Be Wary of Rationalizing Hate: The Specter of Park51

The recent wave of government anti-immigrant repression, justified (in part) as a means of "fighting antisemitism", made me think about (of all things) the 2010 effort to scuttle the Park51 Islamic community center in South Manhattan. Opponents of the center, which at the time included the ADL, argued that the center would be insensitive to the victims of 9/11.

Jonathan Greenblatt, to his credit, apologized for the ADL's position (this was, needless to say, before his heel turn). And he's also walking back the ADL's initial support for Trump's deportation wave. I don't give him points for that (or rather, I do, but nowhere near enough to offset the points lost for backing the repression in the first place), but it is worth noting.

In any event, the reason it came to mind is how the logic of the Park51 opponents might extend to how the victims of Trump's anti-immigrant repression will think of Jews. The argument against Park51 is, when you boil it down, that because the 9/11 attack was one perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, the victims of 9/11 were now justified in being biased against Muslims tout court (see also Jody Armour's discussion of the "Involuntary Negrophobe"). It is important to note the extension -- the bias said to be justified is not against al-Qaeda, or even against whichever Muslims provided backing, support, or sympathy for the 9/11 strike (nobody accused the Park51 project of having any such sins on its head). The position being defended was that those victimized by 9/11 were reasonable and justified in being biased against all Muslims, and that their bias was one owed sensitivity and respect from the rest of us -- which is why it could allegedly justify opposition to the mere existence of an Islamic Center in their vicinity.

Under that same logic, it seems clear that those persons harassed and detained under the auspices of Trump's "antisemitism" initiative would be justified in hating Jews. Not just those Jewish groups who are actively assisting in the deportation regime, nor just those which have evinced support or sympathy for it, but all Jews. If we take the Park51 position seriously, if some of these deportees do turn into full antisemites, then we would owe them sensitivity and respect for their hatred.

To be crystal clear: this would be wrong. The ADL got it right the second time; no trauma, no matter how grave, justifies blind and sweeping hatred for an entire religious group. I only mention it because it provides a good warning of the consequences of trying to rationalize hate -- the logic will always come around to bite you too.

The End of "Shared" "Sacrifice"

My 9/11 story is not particularly special. I was in high school when the news reached us that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Initially, I thought that meant some small hobbyist plane had missed an approach and smacked into the side of the building. The reality -- a full passenger jet (soon to be two) deliberately ramming the building and bringing it down -- didn't cross my mind until TVs went on and rumor became visual. Even though I lived outside DC, and so we definitely knew folks who worked at the Pentagon, I don't know of anyone who knew anyone directly who died or was hurt in the attack. We could see the smoke from across the Potomac river though.

In the days that followed, America was famously united. President Bush's approval rating -- in the doldrums due to the bitterly controversial way he became president in the first place -- skyrocketed. Everybody came together. Democrats basically stopped being an opposition party. Some of that was good. Not all of it. There is a difference between refraining from taking easy political potshots at tough but necessary sacrifices, or not exploiting understandable collective depression and angst for political gain, versus wholesale refusal to debate serious and sometimes dangerous steps taken under the guise of "national security". Nonetheless, it was undeniably inspiring to witness how, in the face of crisis, we'd at least try to unite as a nation and we'd dig in our heels and sacrifice to get us through the dark period.

I have heard some folks ask, hypothetically, what would have happened if, at the outset of COVID, Donald Trump had come out aggressively for masks and vaccines and lockdowns -- demanding a shared sacrifice and seriousness of act and purpose that befits the crisis of a global pandemic. The insinuation is that the polarities would flip -- in our hyperpartisan age, we'd see the GOP proudly endorse and embrace all of the things they now liken to tyrannical Nazism, while Democrats would be found angrily denouncing masks and spreading conspiracies about vaccines.

The first part may be true. The second isn't. We might have seen a small uptick in woo-woo Malibu sorts refusing to get vaccinated because it contains "chemicals" or something. But the experience of 9/11 suggests that the overall liberal response would have been to embrace the seriousness of the moment. Democrats wouldn't oppose vaccines just because Trump was promoting them; they wouldn't foster chaos just to stick it to the "other side". As much as lockdowns suck, they wouldn't have riled up public frustration at a necessary health measure and thrown it in Donald Trump's face.

Over two hundred times as many Americans have died from COVID as died on 9/11. If you count "excess deaths" (which includes people who didn't have COVID but whose deaths nonetheless can be attributed to it -- e.g., because a swamped health care system couldn't give them the care they needed), we're probably around a million deaths -- about a 9/11 a day, from the time pandemic started in earnest.

