Over at RealClear Politics, Tom Bevan takes Ron Paul to task for his recent statements about people who use the term “islamofacsism”:
In the spin room after the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term “Islamic fascism.”
“It’s a false term to make people think we’re fighting Hitler,” Paul responded. “It’s war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread.”
Now, when Paul asserts that the war in Iraq is a mistake that is bankrupting America, he’s making a serious argument which current polls suggest a majority of Americans agree with — though not most Republicans. When he says 9/11 was the result of “blowback” from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he’s on somewhat more precarious ground, but at least there is still some shred of intellectual basis for his view — albeit a Chomskyite one.
But when Paul says that the term “Islamic fascism” (or, for the purpose of discussion, its synonymous twin, “Islamofascism”) is propaganda designed to spread war, he’s veered off into the sort of paranoid fringe kookiness that keeps his campaign relegated to a side-show novelty act
(…)
For Paul to ridicule the term “Islamofascist” as propaganda and to insinuate that anyone who uses it is a warmonger seeking to spread conflict in the Middle East shows how wildly out of touch he is with the vast majority of the American public. More to the point, Paul’s willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists calls into question his fitness to fulfill the constitutional duty of the Commander in Chief to protect the country from all threats, foreign and domestic.
The closing paragraph, I think, is completely over the top. The reception that Paul’s outspoken views on the War in Iraq and the possibility of war with Iran have gotten demonstrates quite clearly that he is not as far out of the mainstream. The American people have turned against the Iraq War in overwhelming numbers and, largely because of the experience in Iraq, are not at all enthusiastic about the idea of taking on Tehran anytime soon.
Nonetheless, Bevan does have a point when he criticizes the Congressman’s dismissal of those of us who believe that radical Islam is a threat and a danger and, fundamentally, anti-libertarian is entirely correct.
Take a look at any nation where radical or Wahabbist Islam has taken hold and you will find a complete lack of liberty. Women, of course, are treated as second-class citizens, but it doesn’t stop there. Freedom of religion is a concept that doesn’t exist. Freedom of speech ? Forget about speaking out against the government, and heaven help you if you dare criticize Mohammed.
But it’s not just in the Middle East that we’re seeing this happen. The Mohammed Cartoons controversy was, by and large, a European phenomenon. Theo Van Gogh was murdered on a street in Amsterdam for daring to make a film about the state of women in Islamic societies. And Osama bin Laden has said that the only way for the West to save itself from further attack is to convert to Islam.
This is not the ideology of a peace-loving people. It’s the ideology of fascists. Hence, the term Islamofascism, coined, by the way, by a leftist named Christopher Hitchens, not a neoconservative.
At The Crossed Pond, Rojas makes this point in addressing Bevan’s argument:
I have argued time and time again that my fellow Paul supporters need to stop treating their political opponents as if they were troglodytes motivated solely by malice. I never thought I would have to say the same thing to the candidate himself. But really, Dr. Paul: there are people who detest the brutality of orthodox Islamic regimes, and who express that sentiment, who don’t necessarily want to drop bombs on them. Me, for one.
So let’s stop lobbing accusations about “newspeak” on matters of this sort. It’s my strong belief that many of the people who use the term “Islamofascism” are among the strongest potential supporters of a Paul candidacy. Let’s bring them in instead of driving them away.
And driving them away is precisely what seems to be happening. Instead of recognizing the opposition to Islamic radicalism for what it is — an opposition to an ideology fundamentally opposed to human freedom — there seems to be a tendency from the Paul campaign to believe the leftist/paleo-libertarian idea that the Islamists would leave us alone if we just withdrew from the Middle East completely and stood by and did nothing while they overran Israel and any moderate Arab nation that dared stand in their way with every suicide bomber they could find.
Not everyone who believes that Islamic radicalism is a threat to human freedom wants to invade Iran tomorrow, so maybe it’s time to stop claiming that they do.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
What a misdirection, are you serious, Doug? The author of the article you sited, is criticizing Dr. Paul for not accepting the term “Islamo-fascism.” The author then sites two Marxists, and one a Marxist-Muslim at that, Hitchens and Steven Schwartz to “prove” his point.
