Honza Prchal at Pros and Cons things I take Podhoretz’s usage of the term Islamofacism too seriously:
it’s a cultural thing Steve, I assure you, listen to another Central European, Alan Dershowitz, and you’ll hear similarities in the style of debate to Norman’s, it doesn’t mean quite what it would if it came from your mouth - that’s one reason New Yorkers are often considered to be rude
Well, no.
First off, it is hardly the case that the only persons who ever use the term “Islamofascist” are of Eastern European descent–it’s been tossed around for yearrs. It is no verbal tic, it is a deliberate formulation, and a poor one. For example, one of the key elements of fascism is the extolling of the state over the individual–something that doesn’t comport well with the stateless al Qaeda. In describing fascism, Benito Mussolini wrote:
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….
That doesn’t fit well with the Islamic extremism of bin Laden or his ilk.
Second, even if we assume that Podhoretz is affected by his background, that doesn’t excuse linguistic or analytical sloppiness. We need to use the right terms to properly describe what we are dealing with. Inflammatory, imprecise language does us all a disservice.
Honza continues his defense:
Besides, a little hysteria and rhetorical overkill is understandable if, as with the long struggle against Communism, you see this sort of thing in existential terms, which we in the “never again” crowd tend to, for obvious personal reasons.
But, of course, the “hysteria” and “rhetorical overkill” is highly problematic as tools of policy analysis and in the diagnosing of the proper policy course. They are fine for those who simply wish to rant. However, if the goal is honest discourse and especially if the goal is policy formulation, the last thing we need are hysteria and rhetorical overkill.
For example, hysteria and rhetorical overkill are part of how we ended up in Iraq. While I have problems with the notion that we were deliberately lied to to get us into the war (yes, I know that I have readers that believe otherwise), I do think that there was a great deal of hysteria and rhetorical overkill involved over mushroom clouds, WMD, flowers and candy and whole series of other issues. The administration clearly provided hysterical arguments and “evidence” laded with rhetorical overkill over why we needed to go to war and what would happen when we got there–and it hasn’t worked out too well. Even the hangers-on who optimistically think that it is all going to work out have to admit, if they are at all honest with themselves, that the war has not worked out as advertised by the administration. Further, even allowing for the exigencies of war, one is hard pressed to match up what the administration said (as well as what it continues to say) in regards to Iraq.
So yes, I call “foul” on hysteria and rhetorical overkill.
Words matter. Proper diagnosis and analysis matters. And one of things we don’t need is a major presidential candidate being advised by someone who wants to engage in sloppy, hysterical thinking on national security issues. That is why I wrote the initial post in the first place.
Back to Honza’s quote from above, the “never again” reference is to the Holocaust. I am all for preventing another Holocaust. However, while al Qaeda is clearly antisemitic, we are hardly in a situation wherein al Qaeda is poised to recreate the Holocaust. We need perspective in our fight with al Qaeda, and suggesting that they are to be likened to Nazi Germany in power and capabilities is a radical misdiagnosis.
Indeed, while al Qaeda is a serious threat, the idea that they representative an actual threat to the existence of the Western world the way Soviet missiles once did is, again, a massive misdiagnosis. Why is it that many have taken one set of attacks on one day and extrapolated out the ability of this group to destroy us all? By so empowering the enemy in our own minds we give it that which is does not have.
This latter point is very important, and again why Podheretz’s “World War IV” point of view is problematic as far as I am concerned, it is a misdiagnosis. It is a doubly problematic issue because he is advising a candidate who is currently in the lead in the GOP and one who already has a tendency to take a hard line in foreign policy and to assume a great deal of power for the executive. I have been disconcerted at the assertions of executive privilege by the current president, and would expect Giuliani to do the same, and perhaps moreso.
As such, I think it is of great use to consider the way in which potential presidents and their advisers see the world that they may shape after the next election.
Sphere: Related Content
[…] I have more to say on this subject here. Sphere: Related Content Filed under: US Politics, 2024 Campaign || […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » And this Guy is Advising Giuliani? — Wednesday, September 12, 2024 @ 4:56 pm
You misunderstood my criticism base on my misunderstanding of your own gripe. As happens fairly often, likely because I skim too much, we seem to be talking apst each other.
It’s not the use of Islamofascism I thought you objected to so much as the “treason” language and personal attacks.
