Both Political and Correct
But over the weekend, I heard something that I think requires some push back and rebuttal. And in providing that push back, I am hopeful that we can resist the impulse to descend into the kind of ugliness that often attends these discussions.
On the November 13 Week in the News segment of On Point, host Tom Ashbrook and guests Ellen Goodman, David Gergen, and Jack Beatty continued to discuss, among other things, Nidal Malik Hasan and the shootings at Fort Hood. During the course of that conversation, David Gergen said roughly the following (I paraphrase only slightly),
While it might true that right wing radio has been quick to jump on calling Hasan’s actions terrorism, I don’t understand why the left is so hesitant to call them acts of terrorism.
Now, off the top, I think we need to jettison the suggested dichotomy that the “right” is universally for calling Hasan’s acts terrorism and the “left” is universally opposed to the proposed labeling. Things just don’t break down that cleanly anymore, if they ever did. The fact of the matter is that a clear majority of Americans believe that Hasan’s acts constitute terrorism and want them investigated as such.
That being said, I think there are good reasons for remaining hesitant about calling Hasan’s actions terrorism, which lie outside of the general throw away explanation of “political correctness” that we’ve heard so much about. It may well be that Hasan’s actions were acts of terrorism and if so they should be labeled as such, but the reality is that at this point we remain in a state of conjecture about the matter. But I think we would do well to look at the context around the use of terms like “terrorism”, “Islamofascist/ism”, and “jihad” to understand why a certain subset of the political class is wary about their use.
In the wake and years following 9-11, many of those exact same terms where used to whip the country into a state of frenzy around the need for retaliation. To be sure, 9-11 was a horrifying act, just as the actions of Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood were horrifying. And it remains true that horrifying acts of violence demand responsive acts of justice carried out in a careful and respomsible manner.
But as emotions have settled and smoke has cleared, calling the acts of justice following 9-11 “careful” and “responsible” has become less and less of a viable option.
And with support for both of America’s major wars significantly depleted, there is an argument to be made that the kind of cheerleading for incursions and invasions that fueled much of the impetus to become involved in what was even named the War on Terror was ill-advised and ill-considered — a conclusion to which an increasing number of Americans are coming.
In retrospect, many observers have noted that not only was there an utter lack of critical debate on the decision to invade Iraq from Democrats, but, indeed, that the American media — the very institution dedicated to the ideals of robust debate, critical analysis, and accountability –failed in it’s charge to ask any, let alone the appropriate, critical questions around the decision. In fact, such questions were, for no short amount of time, met with spurious allegations of treason and terrorists sympathizing.
Resolve that was pounded into peoples’ minds by figures like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Andrew Sullivan and the like has now been found wanting, to say the least, and the nearly unquestioned march to war has, if not contributed, then at least not aided in navigating around the current predicament of the country. More importantly, though, the rabid mindset that pervaded the justification for war remains a blight on the charcter of the country, a gap between word and deed that many still struggle to resolve.
In that context, then, is it so mystifying that a certain subsection of the American political class bristles at the use of the exact same terminology that preceded what many have come to echo Harry Reid in describing as “the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country“? Is there not a certain intelligence at play in the reticence of “the left” to engage the kind of charged language that so recently scrambled the decision-making process of so many Americans so completely? Isn’t this kind of reservation precisely what hindsight tells us was so badly needed nearly seven years ago?
By those historical lights, one might be inclined to say that, yes, hesitancy to jump to the “terrorism” label by the media and some liberals/lefties is indeed both political and correct.
Look, at the end of the day, because Hasan is alive and in custody, we are likely to find out with reasonable certainty what happened at Fort Hood on November 5 and why. And if it can be determined that his actions stemmed out of a desire to inflict harm upon American soldiers in the name of jihad, then we should call those actions out for what they are in no uncertain terms. But to heap scorn or disbelief on those who are hesitant to use labels that have been so destructive to the integrity of American values so recently is, in some senses, to utterly fail in learning the lessons of the past.
As to Mr. Gergen’s confusion, if recent history has taught us one thing, it is that the actions of right, far more than the left, have poisoned the well of calling terrorism out into the light of day. And that is perhaps worth looking at when we observe who is reacting in what ways to these horrifying events.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Well, it puts me back in ...
- Mike,To me, as someone wh...
- What a freaking game.
- The Bowman essay is prett...
- *sigh* As much as it abso...
- Good lord, do you imagine...
- everything has unintended...
- Thanks for this; you have...
- *Liberal politicians and ...
- on Ten BooksOh, I'm getting credentia...