In other places and works of yours, you certainly lean against restrictions on immigration: you are fine with letting Muslims into the country.
So what do you do? You misdirect.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I would also say that Ron Paul seems to neglect just how big of an issue terror and Islamofascism is for most Republicans. I know that he is not one to change his views on most issues, and if for nothing else I respect him for that, but his only hope of moving up the polls and moving on to the general election (unless he wants to start a futile third-party attempt that would only result in a Democrat gaining from it) is to address this issue, and not to run away. In this world and time, anti-globalism, xenophobia, or anything perceived as these are irrational; we have to deal with foreign powers and peoples, and that will never change. Even more than Ron Paul are his fervent group of supporters, who seem to mostly consist of college students and tin-foil hat wearing truthers, that need to come to this realization, if they wish to get more support for the candidate of their choice.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Ron Paul is correct–we are not fighting fascists. Fascism is the same thing as corporatism, yet I do not see any Moslem governments or groups teaming up with giant profit-seeking corporations.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Many people (like the ones above) try to shoot holes in Ron Paul’s statements and opinions. I am glad that there are people out there to do this (whay the media is supposed to be doing). I disagree with your approach because you seem to only shoot holes, not offer solutions. Ron Paul is the only republican candidate that has ever read and understood the constitution. Throw some shit on those that haven’t and then move on to smaller issues with candidates. Like their frustrations with propaganda that you seem to easily perpetuate.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I do agree though that the approach needs to be inclusive so as to bring in voters, not run off the dumb ones (we need them too, I guess).
October 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
CR UVa Says:
October 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I would also say that Ron Paul seems to neglect just how big of an issue terror and Islamofascism is for most Republicans
It is an issue of FEAR….CR do you know anything about the history of the United States. When this land was settled we were surrounded by people that were initially friendly. these are the American indians. We traded with them and they helped the early settlers survive. We learned holistic methods of healing from the tribes, they understood asprin long before Bayer was a pimple. The whole thing came unwound when we started stealing land and killing these people. The same thing has been happening in the middle east for the last 100 years. This time it’s oil. We want it but are unwilling to do it the right way. We are esentially driving the Iraqi people from their land systematically for the oil and resources beneath the sand. We did eliminate Mosedec in 1953 and install the shah. He was hated and killed and murdered like another old US benefactor Saddam Hussein. When we found it to be in our best monetary interests we killed Saddam. Bottom line Dr Paul is correct in every way where this is concerned. We reap what we sow. It was true 200 years ago and it’s true today. When you post anywhere concerning these matters try doing it with a little intelligence. We get plenty of misinformation from the corporate owned media.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Islamofascism is an invented propaganda term, but
blowback is very real, and leaving Iraq is like leaving a festering wound but we have to pull the band-aid off quickly.
Ron Paul is corect in that we can’t MAKE other countries change thru the barrel of a gun. And who are we to criticise other nations when our own house is a shambles, and quickly turning into an authoritarian government with a military police state abusing its own citizens?
We need to clean house and quick! Get rid of the CFR and the trilateral commission who set policy and influence our politicians in secret meetings.
Israel can easily protect itself. The unfortunate abuses of Moslem women are part of the moslem culture and to think that we can change their culture without fostering resentment is naive at best.
“Islamofascism” is a scary fearmongering term invented to strike fear in the hears of the American people, just like the invented “war on terror”? Terror is a technique, how can you have a war on a “technique”?
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I agree with you, Paul. Even if people do fear IslamoFascism, this concept of “we’d rather fight them over there” needs to be torn apart. It is much more difficult to fight offensively than defensively. Consider any of those wars to take down a castle and look how many people died trying to storm it. Conversely, look what happens when a military gets spread too thin, Roman Empire, France under Napoleon, Hitler, I suppose the former Soviet Union and, hopefully not next, the U.S.