The degree to which "shared sacrifice" permeated the national mythos after 9/11 makes it all the more despicable how resistant so many Americans have been to anything that even approximates a "sacrifice" in response to the pandemic. I put "sacrifice" in quotes because some of the things GOP pols are literally comparing to the Gestapo are almost comical in their triviality. Wear an extra square foot of fabric on your body. Get a safe vaccine for free. I'm not saying nothing about the pandemic is difficult (parents with younger school-aged children, in particular, have taken a beating we should all acknowledge). But so much of the "sacrifice" we've asked for is so minimal, and yet people refuse to do it.

There is no "shared" sacrifice in America. There is half the country which is willing to do what's needed to get us through a crisis, and another half whose only concern is of themselves. The "unity" after 9/11 was a mirage -- it was the former group agreeing to be united in a crisis with the latter group doing what it wanted to do anyway. When the roles reversed, and the first group asked the second to actual sacrifice just a smidgeon to keep America safe, they refused to do it, and threw perhaps the largest and longest temper tantrum this nation has seen in my lifetime.

It was always despicable. In the shadow of 9/11, it's even more so.

How To Be Honored By Conspiracy Theorists

There's a conspiracy theorist who periodically sends me emails. Today, for example, it was a sustained discussion about "dancing Israelis on 9/11" -- an oldie, but I suppose back at the top of the mind given the recent 10th anniversary.

These emails, though, are not sent just to me -- he helpfully doesn't bcc his recipient list, so I can see exactly who else he thinks is worth targeting with messages insisting that the WTC attacks were a Zionist plot!

And what it list it is! It's just 18 people, but they include such eminent figures as Cass Sunstein, Larry Lessig, Mark Tushnet, Adrian Vermeule, Noah Feldman, Stephen Carter, Adam Winkler, Ekow Yankah ... and me! Me! In such august company! To even be included in the same (spit-flecked conspiracy-mongering) sentence as those luminaries -- I can't express what an honor it is. It's right up there with the time I discovered someone had created a troll website just to call me a "disgusting Zionist punk".

Focus on the positive, that's my motto.

North Carolina Republicans Commemorate 9/11 in the Most NC-Republican Style Imaginable

It is the anniversary of 9/11, a somber occasion where Americans reflect with sadness upon one of the worst terrorist atrocities ever to have impacting our nation -- but perhaps also with a bit of hope, recalling the brief moment of patriotic unity that brought us together as one nation, indivisible.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina:

While many of their Democratic counterparts were attending a 9/11 memorial event, Republicans in the North Carolina House of Representatives took the opportunity Wednesday to override the governor’s veto of the state budget. Rep. Jason Saine (R) made the motion to reconsider the controversial budget, prompting chaos to ensue in the nearly half-empty chamber. House Democratic leader Darren Jackson said he was told by Republicans there would be no recorded votes that morning, leading him to tell his caucus that they did not need to be at the session. Speaker Tim Moore (R) ignored objections from the 12 Democrats—of 55 total—present, and allowed the vote to proceed.

The Democrats in attendance told reporters they did not all have a chance to vote. According to Jackson, their microphones were cut off.

It's no accident that North Carolina was the state where a GOP candidate was literally caught ballot tampering to try and steal a federal election. There probably isn't a state in the union where the Republican Party has grown more openly contemptuous of the democratic process than the Tarheel State (yes, I'd say they even beat Wisconsin).

Five Lessons Progressives Can Learn from the Brooklyn Commons Debacle

Today, the Brooklyn Commons -- a progressive meeting and working space in New York City -- is hosting an avowed anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist on the subject of 9/11 as an inside job by the "Israeli/Zionist and Neo-Conservative cabal that controls our government and media." So that's lovely. The event has garnered widespread condemnation on the left, including by many of the Commons' resident organizations -- and that's a good thing. But there are lessons progressives can draw from it -- and I give five of them in an article published today in Tablet Magazine.

Refuse To Be Terrorized

It is the tenth anniversary of 9/11. There is a lot to reflect upon, most notably, the many thousands who lost their lives that day. It was a dark day for America, but also a day of courage, where brave men and women demonstrated that heroism and honor were well-represented amongst ordinary Americans who happened to be in New York, Washington, and onboard Flight 93.

How best to honor their memory? How best to defend against the scourge that killed them? Spencer Ackerman has it right: The best way to beat terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. To stand firm and resolute and insure that not a thread of our constitutional fabric, not an inch of our democratic tradition, not a morsel of our civic values, are sacrificed at the terrorist's altar. That's how we win, and they lose. And that's how you honor American courage.