-
21 comments
Interestingly enough, I was flipping through the archives when I found this particular post:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/06/not-nearly-enough/
It’s a quote from Hilzoy. Here’s the quotation.
“I am strongly pro-choice, but I think it is perfectly possible to be opposed to abortion on principled grounds, and I think that it would be an enormous mistake to conflate all people who are opposed to abortions with either Dr. Tiller’s killer or the likes of Operation Rescue. That said, large elements of the anti-abortion movement have never done nearly enough to distance themselves from the violent and/or crazy parts of their movement. I hope they start to now.”
At the time, I left this question in the comments:
“Should we have expected Muslims to distance themselves from the 9/11 attackers? Did they do enough to do so?”
The questions that were fair to ask in the days that followed Tiller’s murder ought to be appropriate to ask now, shouldn’t they?
Or is this significantly different to the point where we are truly discussing apples and oranges?
ThatPirateGuy
November 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
See the treason repsonses below for what this is.
Scott Roeder is undoubtedly a terrorist as he used non-state violence against a civilian to forward a political goal. The anti-abortion group operation rescue most certainly did not do a very good job of condemning it.
American muslims are not a monolithic political movement. The anti-abortion movement is an actual political movement that has sub-groups that have created hit-lists, aided and abetted murders and even the Atlanta Olympic bomber. Some anti-abortion groups have repeatedly argued that deadly force is morally legitimate in their attempt to stop abortion.
That is the difference.
Kyle
November 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I’d say they’re fair questions, you could find difference between the two – obviously – but nothing stands out as so different as to make the comparison anything but offensive to the pro-choice crowd that will find it offensive to Islam and to “Christianists” who will find it offensive to themselves.
That said, I disagree with the premise, that individuals or groups should be pressured by external critics to police the actions of and distance themselves from less savory adherents to the same creed. It’s a no-win cheap shot and often made in bad faith.
To be honest, I think that “terrorism” is inappropriate to describe what he did.
He was, in fact, making military folks his targets rather than primarily civilians. If the military cannot be targets in a war, who can be?
What Nidal Malik Hasan engaged in was Treason. He was engaged in Treason against the United States. This is defined in the Constitution thusly:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
One need not mention his religion, or terror, or any of those other words whose usage has been poisoned by Kristol and his neocon ilk. I don’t really have a problem with refusing to call what he did “Terrorism”. It wasn’t by most of the definitions out there excepting the ones that focus primarily on the “Allahu Akbar” yelling before someone unarmed dies.
Treason is covered and I do not see how what he did does not follow the definition we have in the Constitution. He is a traitor who engaged in treason against the United States of America. The word is a little bit dusty from a lack of unironic usage, but I think it fits.
greginak
November 16th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
it certainly seems to me the only reason for calling this douche a terrorist is because he is a muslim. but a different question is : who cares if we call him a terrorist? his actions, killing people, are not particularly in doubt. why is it so important for a bunch of people to righteously proclaim him a terrorist? is does seem to be the war monger/love is a warm bomber crowd that is all hot and sweaty about calling him a terrorist. it seems like they want to call him a terrorist to support their frenzied, war is the only solution, muslims are scary, must be belligerent in all situations worldview.
Jaybird
November 17th, 2009 at 8:27 am
“why is it so important for a bunch of people to righteously proclaim him a terrorist?”
You’re familiar with the hate crimes debate, I suspect.
This is the right-wing version of this.
The word “terrorism” should not be applied to this particular event, in any case.
It was either a workplace shooting by a deranged individual, or effectively a military act by a traitor. Attacking a base (even if you kill civilians on that base) is a military action.
Terrorism is attacking the general populace with the intention to provoke the emotion of terror *in the general populace*, to further a political goal.
John Lee Malvo wasn’t a terrorist, he was a serial killer. The Unabomber was a serial killer; he didn’t target *random* members of the populace. The 9/11 terrorists were terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a mass murderer; he may have been a terrorist if he had continued his career. Animal rights activists who firebomb researchers’ cars aren’t terrorists, they’re criminals. Animal rights activists who blow up random buildings in the U.S. and then issue statements saying that they will continue until animal research is halted would be terrorists, but there are no such groups at present.
Yes, some subset of some populations may feel terrorized by what happened at Fort Hood. Biomedical researchers may feel terrorized by what happened to Dr. David Feldheim. That doesn’t make the acts themselves *terrorism*, they’re more like hate crimes.
Lots of people feel like this is semantic quibbling, but it’s an important distinction because of the way one needs to combat the activity. You can combat serial killers or targeted hate criminals in certain ways, but you can’t target terrorism the same way.
