So what?

There's an article at Red State that temporarily pretends, for the sake of argument, that the anti-mosque crowd really is rooted in anti-Muslim bigotry.  The author's response: "So what?"

The argument that this bigotry is somehow unusual is nothing more or less than a simple butchering of American history. This country has a long heritage of being less than welcoming to religious minorities. Bay Colony Puritans hanged Quakers. Dissenters were banished from Anglican colonies. Catholics were subjected to virtual pogroms in New York, Philadelphia and Boston in the 1840s and 1850s and the shameful legacy of anti-Catholicism is still evident in 37 states by way of the Blaine Amendments. Mormons. Jehovah Witnesses. Etc. So to say that being the object of religious hostility and bigotry makes muslims somehow unique is ridiculous.

There seem to be a few points that the article is trying to make.  First, any aspect of American life can potentially be a bloodsport.  Second, everyone has been knocked around in the past, so Muslims had better get ready to be knocked around themselves.  And third, the author is more perfectly happy with arrangement.

Of course, I would look at that same thumbnail sketch of bigotry in American history and think, "Let's make sure we never do any of that again."

The coming years

Paul Krugman's latest column for The New York Times covers my greatest fear about what will happen over the next few years if the Republicans regain control of the House:

So what will happen if, as expected, Republicans win control of the House? We already know part of the answer: Politico reports that they’re gearing up for a repeat performance of the 1990s, with a “wave of committee investigations” — several of them over supposed scandals that we already know are completely phony. We can expect the G.O.P. to play chicken over the federal budget, too; I’d put even odds on a 1995-type government shutdown sometime over the next couple of years.

The article is worth a read, and there's one passage that shed some light on something that I've had a hard time understanding about the Tea Party movement–their raging opposition to anything that is in any way connected to anyone who happens to be (even very slightly) to their left.  Krugman says:  "What we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just don’t consider government by liberals — even very moderate liberals — legitimate." 

I barely remember the Clinton years, but that does explain a lot.

On Glenn Beck's rally

Tomorrow is the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.  It's also the date Glenn Beck chose for rally.  I see a few likely outcomes for tomorrow's rally.

Option One:  The Rally is a Triumph
Crowds on par with Obama's inauguration.  Beck delivers a speech on par with the Gettysburg Address.

Option Two:  The Rally is a Failure
Dismal attendance numbers.  Beck pulls a Michael Richards rant.

Option Three:  None of the Above
At this point, I very much doubt whether anything less than a "live boy or dead girl" would drive away Beck's fans in large droves.  However, I also doubt that he's going to pick up many fans from here on out.  His ratings may go up around election time, or if there's an Obama sex scandal, but people already know who he is, and they've probably figured out whether they like him (or trust him).  Tomorrow is about whether Glenn Beck's needle moves up or moves down.

Marc Ambinder has an interesting post at The Atlantic about Beck's popularity and what he's done with it.  He nails the essence of Beck's style:

Beck attaches a distinctly Christian millennialism to everything he does. This means that there are no shades of gray; everything Beck is doing is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER at that moment. He is given to extreme comparisons; to Nazi analogies and MLK analogies.

That gets to the root of why I, and I'm sure many of his detractors, just don't like him.  According to Ambinder, Beck "conceives of this current era as the apex of a social experiment that began in the 1960s and was later joined by currents that have existed since Woodrow Wilson's time."  Wilson left office 89 years ago, and the sixties ended four decades ago.  America is still here.  We also managed to weather the Trail of Tears–a shameful, despicable episode in American history.  And the Klan.  And Roosevelt's 90-something percent top tax bracket.  And Nixon committing felonies.  And the Iraq war.  We're still here.

There is a market for "The End is Nigh!" messages, but many people–including myself–have heard that message, lived to see the next day, and determined to never buy into that mindset again.  Splitting a pitcher of beer and a basket of chicken wings isn't going to obliterate a lifetime of healthy eating and exercise.  Then again, going for a nice, long run isn't going to completely work off the calories from that half-pitcher of beer (unless it's a really long run).

Tomorrow's rally won't be the end of Glenn Beck, but I doubt we'll see "the spirit" speaking through him and marking the beginning of a thousand years of peace.  But whatever happens, the end is not nigh.  I just wish Beck knew that.