Islamofascism is a pretty good analytical term, actually, capturing the nihilism of the present in a way that distinguishes it from the Holy War and raids for profit that distinguish more historical expressions of Islamic terror.
Comment by Honza P — Wednesday, September 12, 2024 @ 6:10 pm
I very much objected to the treason language as well, so we probably aren’t talking past one another all that much (although I did misinterpret your statement as dealing with the Islamofascism term).
And on the point, as is obvious, I really do disagree–for the term to have meaning al Qaeda and their ilk would have to have something very specific in common, ideologically, with fascism–nihilism isn’t enough to cut it, analytically speaking. And just because it distinguishing two eras doesn’t mean it is accurate.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, September 12, 2024 @ 6:52 pm
[…] We’re in these anti-Islamo-fascist (for wrong-headed but highly intelligent push-back on the use of that term, see Poliblogger here and here - it’d make more sense if fascists were ever all that philosophically coherent - one gets too cute defining them and the whole term just falls apart - it isn’t really about philosophy, it is about a particular kind of sin that infects one’s world-view - more aesthetic than formulaic) wars for the serious long haul. Redeploying is one thing, but doing so in a way that allows Sunni or Shiite Islamo-fascism to claim a win is catastrophic, and giving a win to Arab autocracy (mere reactionaries, run of the mill fascists and nationalists, not the Islamo-Fascist variety of nihilist that separates fascism from nationalism and reaction in WWII they chanted “you love Coca-Cola, we love death”, now they chant, “you love life/comfort, we love death”) would simply cut the rug out from under our natural supporters in the region, who are after all doing far more killing and dying than we and our non-regional allies put together. In fact, ceding territory to relatively secular fascists like the Baath would be as bad as giving the Islamo-fascists a win, and not just because the cooperate, but because the bleak nihilism of the one feeds the other, even when they fight it out. […]
Pingback by Pros and Cons » Something I have in common with Barak Hussein Obama. Plus noodlings on Islao-fascism and an Afghan peace agreement, of all things — Thursday, September 13, 2024 @ 11:37 am
[…] Given my recent posts on the topic of “Islamofascism” (for example) it was with interest that I noted this column in the CSM Fawaz A. Gerges: Bin Laden’s new image: younger, more Marxist: Projecting a younger look, Mr. bin Laden gives his most ideological address since the early 1990s with an assault on capitalism and liberal democracy loaded with Marxist and socialist terms. Indeed, this new bin Laden sounds more like Che Guevara, the Marxist revolutionary, than some of his rifle-toting Al Qaeda cohorts. […] In the video, bin Laden addresses Americans and rails against the ills of economic exploitation, multinational corporations, and globalization. He tells them to liberate themselves from “the deception, shackles, and attrition of the capitalist system.” Similar to his incitement of Muslims against their oppressive, “apostate” rulers and the meddlesome West, bin Laden now seems to be trying to galvanize Americans against their own harsh socioeconomic and political system. “Poor and exploited Americans, unite against your capitalist laws that make the rich richer and the poor poorer,” the former multimillionaire businessman tells the camera. Never before has bin Laden utilized the grandiose language of Marxism in his statements to the American people. And yet, he says, Muslims and Americans are alike; they are both victims of the capitalist system, which “seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of ‘globalization’ in order to protect democracy.” While in the past bin Laden emphasized the clash of cultures and religions as the basis for confrontation, he now talks about commonalities of victimhood and suffering. He blames the global system of capital and class for the tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the poverty of Africa, and “the reeling of many [Americans] under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes, and real estate mortgages.” According to the new bin Laden, big capital, class interests, and multinationals – not religion or culture – are responsible for perpetuating war and killing. […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Islamomarxism? — Thursday, September 13, 2024 @ 3:00 pm
Interesting discussion, Steven, but even as you make a principled criticism of political hyperbole, you seem mistaken in two ways on your initial claim:
“So yes, I call “foul” on hysteria and rhetorical overkill.
Words matter. Proper diagnosis and analysis matters. And one of things we don’t need is a major presidential candidate being advised by someone who wants to engage in sloppy, hysterical thinking on national security issues. That is why I wrote the initial post in the first place.”