Home of the Brave

Daniel Gordis has a rather repellent column up in the Jerusalem Post. It purports to be about the Park 51 community center, but it actually barely talks about it. Rather, its focus is on the need of Americans to know, with clarion certainty and no distractions, that we are in a potentially endless, apocalyptic war, with Muslims (yes, yes, not all Muslims are terrorists. But this observation, he writes, "only goes so far."). To the extent the Cordoba Initiative comes up, it seems to be that any indulgence to any Muslim, anywhere, risks distracting us from this steely steadfastness we'll need to pull through.

As Tim F. once noted, the possibility that Americans might forget that Muslim terrorists attacked us on 9/11 "seems vanishingly unlikely when at any given time a Republican is running for office somewhere." But more fundamentally, what this article is, more or less, is an unapologetic paean to pure fear. It says that America's noted "gentility" (which, I imagine, is like France's noted courtesy. I love America and lots of things about it, but "gentility" is hardly among our better-known qualities) will be the end of us. For all its macho rhetoric about how we need to be strong and unified, it is cowardly and weak. For all the talk about how the terrorists wish to destroy us and our liberties (and, no doubt, they do), it seeks to do much of their job for them, by turning our robust, vibrant, and free society into a paranoid fortress. I fly pretty often, and no, US air travel is not "abominably unpleasant". It isn't, it doesn't have to be, and really, if that's the best you got, your siege mentality needs work. We have stood resilient for years against this threat, precisely by not making our state a ghastly imitator of bigoted, oppressive regimes worldwide; precisely by not deciding that their discriminatory hatred is not a sin to fight, but a model to emulate.

We do need to be both the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". But Daniel Gordis is not brave. He is weak. He is cowardly. He would have America panic and treat the Muslim community writ large as presumptive enemies, when what distinguishes America from so many countries around the world right now is the relative lack of homegrown Muslim radicalism. We've preserved that lofty status because we have no yet wavered from our belief that America is for all Americans -- that we are all equals here. Now, some folks, like Mr. Gordis, seek to cut and run from our constitutional commitments. There is no bravery in that.

Proof This Roundup

To quote my friend Marlena: "Let's kill 'em!"

* * *

Venezuelan Jews appeal to Hugo Chavez to stem the tide of anti-Semitic incitement pouring from the state's media.

9/11 families appeal to Pam Geller not to hold an anti-Muslim rally on the day of 9/11. Geller tells the families to get lost -- a bit weird, given that she claims to be speaking on their behalf.

Speaking of 9/11, American Muslims may have to curtail their end of Ramadan celebrations because the timing overlaps with 9/11. I smell another round of "out respect for the feelings of real Americans (and certainly not any prejudice!), Muslims should spend most of their waking hours in caves in service of interfaith dialogue" concern trolling.

UC-Irvine has upheld, though slightly reduced, its suspension of the campus' Muslim Student Union after it was found to have engaged in coordinated disruption of a speaking appearance by the Israeli ambassador. There was, I think, a good discussion of the original decision in the comments here.

The history of America indicates that nothing is better than effectively preventing minority groups from integrating into society.

A history of union violence against poor, defenseless corporations.

Every Inch of America is Consecrated Ground

The New York Times has an excellent report on nationwide protests against mosque construction, in such hallowed American locations like Sheboygon, Wisconsin (hi, Joe!) and Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Of course, the opposition to the New York City mosque that has breached the Muslim-site-exclusion-zone-of-indeterminate-radius could not possibly stem from similar motivations. It is a principled defense of the legitimate pain of 9/11 victims.

(Same ban rules apply to NF, CC, and Joe. Oh, and we'll say Superdestroyer too -- I've been meaning to do that for awhile anyway. I'll decide when -- and if -- I feel like lifting those.).

Zakaria Returns His Check

When the ADL first decided to come out in opposition to the proposed mosque/community center being built near the WTC site, Jon Chait declared that it was "such a fundamental violation of the ADL's principles that the group is no longer supportable."

This weekend, Fareed Zakaria became one of the highest profile figures to turn those words into action, electing to return an award and honorarium received from the ADL in 2005. He said that he can no longer in conscience accept either given the dramatic breach the ADL has just initiated with its own founding motives.

And you know what? He's right.

Abe Foxman responds here, and it remains clear that he doesn't get it. As I noted the other day, Foxman continues to believe he is the real victim here -- that he was just misunderstood, that folks today can't grasp "nuance". What I see is that Mr. Foxman believes that Muslims have an obligation to not have a community within some indeterminate radius in southern Manhattan, because other Muslims committing a terrorist atrocity nearby. They have an obligation to restrict their own rights, to limit their freedom of worship, because of the "feelings" of others. Even though we feel sympathy for the victims, insofar as their feelings manifest in the form of blind, unguided anger towards Muslims qua Muslims, they do not deserve the backing of a organization that putatively defends religious liberty.

