I have learned, over time, to never trust the initial framing of a story, so when I heard "Liberals want to allow the building of a mosque at Ground Zero that preaches in favor of the imposition of sharia law in the U.S." I knew immediately that all or nearly all of the constituent parts of that statement were false before knowing exactly how or why.
It seems a bit late in the game to pile on the Cordoba House affair after Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama and many others have said most of all there is to say. The facts are not in dispute: The "mosque" is not just a mosque, but a community center with a variety of operations; the location is not at Ground Zero, but a few blocks away in the hallowed ground of a former Burlington Coat Factory; the ideology of Imam Abdul Rauf is not radical, but the opposite; the Cordoba group is doing nothing more than exercising their most basic rights as citizens. That Abdul Rauf was an employee of President Bush, and has worked for the FBI as well as the State Department, just ices the cake.
I do not usually write about the topics du jour in the punditry world because they are not usually interesting, and are almost never important. I usually don't watch cable news shows so I am rarely clued in enough to "what's hot" to offer a timely comment anyway. So why should I comment about it now? For two reasons. First is to add my voice who think that the Cordoba controversy is motivated by ethno-religious bias and calculated fear-mongering, and that is no way for politics to be run or for society to operate. I'm keeping a mental list of people who have called for Obama to "refudiate" the center, or for all Muslims everywhere to forego their rights in favor of other peoples' preferences, or who have equated all Islam with suicide-murder. I've kept a mental note of the people who resort to bullying and intimidation for no perceivable reason, other than as a way to ostracize Muslims and then blame them for it. And I'm keeping a separate mental list of those who have done the opposite, who are (mostly) not Muslims and will never set foot in the Cordoba House, but nevertheless feel the need to remain in solidarity with those being demonized and persecuted. And especially with those who believe that this not a conversation that should never be necessary in a pluralistic society. I think that where one falls on this divide is important, I am very proud to be counted among the latter.
Second is to note that the most important fact about the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy is that it is not a controversy at all. There has never been any doubt that neither the city of New York, nor the state of New York, nor the government of the United States would intervene to interrupt the construction of the Cordoba House. This despite the fact that former government officials such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who may also be presumptive future government officials, have issued calls for the Cordoba House group to "voluntarily" scrap their plans on the grounds of sensitivity. And despite the fact that prominent pundits like Charles Krauthammer have called for the use of zoning restrictions to prevent construction, and the governor of New York personally offered to help locate another site for Cordoba.
That this is not a matter of policy, that it cannot be, is what separates the U.S. from every other liberal democracy, and it was one of the proudest accomplishments of the Founders.
In the end I completely agree with Ezra Klein that the whole thing is a summer storm that will blow over quickly with no lasting consequences. (Dave Weigel was smart to recall the long-forgotten 2006 "Dubai Ports" dust-up.) But the principle is important, and it's worth taking a step back to note who is in favor of intimidating and disenfranchising minority groups and who is not. I am not. Unlike Peter Beinart, I'm not willing to throw in the towel out of exasperation. We can and should expect better of our elected officials, pundits, and fellow citizens.
IPE @ UNC
IPE@UNC is a group blog maintained by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed on these pages are our own, and have nothing to do with UNC.
Bookshelf
Tags
Academia Adjustment Afghanistan Africa AIG America Argentina Austerity Bailout Banking Bargaining Basel Bernanke Bias Blogging Business cycle; recession; financial crisis Cap and Trade capital controls capital flows central banks; moral hazard Chavez China China Trade Climate Change Contentious Politics Cuba Currencies Currency Crises; financial crisis Current Account Data Debt Debt; China; United States; Decession Politics Decoupling Deflation democracy Democrats; Trade policy development Diplomacy Dollar; China; Currency Manipulation; Exchange Rates dollar; exchange rate policy ECB ECB; Fed; Monetary Policy Economic Growth Economics Egypt election EMU; monetary union Environment EU; Agriculture; Common Agricultural Policy Euro Europe; labor; immigration European Union Exchange Rates Farm Bill; Agriculture FDI Fed; Monetary Policy finance financial crisis financial crisis; subprime Fiscal Policy; monetary policy; elections Fiscal Stimulus Foreign Aid Foreign Policy France Free Trade Agreements G-20 G20 Summit Game Theory Germany global recession globalization Grand Theory Great Britain Greece health care reform Hegemony Human Rights Iceland imbalance IMF immigration Incentives income distribution income inequality; globalization India Inequality inflation institutions Interests international finance International Law International Monetary System International Relations Investment IPE Iran Iraq Ireland ISA Italy Japan labor markets Latin America Libya Macroeconomics Marxism Mexico Microfinance Miscellany monetary policy Monetary policy; Federal Reserve moral hazard Narcissism Networks Nobelist Smackdown North Korea Obama Oil PIGS Pirates Political Economy Political Methodology Political Science Political Survival Political Theory Power Protectionism Protests Public Choice Public opinion Rational Choice regulation Research Review Russia Sanctions Security Dilemma security threats Soccer Social Science Sovereign Debt Spain Sports Statistics stock markets Systems Tariffs TARP Taxes TBTF Technocracy technology terrorism Trade trade policy UNC Unemployment United States US-South Korea Venezuela WTO WTO; Doha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(478)
-
▼
August
(38)
- Stay Classy, Iran
- Why Immigration Matters
- Why German Leaders Aren't Sado-Masochistic Lunatic...
- QOTD
- The U.S., Europe, and Economic Freedom
- The Silver Lining in the GDP Cloud
- Interests and Issue Salience
- Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
- Does Education Pay?
- Income and Concern About Climate Change
- QOTD
- On Krugman On Germany
- Orwell Live-Blogs WWII and Trotsky's Death
- FOTD
- Remember the Fall of 2008?
- The Effect of Lobbying
- Pr(A|B) /= Pr(B|A)
- Disaster Politics and Civil Strife
- On l'affaire Cordoba House
- Revisiting the 1982 Global Banking Crisis
- The Problem with Turkey
- A Spade Is A Spade
- Politics Everywhere, Even Where It's Supposedly No...
- Politics Is Not the Dispassionate Quest for Equality
- Democracy and Economic Growth
- What to Think About Debt, Deficits, and Interest R...
- Just Stop It.
- Politics Everywhere, Even Where It's Supposedly No...
- Conversations with History: Robert Keohane
- Who Says Money Can't Buy Happiness?
- Revealed Preference (?)
- The Jean Valjean Effect
- What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
- There Is No Such Thing As Central Bank Independence
- Nanny-State Harangue
- Turnabout Is Fair Play
- What Influences Public Opinion
- Politics Is (Usually) Not a Coordination Game
-
▼
August
(38)
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
On l'affaire Cordoba House
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This isn't something that just blows over. As someone from a Muslim background, I strongly considered pursuing emigration to the United States to escape the resurgence of the far right in Europe.
Now given that one of the two major parties is now adopting an openly racist position, I'm starting to think that there is no liberal, democratic society in which an (ex) Muslim can feel safe and secure.
I mean it will blow over as a political issue that's on the news every night. It clearly will not disappear overnight as a galvanizing attitude, you're right.
The likes of Drezner should be careful when talking about the Founding Fathers in this context. The last time I checked, several were slave owners. They arguably set a pattern still evident in the US today: pen fine words, little follow through.
Post a Comment