You actually were criticizing not Norman Podhoretz but the NYT version of him, taken from a negative review of his book that was published in a newspaper with a decidedly anti-neocon bias. Proper diagnosis requires you to analyze Podhoretz himself.
Likewise, elsewhere you identify Al qaeda with the anti-American threat of radical Islamicist terror, conveniently eliding other non-state entities and, most importantly, the putatively WMD-seeking theocracy of Iran. Yet it is Iran (and its president’s promise to wipe out Israel, for starters) at which Podhoretz aims his advice to every Republican and Democratic candidate.
I think you don’t like anti-war moves like the Move-on.org ad that called Petraeus names, either. Hysterical or sloppy thinking against an interventionist foreign policy is no more persuasive than hysterical or sloppy thinking in favor of it.
Comment by Dr. Charles Davis — Saturday, September 15, 2024 @ 4:27 pm
Charles,
You state:
On the one hand, fair enough, although the post above was as much directed at Honza Prchal as it was Podhoretz. Beyond that, however, I note two things: there were quotations in the NYT piece to which I could directly react, and later I did post on a Podhoretz column that confirmed that the NYT column was not mischaracterizing his positions.
Indeed, I would counter your criticism by asking where you would note that either the NYT piece by Beinart or my own positions mischaracterizes Podhoretz’s positions. Ultimately, it seems to me that there is nothing here that incorrectly identified his arguments.
And, btw, the conflation of radical Islam in general (i.e., Iran + al Qaeda and so forth) is not orginal to me. Podhoretz’s own WW IV concept does that without my participation (and again, that is a fact confirmed by looking at Podhoretz’s own writing).
You also state:
True, but aside from being an additional example of hysteria and rhetorical overkill, I am not sure what relevance it has in terms of determining the validity or usefulness of Podhoretz’s arguments.
In sum, I am not sure that you have actually addressed anything that I actually said.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, September 15, 2024 @ 4:43 pm
I happen to think “Islamofascist” is a very appropriate word to describe radical Islam. It is nitpicking to argue that “fascism” must refer to state rather than a particular religion. Does it really matter that the exalted object is a religion rather than a state?
Once that small difference is overcome, fascism and radical Islam basically meet the same criteria; a philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation/religion above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader (or dictatorial group), severe social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. I see no reason not to associate the evils of radical Islam with the evils of fascism.
Next, I agree that Al Qaeda is not in a position to take over the world militarily (and I won’t digress into a debate over whether Germany could have actually taken over the entire world either), but it certainly can do great damage on a terrorist basis at the present time. More importantly, Islamofascism is much bigger than just Al Qaeda; it applies to the millions (hundred of millions?) of radical Muslims who would side with Islam against democracy and freedom of speech and religion.
2000 years ago, you would have been thought insane if you predicted that Christianity would one day be the dominant force ruling the world. 1300 years ago, the thought of Islam being Christianity’s only major competition for that dominance would have also seemed ludicrous. However, that is the current world situation.
It is not a mere coincidence that these two religions became the Hertz and Avis of world dominance. They both had the same “game plan” and executed it very efficiently; use force and intimidation to force their beliefs on those who would resist. It didn’t happen over night, but over centuries the result is obvious.
However, all of Christianity went through a reformation and abandoned this “game plan” a few centuries ago, but Islamofascists haven’t. They still feel that it is their duty to spread the word by force if necessary, and that it is not only permissable, but their duty, to silence all those who would speak out against their beliefs (eg. Salman Rushdie). It is this denial of freedom of speech that makes Islamofascists so evil and dangerous.
So, while some may think there is rhetorical overkill when speaking about Islamofascism, some of us others think that the ones who say that just don’t understand the nature of the evil that threatens the free world; much as those who didn’t recognize the evil in 1935 that Nazi fascism presented.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE JIHAD.
Comment by RAP — Tuesday, September 18, 2024 @ 4:13 pm
Somehow the rental cart company analogy for Christianity and Islam isn’t working for me…
Beyond that, the fact that Germany was one of the most advanced economies in the world is of no small consequence to tis ability to do what it did in the 1930s.
As such, the analogy to al Qaeda and friends are strained. The historical analogy doesn’t hold.
But then again, that’s part of the point of why flinging words around, as well as historical analogies, aren’t the way to figure out these complex problems.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 18, 2024 @ 4:42 pm