Jim Geraghty’s phony “tipping point”

Jim Geraghty of National Review Online has a column in today’s New York Sun in which he says that the cartoon jihad has transformed Americans’ views of Islam. Americans, he writes, no longer see Muslims, as the did after 9/11, as nice people whose religion has been hijacked by extremists; they see Muslims themselves as extremists, as people who must be “contained” (has he been reading VFR?), and even “eliminated” (he’s definitely been reading Lucianne.com).

This is pretty strong stuff to be appearing in any mainstream media organ, let alone the New York Sun, and certainly represents an evolution in public opinion in a more realistic direction. But we should be beware of concluding that it represents an evolution in Geraghty’s thinking. Geraghty in this column is not expressing his own considered views of Islam, he is merely describing, in a non-judgmental manner, the views of others. Furthermore, as becomes clear from reading his blog at NRO, Geraghty disapproves of those views and considers them “Islamophobic.” I discovered this myself after a reader wrote to me the following on February 24:

You may or may not be aware that Jim Geraghty has been keeping track of what he calls “tipping point” statements; web loggers and others who in the wake of cartoon rage have been publicly reconsidering their opinion of the “religion of peace.” You should really go look at his part of the NR website, as it is very interesting to watch HIM shift positions over the cartoon rage as the events unfolded; he started off angry at the Danish paper and ended up uncomfortably concluding that the cartoon ragers want a unilateral veto over all Western media.

Intrigued, I went to read the Geraghty blog at NRO, and then wrote back to the correspondent:

Re Geraghty, I think you’ve been had. After all his tipping point business, he writes the below. Read the whole thing. He thinks there’s something objectionable about people saying that there’s something problematic about Islam itself. So what the heck does his tipping point tip into? The great realization that “radical Islam” is a problem?

Below is a long section from Geraghty’s blog that I sent to my correspondent:

IS THERE A RACIAL/RELIGIOUS COMPONENT OF THE PORT DEAL DEBATE? WELL, YEAH. [02/23 06:54 AM]

I understand the impulse of Mark Levin when he contends that some defenders of the deal are “dealing the race card” in an “appalling” manner. As I said in another venue (when I still thought this deal would put UAE in charge of security), “I don’t think opposing or raising questions about this deal is the mark of a ‘jingoistic paranoid.’”

But here’s a sample of reader mail telling me how wrong I am. See if you can detect a common thread running through them:

Jim Geraghty’s analysis is thoroughly unconvincing. First, the argument that Dubai is no different security-wise than any other nation is untenable. The 9/11 terrorists were Arab Muslims. The ideology they advocated and murdered for is a form of Muslim extremism. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that Dubai is a true anti-terrorist nation. Let’s ignore its recognition of the Taliban, the stonewalling on investigating al-Qaeda finances, its involvement with the Khan network, etc., and wipe the slate clean. Are you truly confident that terrorists are no more likely to get government support or assistance in Dubai than anywhere else? Pakistan is said to be an anti-terror ally, but even if true its intelligence services are clearly not very enthusiastic about this. Yemen is also such an ally, but the recent escape of al-Qaeda terrorists had all the markings of an inside job. What you just cannot bring yourself to admit is how entrenched radical Islam is in the Arab world. Can you really be certain that this deal would not increase the risk of terrorist infiltration?

You next say that the deal is mischaracterized, that the Coast Guard will remain in charge of security, and that this company will just operate the port facilities. Yet the security at these ports is already not water tight. Should we really want to gratuitously add an additional factor of risk? “Just” operating port facilities involves very real security concerns.

Ultimately your point is that the criticism has been overblown. While this may have some merit, accepting everything you say doesn’t make the criticism of this deal unsound.

First, again, let’s have this debate with precision. (On that note, Dubai is an emirate and a city, within the country of the United Arab Emirates. Dubai and UAE are not interchangeable terms.) I didn’t say that UAE is “no different” security-wise from any other nation; I pointed to comments by defense officials calling them a “very, very solid” ally in the war on terror. We can point to any one of these allies like Pakistan or Yemen in which parts of the government are not on our side. Is the solution to work with those governments carefully, or is it to break off ties with those governments?

