The Grand Façade: How Islamophobia and Misinformation Thrive on the Right

Diana West seems to have given up on any sense of journalistic creditability and gone head first into hyperbolic conspiracy theories. In her article, “Islam and the Left share common aims” West interviews and praises author Andrew C. McCarthy. McCarthy’s new book The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America is, according to West, “excellent [and] ground-breaking.” Newsweek had this to say: “McCarthy marries a simplistic and unoriginal argument about Islam to a sloppy talking point that Barack Obama is a communist by way of shoddy history and dangerous misunderstandings of Islam.”
You may have heard of McCarthy and his first book detailing his time spent as a federal prosecutor against the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing. He uses this fact to get his argument rolling and perhaps to establish some creditability. However, it quickly falls flat.
In his interview with West and throughout his book, McCarthy engages in logical leaps even the writers of Lost would find suspect. For McCarthy, violent and non-violent Muslims all have the same goal which is why he criticizes the government’s counterterrorism efforts, rejecting their claims that terrorist acts are not representative of Muslims as a whole. The goal of Muslims, he claims, is to implement Sharia law globally and that “Sharia-driven campaign can be waged, and is being waged, by non-violent means, and that the violent and non-violent methods are inextricably linked.” Essentially what McCarthy is alleging is that any individual Muslim or Muslim organization is trying to destroy American values. Now, I shouldn’t really be surprised by this since he is on record calling CAIR a radical Islamic organization.
McCarthy also supports a common movement seen amongst Islamophobes, ending Muslim immigration to the United States. A pretty baseless argument he tries to support by claiming that Islam is inherently “anti-Constitutional” and therefore any Muslim who enters the country must “demonstrate their acceptance of American constitutional principles.” I would be interested to see how any American, Muslim or not, could somehow prove that they accept constitutional principles. Especially when there are parts of the Constitution I think could use a little re-working.
But what do these convoluted, xenophobic arguments against Muslims have to do with the Left? Well, according to McCarthy, plenty.
He claims that Islam and the Left share similarities in that they are against America and the “culture of freedom” it provides. He writes “today’s left-leaning, Islamophilic Obamedia consciously ignores the convergence, but America’s 44th president and America’s enemies have a common dream.” Wow. “Islamophilic Obamedia?” Who has been giving the Right lessons in neologisms?
It is fitting that McCarthy shares his surname with the poster child for manipulative rhetoric and paranoid witch hunts. He is able to simultaneously attack the Left and Muslims, the scapegoats du-jour for the Right. However, he misses one imperative point: nothing he is writing is true. Are there leftist Muslims? Absolutely. However, there are also leftists of every other creed. To assert that one religion will somehow yield absolute political affiliations is not only baseless, it is downright stupid. Luckily for us, I doubt he will convince anyone with this book. It will merely reinforce the views of those who already are fervent critics of Muslims.
I will say that in my first four weeks at CAIR, I have been exposed to some shocking rhetoric I did not know existed. People like West, McCarthy, Pamela Gellar, and Robert Spencer all engage in fearsome attacks on Islam and Muslims. While I would hate to encourage anyone to seek them out, it is imperative to hear the arguments from these crazies in order to combat them.

Race, Identity, and Public Schools

Diana West’s recent editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times is a lot of things, surprising isn't one of them. Her other articles espouse the same inane, manipulative, accusatory rhetoric found within her straw man arguments.

In an article entitled, “Is there Anyone Left with America's Interest at Heart?” West discusses the media and government reactions to Faisal Shahzad’s attempted attack in Times Square. Over the course of two pages, West critiques “the fuzzy, cultural-relativism-based universalism that orders our society.” Essentially, West asserts that terror attacks happen because the United States (specifically democrats and the “liberal media-elite”) is too concerned with not offending anyone. Take for instance this excerpt:

If our leaders faced facts, you see, they might also have to act. They might have to consider such measures as halting Islamic immigration to stop the demographic spread of Sharia. Even a wartime immigration moratorium would help. Come to think of it, a simple ban on return travel from especially fertile jihad regions such as Pakistan -- a ban on return travel from the Northwest frontier alone -- would do wonders to shore up our vulnerabilities.

In Pakistan, after all, 79 percent of the people, according to a 2007 survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org, favor the "strict application of Sharia."

However, West fails to mention that in the same report that 82 percent believe that "people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs," that a majority of Muslims living in the Middle East support Democracy, greater international communication and trade. She also falls into the league of commentators who believe all Muslims seek to alter the societies within which they live, that “demographic spread” of Muslims is the same as “demographic spread of Sharia.”

It is this sort of one-sided, defensive approach that West wallows in during her recent editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times. She refers to our nation’s school system as “politically correct re-education camps” which I had to re-read a few times in disbelief. I honestly have no idea what she can mean by this. I wonder if Ms. West has been in a school recently. I never thought that I was being taught a “politically correct” version of anything. I did feel that some more sinister moments in this nation’s history were glossed over, but I never felt like I was receiving any sort of Maoist Cultural Revolution she alleges. What is interesting is that later in her article, West supports a new Arizona law that prohibits any public school from offering classes that “promote resentment toward another race or class of people” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” Now, is this not the kind of political correctness she derides, where people are not allowed to embrace their own culture for fear of upsetting others? That a public school cannot provide a perspective and courses based on the needs of its students? Where the needs of an individual are outweighed by the interests of the collective?

In her article she writes, “It will be almost amusing to watch leftists try to slam a law against teaching racial resentment and hatred as ‘racist.’” Well, I’ll do my best to keep her doubled over. First, I seriously doubt that any African American Studies or La Raza course is teaching “racial resentment and hatred.” On the contrary, I believe that it gives students the opportunity to learn about their own culture as well as the culture of others. As much as she may disagree, there is not one definitive American history. We are a nation of immigrants and therefore our history is that of various interests and perspectives. To remove these classes is in effect removing a necessary perspective for students.

I’m sure West has some cultural or religious traditions based on her background. Did learning about the history of her ancestors create resentment against other races? I am sure she will claim that this argument is part of the “multicultural masquerade- the non-Western grievance industry pretending to be ‘education.’” While I love alliteration, I have to disagree with her. Please explain to me how a Hispanic Studies course or African American literature class is “non-Western?” I think West believes because some of these classes acknowledge some of the nastier moments in our nation’s past, that this will somehow raise resentment against whites or the rich, her bread and butter demographic. Now, please don’t attempt to retort to my argument with the tried and true defense, I am not calling West nor the reform in Arizona schools racist. I do not believe “it’s either ‘We are the world’ or you are racist.” What I am saying is that by removing these courses, students in Arizona public schools are not being provided with a well-rounded education. It is an action that harms many people but doesn’t seem to benefit anyone. Who were those classes hurting?

I think what may be at the crux of my disagreement with West is our perceived intentions of recent legislation in Arizona. She claims, “Arizona wants to protect American identity to ensure that all of its citizens, regardless of race or origin, have one.” Now, I agree, it is important for all citizens to feel as if they have an American identity. What I disagree with is that everyone has to have the same identity. Race, class, gender, religion and sexual orientation are all facets in one’s identity and to assert that we all must identify purely as Americans is unfair.