Unfortunately its hurting Republicans because Bush keeps up the RoP bullshit. I hear folks saying that maybe the dems would be better. (Frustration speaking.... it needs to be the front page issue. Bush perhaps needs dragging just like he did on a fence with Mexico.) |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-04 12:55 |
| #1 it is the underlying issue of this election despite what the MSM decides to focus un. |
| Posted by: Clkethel OHlkdj 2006-10-04 12:44 |