Regarding Sarah Palin and the 1st Amendment

I would be very interested to hear Sarah Palin's thoughts on the controversies involving Chris Ofili, Andres Serrano, or Robert Mapplethorpe.

Don't retreat... reload

Sarah Palin recently weighed in on the Dr. Laura controversy on her Twitter account:

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

Followed immediately by:

Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!

Neo-Nazis can march down main street in a town filled with Holocaust survivors, and the Supreme Court ruled that no one from the local, state, or federal government can stop them.  At the same time, I can disown any friends or acquaintances who participate in that march, or any other activity I find distasteful.  Dr. Laura can say whatever she wants, but she isn't entitled to a nationwide platform or advertisers' dollars anymore than my hypothetical Nazi-marching ex-friend was entitled to my friendship.

She supports a person's right to use racial slurs on the radio.  Apparently she believes that any criticism of someone who uses racial slurs obliterates the 1st Amendment.  If she runs for office again, I'd be very interested to see how she handles questions about these statements. "What publications do you read?" should be a cakewalk compared to the questions she'll be asked about this.

I think this ties in the "Ground-Zero Mosque" dispute.  The controversy is going to be settled–probably soon.  They'll either choose a new location for the thing or they won't, and people will complain about the outcome for either a short or a long period of time.  But it will be interesting to see–whether two, four, or eight years later–Gingrich, Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, Reid, Foxman, Dean and all the others explain why they only support(ed) religious freedom for certain people.

Pawlenty and the mosque

I had been wondering which of the possible Republican 2012 candidates would come out looking like rational, reasoning statesmen (or women) and which would align themselves with Palin, Gingrich, and the World Net Daily wing of the party.  I've had some respect for Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor of Minnesota, who recently did an interview with Real Clear Politics.  It's clear that he is considering a run, and that he's on the side of Palin and the anti-Muslim GOP crowd.  He says of the mosque:

"I'm strongly opposed to the idea of putting a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero-I think it's inappropriate," he said. "I believe that 3,000 of our fellow innocent citizens were killed in that area, and some ways from a patriotic standpoint, it's hallowed ground, it's sacred ground, and we should respect that. We shouldn't have images or activities that degrade or disrespect that in any way."  (From Real Clear Politics) 

I had hoped that Republicans might get a few new talking points on this issue from Mayor Bloomberg's admirable speech.  It's still early, but that hope is fading.

Looking like a statesman

"Eventually, someone's going to break the trend.  Whoever does that first is going to look like a true statesman."  I remember thinking that to myself yesterday after reading one more story about the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy.  It's a story that I've followed with a mixture of fascination and disgust. 

I'm not surprised that there are people who don't want a new mosque in lower Manhattan.  I'm sure there are people who would be saddened to see a new mosque built anywhere in America.  I guess I'm not really surprised that that includes prominent political figures.  It's the utter lack of shame that surprises me.

There are any number of hypothetical situations where you might ask people, in the name of sensitivity, to refrain from doing something they have every right to do.  But I believe that a decent person will never feel too comfortable making that request.

It's astonishing to see the opposition, including two of the presumptive front-runners for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, stumbling over themselves and even inventing words in their rush to condemn the project.  As Newt Gingrich himself said:

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.  (From Newt Gingrich's website.)

Palin and Gingrich had already chosen their sides.  Would Romney be the one to break from the pack?  Pawlently?  This would be a great chance for a younger Republican, like Jindal or Ryan or Cantor to dial back the crazy and look like statesman material.

Today Mayor Michael Bloomberg delivered a memorable, articulate, historically-mindful speech on the controversy.  I don't think that it's a coincidence that he's wealthy enough to finance his own campaigns and that he's frequently denied any ambition for higher office.  My favorite passage from his speech:

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

Comparing that part of the mayor's speech to Gingrich's press release sums up the two sides for me.  One man says, "As long as they permit intolerance over there, we'll refuse to show tolerance to them here."  The other man says, "They may do that over there, but we won't do that here."  One of those men is mounting a campaign to gain his party's nomination for the presidency.

(The full text of the mayor's speech is available here.)