So, good for Zakaria. And while I highly doubt that the ADL will be admitting their mistake any time soon, here is to hoping. They were wrong on this -- wrong on the deepest, most fundamental level -- and I believe it is a mortal wound to their credibility.

Oh, Joe and N. Friedman are both banned from commenting on this thread. I will delete comments from you sight unseen. Any other commenters are welcome.

Openhearted

The Forward has a solid piece up about the proposed new Mosque that will be built several blocks from Ground Zero in NYC. Unfortunately, while the local Jewish community seems to be primarily supportive, there was this rather misguided quote by a local rabbinical leader:

“The families of the victims of 9/11 don’t have to make distinctions about who in the Muslim community they’re dealing with,” said Rabbi Michael Paley, scholar-in-residence at UJA-Federation of New York. “And so I’m openhearted.

Um, actually, yes, they do. It is important to respect the victims of terrible tragedies, such as 9/11. But I'm not sure why victim status gives license to not "make distinctions" amongst members of the social group which perpetrated the harm. If I'm attacked by a group of Latinos, even a "Latino group" like the Latin Kings, that doesn't mean I get to make stereotypes of all Latinos. And if I do, even if you feel sympathy for me, it's not the sort of judgment that should get any sort of legal imprimatur.

The Rabbi does go on to say that the leaders of this new Mosque have been important players in interfaith dialogue and partners for building community understanding. That's great news -- and all the more reason why we need to reject folks who groundlessly group them in with radical Muslim extremists.

Feeling It

In the comments to this Southern Appeal post, we had yet another discussion about the meaning of Jeremiah Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" sermon, and whether it was morally condemnable. I argued that Wright was making a positive, not normative, claim: We supported terrorism in, among other places, Latin America; now we're experiencing it here at home. And it turns out, being victimized by terrorism really sucks. There is no explicit normative component to this argument, which makes it difficult to condemn. Had Wright taken the normative step of saying: "because we engaged in terrorism abroad, we deserved to experience it here at home", that would be unjust. But he didn't say that. Indeed, I argued, if anything the implied normative dimension of his statement was that -- having experienced terrorism for ourselves -- hopefully it would expand our empathy so that we do not ever again support such terrorist atrocities enacted upon other human beings.

Today, The Washington Post reports on a study that demonstrates that people become desensitized to injustices perpetuated by their group upon others when they are reminded of injustices they themselves experienced. Americans, for example, are far less concerned about innocent Iraqi suffering brought on by the Iraq war when primed by 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, than we are if primed by the Nazis invading Poland. Jews are less likely to express sympathy for Palestinian suffering when primed by the Holocaust than when primed by the Cambodian genocide.

The study's authors concluded that people who experience injustice and victimization are prone to "lash out" in an effort to make sure they do not experience it again. But this tendency does not necessarily restrict itself at the actual perpetrators of the crime -- creating new classes of victims and new circles of pain and retribution.

In this light, the role of ministers, rabbis, pastors, imams, and other spiritual leaders, in the role as moral guides, have a particular obligation to counter this instinct. The authors also say that the instinct for revenge can be, with effort, turned -- from "never let this happen to me again" to "never let me be the type person who causes this to happen again". That is the message that mass atrocity should create in is. The easiest thing to do, when one is victimized, is to promote more pain. The hard thing, but the right thing, is to try and build a world where that pain no longer is created.

My Fellow Students of Higher Learning

All things considered, I've decided I'm opposed to graduation. I rather like it at Carleton. I know the people there, the community is nice, my stuff is there, I have good roommates....there is a lot going for it. College life appeals to me.

On the other hand, remaining in college means that I'm a compatriot of these people. So it's a wash, really.

Gunfight

The Ames Iowa Straw Poll is today--a big event for the Republican Presidential field. Mitt Romney is the only top-tier candidate participating, which means two things: 1) He needs to win big unless he wants some serious questions to be asked about his campaign, and 2) the real excitement is on who places second and thus immediately moves into discussion about whether he should become part of the top-tier conversation.

Ron Paul, surprisingly enough, is one of the people who may very well make a splash at Ames. According to The Fix, he's got a fanatical base of supporters at the poll, and his speech apparently was very well-received. Here was my favorite part:

Paul urged that Roe v. Wade be overturned, proposed the elimination of the departments of Energy and Education and argued that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment."

Reduced gun control could have stopped 9/11? Really? Is Ron Paul really fantasizing about a shootout on Flight 93? Because I can't think of another way that statement even makes a remote amount of sense. I do recall a Washington Post after the attacks examining how easy it would be for terrorists bearing certain types of arms (specifically, shoulder mounted surface-to-air missiles) to stake out terrain outside of an airport and shoot down an incoming or departing flight. But I don't think that's what Paul had in mind.