A (hopefully irrelevant) post on why Muslims mostly dislike Hillary
It's Super Tuesday, so I figured I'd pepper my general shari'a posts with the American Muslim perspective of Hillary Clinton, and why she tends to be disliked in the Muslim community as intensely as she is, even though on most issues of importance to American Muslims, her husband was not, compared to the current president, all that bad. (As an Iraqi Shi'a Muslim, I have a more nuanced view of Bush, he did get rid of Saddam, who killed many members of my own family, but for your average American Muslim, few people are worse than George W. Bush)
Hillary, as her husband before her (and as Romney across from her), is a panderer. And so if you're in the Middle East, and you see a president seeking to pander to Islamists, you know what he's going to do--usually, especially if he's Egyptian, he's going after a gay bar. Find the marginalized, the despised, the source of contempt, the discrete and insular minority, and beat up on them a little bit. You can then show everyone how much of a good Muslim you are, and you don't really have to solve any problems in the world that actually matter to people. And yes I think it does damage to the shari'a to ignore real problems and focus on illusory ones and hurt people in the process, but that's what panderers do.
So who are the marginalized, the despised, the source of contempt, the discrete and insular minority in post 9/11 America? Us! Add to this that the panderer feels that as a woman she has to appear strong on national security (we're also a national security threat, I understand) and as a New York senator has to appear sympathetic to Jewish causes (which I don't think means anything, but apparently in the reductive world of Hillary Clinton it means being anti-Muslim), and you have the perfect storm.
And so we see her pandering in the worst possible way over the Dubai ports deal. Only someone completely unaware of the realities of modern commerce could possibly think that the Emirati government was buying US ports to bomb them, hell the Dubaians don't actually run their own companies, they hire international experience for that. And the customs service is in charge of protection. This was ugly, pure, unadulterated xenophobia, and Hillary led the charge, making it sound like you're Arab and you're terrorist, saving the country, the national security heroine running to the rescue against the camel riding towelheads who had spent billions to blow up a port they neither run nor handle security for.
But as ugly as that was (silly is what most of my colleagues call it on either side of the aisle--no, it wasn't silly, it was bigoted, changing French fries to freedom fries is silly, associating legitimate Arab businessmen with terrorism is much, much worse) perhaps the apotheosis would be the slandering of Obama. Repeated slurs, suggestions he is some sort of radical because he is Muslim, sending Bob Kerrey out to emphasize Islamicity and suggesting it as a liability. Campaign volunteers in on the act, forwarding emails of the ugliest sort, intending to smear Obama, and smear every single one of us Muslims as well. And yes, that does lasting damage to us, and to America's image in the world, but as with Middle Eastern presidents, it's what panderers do.
So what happens if she wins? Possibly nothing. There's no reason to jeopardize liberal support by making overtly bigoted comments, she'd never do that. But if there is an attack, or something? It's pretty obvious from the record, she'd double Guantanamo, triple the number of detainees being tortured, do whatever it took to be on the tough side of national security to ensure re-election. It's not going to satisfy us that she's currently against torture, it's not a courageous position in a Democratic primary, and she's tossed us over a few times already. And while I suppose we're not the only group that can be concerned about Hillary for this reason, I maintain our low numbers and despised status make us the most vulnerable. And yes all politicians pander, but some more than others. McCain's position against Gitmo and torture has been both courageous and principled. He's much less likely to back out on it than she is, that much seems amply clear.
So I think as I informally survey the Muslim community, and as I see key Muslim endorsements, it doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary is the bete noir of the community. I've become convinced in conversations with the community--I can't vote for her. Obama is my man. Even McCain, if I have to, I can deal with, but Hillary, never. McCain may not share very many policy positions with me, really hardly any, but to paraphrase Muhammad Ali, I've got less beef with John McCain, he never called me a raghead.
HAH
Hillary, as her husband before her (and as Romney across from her), is a panderer. And so if you're in the Middle East, and you see a president seeking to pander to Islamists, you know what he's going to do--usually, especially if he's Egyptian, he's going after a gay bar. Find the marginalized, the despised, the source of contempt, the discrete and insular minority, and beat up on them a little bit. You can then show everyone how much of a good Muslim you are, and you don't really have to solve any problems in the world that actually matter to people. And yes I think it does damage to the shari'a to ignore real problems and focus on illusory ones and hurt people in the process, but that's what panderers do.