By the way – is this port deal really “gratuitous”? Or is there some sort of benefit to U.S. national security interests that cannot be disclosed as part of the deal? Suppose, could part of this deal be the requirement that the U.S. and its allies will be able to inspect, observe, and survey Dubai Ports World operations around the world?

Anyway, more mail:

Sorry Jim, your arguments are not very persuasive, are logically weak and mostly based on misdirection and various straw man arguments. By your reasoning, we shouldn’t worry if Saudi Arabian companies gain control of our ports, either.

And if you believe *that*, please come right out and say it!

Actually, elsewhere I said Saudi Arabia is exactly the kind of country I would not permit to make a deal like this. I’d put Egypt in that category, too. More from the mailbag:

We don’t need the added risk and anxiety that having Muslim corporations involved in any operations crucial to our safety and economic well-being. It’s clear that far too many Muslims are chaffing to control the infidel West. Let’s not make it easy for them—please!

When they get their imams under control and their mobs also, maybe we can do business with these people, but until then, let’s worry less about their feelings and just protect our vital interests by having them American controlled.

(UPDATE: One more example from a TKS reader:

“The UAE port deal is wrong for one simple reason: it helps and serves to strengthen an Islamic government—and no free nation can ever consider an Islamic government an ally… The United States need not, and should not, obtain the cooperation of Islamic nations by granting them the status of “ally.” If we need the cooperation of nations like the UAE, we should obtain it by issuing an ultimatum: cooperate or be destroyed—and we should be fully prepared to carry out this threat. Islam is the enemy. Anything that helps it, hurts us. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can begin to win this war.”

Well, I guess we know where this gentleman stands.) [LA note: Yes, and WE know where Geraghty stands.]

Look, I know I’ve been beating the drum on a “tipping point” on Islam’s reputation lately; we’re seeing the fallout here. It’s perfectly legitimate to question or object to this deal because you have doubts about the UAE, or because you don’t like foreign management of U.S. ports, or because you don’t think the administration reviewed it properly. But I keep hearing, “I don’t want Muslims/Arabs running this.”

It’s a free country, and you’re free to come to that conclusion. But if your objection to Dubai Ports Authority is A) the religion of the owners or B) the ethnicity of the owners, you cannot and should not be shocked that even staunch conservatives are saying “Hey, this is Islamophobia or anti-Arab discrimination.”

After I sent him the above section from the Geraghty blog, the correspondent replied:

I’ll read it.

(pause)

Sigh. “Islamophobia,” eh? A phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone. It is not irrational to fear those that follow the dictates of Mohammed, as shown by the real story of his life (not the happy-noble version sold to ordinary Moslems). Well, Geraghty is in Turkey, of course, where low-alcohol beer is on tap and belly dancing is a cultural institution (that violates Koranic dictates on modesty, btw). He looks at his part of the elephant and decides things ain’t so bad, but in email with him it has become clear he does not know the history of the 1920’s; specifically, it seems he does not fully appreciate the radical steps Mustapha Kemal took to secularize Turkey to any degree at all.

Those of us that try to look at all of the elephant, from Mindanao to Bali to Aceh to Bangladesh to Kashmir to Qom to Basra to Mecca to Gaza to Cairo and onward…won’t see things as he does. Also, frankly, Geraghty is a young man with no children. His time horizon isn’t the same as mine, nor likely as yours; he isn’t familiary with history, and doesn’t take the long view naturally (few reporters do).

None of this excuses his flipflopping around, of course, I’m merely trying to understand/explain it.

> So what the heck does his tipping point tip into? The great realization that “radical Islam” is a problem?

Looks like it. Or that he’s afraid the ordinary Westerner is losing patience with Islam, perhaps, because o’ them “radicals” and frets about the impact on the ordinary, “hang it on the wall and go to mosque on Friday” Moslems. Unhappily, some of the latter got out in the streets recently to protest some cartoons, and others of the latter flocked to a remake of the “Protocols” done in Turkey starring Gary Busey. It’s gonna be a long war.

I wrote back to the correspondent:

Sorry for puncturing the balloon. :-) But such is the never-ending traditionalist task of seeing that things that present themselves as “conservative” are really still liberal. :-)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 03, 2006 02:26 PM | Send