Because real terrorism involves terrorizing everybody, in an attempt to get them to exert social or legal pressure to further your goals. By definition, the target of terrorism is (usually a large group of) anyone(s), for getting news time, not particular someones, to stop those particular someones from doing a particular something.
Mike at The Big Stick
November 17th, 2009 at 7:18 am
I agree pretty much 100% with Pat’s classifications.
I will also say that both sides of the aisle are more than happy to use loaded terms when it suits them. If an abortion doctor gets shot, the murderer was a terrorist. If a whack job goes on a shooting rampage and oh, by the way, he was also a Muslim, then he’s a terrorist. It’s the symptom of the disease that is our American tendency to sensationalize everything.
One interesting aspect that might come out of this is whether or not he was manipulated into doing this by someone with AQ or posing to be. If so, the real terrorists might have just found an effective tool in the internet. Suck in disaffected Americans who are clearly unstable and then persuade them to do random acts of violence. Not a winning strategy but since when do they care about anything other than bodycounts?
Sorry, the previous wasn’t clear. John Lee Malvo certainly targeted the general populace, and clearly intended to provoke terror, but he had no political goal. He was just a douchebag with a gun and a god complex.
Jaybird and Pat have hit the nail on the head. It is very simple. He was either a workplace shooter and crazy or he is a traitor and a murderer. You don’t land the terrorist label by attacking military bases. The best you could call him could be guerilla I guess but he was hardly hit and run. A terrorist he ain’t and calling him one is idiotic and damaging to the language. There’re plenty of equally bad words to use to describe this sad pathetic loser.
Mike at The Big Stick
November 17th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“You don’t land the terrorist label by attacking military bases.”
What about the hijackers that flew into the Pentagon?
North
November 17th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Mike, since the plane they flew into the Pentagon had like 6 terrorists on it and around 40 screaming civilians I don’t believe it’s an apt counterfactual.
Mike at The Big Stick
November 17th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I guess this highlights the gray areas here. I’m just for calling all of these guys Assholes and leaving it there. To quote Team America, “Dicks need to fuck assholes before they get shit all over everything.”
…and with that I end the most foul-worded comment I have ever posted on a blog. My apologies.
North
November 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
That’s some impressive profanity.
Honestly I don’t have a dog in this fight exactly but I am fond of some precision in language. I don’t want anything other than a grapefruit to be called a grapefruit and I do not want non-terrorists to be called terrorists.
There’s a strange contradiction in the Right’s opposition to hate crimes law and it’s obsession with labeling all Muslim-committed crimes as acts of terrorism. Their claim that Hasan was a terrorist seems to rest on the fact that he was or associated with Muslim extremists and intended to terrorize a broader populace than his direct victims – almost exactly the criteria established for hate crimes.
Scott makes the critical point: even now it is an unsettled question just exactly what this act was. This explains why “the left” might be hesitant to call it terrorism. (I’m a regular On Point listener, and I was dismayed though unsurprised at Gergen’s taking up that line.) However, this framing is actually itself a moderated presentation of this meme. While now the criticism is of the left for event at this late date (sic) wanting to be sure of the facts before applying a label with such obvious cultural baggage, initially, the criticism was of on-air news anchors for not immediately in near-real time declaring this to be an act of terrorism upon hearing that the perpetrator was believed to be Muslim. Essentially, this started as a criticism of the mainstream media for not leaping to a conclusion based on bigotry.
Who cares what you call Hasan? Let’s try him, convict him and execute him. However, as the president must personally approve a military execution I”m not sure Obama will do it.
Jaybird
November 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Why have a trial? I’ve got a rope right here!
North
November 17th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Throw in some torches and a banjo and we could be getting really retro with this.
@North and Pat Calahan
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm
Clearly an attack on military personnel on a military base/compound. Clearly and popularly referred to as terrorism.
@gregniak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
Popularly considered a terrorist, though not Muslim.
Maybe it’s just me but using the incident and its terminology to paint those who use the word terrorism as irresponsible warmongers is the flip side of using the same to paint serial avoiders of the word terrorism compromised by their worship of political terrorism.
Isn’t the responsible middle ground here simply to wait till we find out more? Rather than issuing declarations based on partial information, even if verified. It will have turned out to have been equally silly to call this terror if it was just a workplace shooter as to allege not-terrorism if Hasan admits as much down the road.
Scott
November 19th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Kyle:
Some people will make any mental contortion possible to be able to say that Hasan was not a terrorist.