|
Giving McCain due credit for his (relative degree of) straight talk about Islam
I have always thought that Sen. McCain’s signature phrase, “radical Islamic extremism,” was silly for its superfluity and redundancy. To use both “radical” and “extreme” in the same phrase to describe our enemy is to imply absurdly that there is such a thing as moderate Islamic extremism, and moderate Islamic radicalism. In practical terms, the phrase “radical Islamic extremism” suggests that we cannot oppose mere radical Islam; it must be extreme radical Islam. It suggests that we cannot oppose mere Islamic extremism; it must be radical Islamic extremism. So I’ve regarded McCain’s usage as not only nonsensical but dangerous. In fact, as I now realize, I had not given McCain due credit for—under no matter how many qualifying terms—at least calling the enemy “Islamic.” This is something which I have called on politicians and opinion writers to do, but which very few do. Think of the legions of neocons who beat their chests and congratulate themselves for their own magnificent courage in saying “Islamic fascism,” an evasive euphemism referring to a non-existent entity. What has triggered these thoughts is the news, reported in the Washington Times, that McCain has come under criticism from the Islamic Society of North America for his use of “Islamic” to describe the enemy. McCain’s spokesman says he will continue using the phrase.
I repeat that for those who are not ready to call our age-old adversary by its proper name, Islam, an acceptable alternative is “Islamic fundamentalism,” as it suggests that devout adherence to the core doctrines of Islam is the problem, which in turn means (without putting it in so many words) that, uh, Islam is the problem. Email entry |