So who are the marginalized, the despised, the source of contempt, the discrete and insular minority in post 9/11 America? Us! Add to this that the panderer feels that as a woman she has to appear strong on national security (we're also a national security threat, I understand) and as a New York senator has to appear sympathetic to Jewish causes (which I don't think means anything, but apparently in the reductive world of Hillary Clinton it means being anti-Muslim), and you have the perfect storm.
And so we see her pandering in the worst possible way over the Dubai ports deal. Only someone completely unaware of the realities of modern commerce could possibly think that the Emirati government was buying US ports to bomb them, hell the Dubaians don't actually run their own companies, they hire international experience for that. And the customs service is in charge of protection. This was ugly, pure, unadulterated xenophobia, and Hillary led the charge, making it sound like you're Arab and you're terrorist, saving the country, the national security heroine running to the rescue against the camel riding towelheads who had spent billions to blow up a port they neither run nor handle security for.
But as ugly as that was (silly is what most of my colleagues call it on either side of the aisle--no, it wasn't silly, it was bigoted, changing French fries to freedom fries is silly, associating legitimate Arab businessmen with terrorism is much, much worse) perhaps the apotheosis would be the slandering of Obama. Repeated slurs, suggestions he is some sort of radical because he is Muslim, sending Bob Kerrey out to emphasize Islamicity and suggesting it as a liability. Campaign volunteers in on the act, forwarding emails of the ugliest sort, intending to smear Obama, and smear every single one of us Muslims as well. And yes, that does lasting damage to us, and to America's image in the world, but as with Middle Eastern presidents, it's what panderers do.
So what happens if she wins? Possibly nothing. There's no reason to jeopardize liberal support by making overtly bigoted comments, she'd never do that. But if there is an attack, or something? It's pretty obvious from the record, she'd double Guantanamo, triple the number of detainees being tortured, do whatever it took to be on the tough side of national security to ensure re-election. It's not going to satisfy us that she's currently against torture, it's not a courageous position in a Democratic primary, and she's tossed us over a few times already. And while I suppose we're not the only group that can be concerned about Hillary for this reason, I maintain our low numbers and despised status make us the most vulnerable. And yes all politicians pander, but some more than others. McCain's position against Gitmo and torture has been both courageous and principled. He's much less likely to back out on it than she is, that much seems amply clear.
So I think as I informally survey the Muslim community, and as I see key Muslim endorsements, it doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary is the bete noir of the community. I've become convinced in conversations with the community--I can't vote for her. Obama is my man. Even McCain, if I have to, I can deal with, but Hillary, never. McCain may not share very many policy positions with me, really hardly any, but to paraphrase Muhammad Ali, I've got less beef with John McCain, he never called me a raghead.
HAH
The broader problem here might be Hillary's negatives. She has so many of them that she has to just go that much further to the right to have any breathing room. And of course the result is not much breathing room at all. She (unfairly) has so much to apologize for, so many set judgments to counter, that every policy battle could involve starting 15 paces behind the line. Who is going to be able to sell health care to Americans - Hillary or Obama? Tough carbon or energy policies?
But are you concerned that Obama (with that middle name!) might not have the same reassurance to perform on Middle Eastern or Islamic issues?
Reply to this
It is possible that Obama will have the same problem, certainly it's never reassuring to me that he refers to being called a Muslim as a "slander" without any qualification (i.e.,' it's not my religion and if it was, it's none of your business' and the mere fact that this is politically dangerous should make one question the commitment of large portions of our electorate to liberalism).
But the fact is that Clinton has a track record of pandering to anti-Muslim causes that smack of bigotry (Dubai ports, Obama) and Obama does not. He might want to be tougher in certain foreign policy actions to protect his flank (I don't mind his promise to bomb Al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan without Musharraf's support), but I would hope he wouldn't be involved in smear operations or engaging in truly offensive positions concerning fundamental principles upon which our nation is based (no torture, no indefinite detainment, no assigning political positions to people on the basis of religion). He certainly didn't seem concerned about looking too Muslim when the whole world, Hillary included, was gung ho on the Iraq thing. In any event, hope on this issue and so many others is possible with him, impossible with her.
HAH
Reply to this