The Holy War mentality and the US electorate

[BasketCase]

The instinct to exact revenge on somebody who wrongs you is not unique to the U.S.; that's a universal human constant. The fact that we didn't attack Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any of a number of other Muslim nations suggests to me that Americans on the whole did NOT generalize to hating "all" Muslims. A few did: those are the people who went and vandalized mosques or went around harassing Muslims shortly after 9/11, but these incidents were very few.

Based on the results of the last two Presidential elections--one before 9/11 and one after--I would say that 9/11 had almost no effect on the most recent elections at all. Both elections were pretty close; humans tend to pick an opinion and cling to it for dear life, and the small changes in voting patterns seen from 2000 to 2004 could be due to something as mundane as changing demographics.

Random comment:

In short, the republicans used fear of muslims to convince people that muslims needed to be changed through the spread of democracy.

Fear doesn't enter into my personal equation: Muslims DO need to be changed through the spread of Democracy--but then, I think everybody else should be changed through spread of Democracy as well. The right to voice your opinion about your govenrment and have a hand in its makeup is something everybody should have. No exceptions. Additionally, this does make America safer, because radical nutcases don't grow very well in democratic nations.

 

[carlosMM]

The methods used by the Republican propaganda arm are quite the same that have ever worked: play on the fears and on the intra-group bonding!

This is true in presidentail election as it is in forming the opinion of the masses.

Religion (purpose, hope, justification, racial/group hate) and fear have proven throughout history to be an excellent tool for controlling and projecting power.

This applies 100% to the US elections (and others, too!). if the Republicans hadn't played this card but tried staying with the facts they'd not even have gotten 30%.

my honest opinion.



an example sufficiently removed but parallel enough:
the Clinton Health Care Plan.

Certain groups spread FEAR ('it will be illegal to have private health care under the plan' - a blantant lie) and claimed social (religious) values would be hurt by the plan.
RESULT:
When being presented the plan without a name, 80% of Americans favored it, when givent he name 80% rejected it.


The content is new, the method the same.......

 

[Drewcifer]

Actually I am of the opinion that the Republican victory in the last election had little to do with terrorism and adventurism abroad. US elections are determined by local and domestic issues. I think the Democrats lost on the "cultural sneer" issue: i.e. the Democrats are perceived as a self appointed cognative and costally based elite that is condescending to the people and culture of "flyover country". Think about all the jokes that are told in universities and bourgoise costal America about trailer parks, rednecks and country music, etc.. Nobody will vote for a clique that they think condescends to them even if they are on the fence and agree with them on some issues. This was less of an issue for Clinton. I think the 2004 election had little to do with issue politics, Kerry was defeated by the perception of how the Democrat elite sees their cultural position within the US. The current Republican leadership opens themselves up to the same issues with the arrogance with which they are now using their power, though in a different way, the true belivers on their side may become to be seen as the more odious threat, especially with the power they now have, nobody in the US wants national politicians to really do much.

 

[Beam]

What comes to mind is that the Bush campaign did a very good in job in mobilizing Christian fundamentalists again to whom a Holy war is the most appealing I guess. Also did a very good job on covering up their weak spots (WMD issue, huge deficit, prisoner abuse etc.). Meantime they attacked the Kerry campaign on their weak spots and presented an image of an elitarian group who can't make up their mind (what's wrong with evaluating, reevaluating one's PoV?), who can't defend the country (here is the fear and safety issue) and blow up some things to gigantic proportions.

In short: the Republicain campaign team did a much better job than the Democrats imo.

 

[Jack the Ripper]

Many people claim this is a war against muslims. It is actually a war against fascism. The only difference between an al-Qaeda member and a nazi is that the terrorist hides behind a religion. You can punch both but punching the terrorist would be like punching a girl.

If a white supremacist group in america bombed something, christians would be quick to bring them to justice. Muslims need to do the same to the terrorists that hide behind islam.

The reason democracy is such a shock in the middle east is that the middle east didn't have a religious reformation that christianity and jeudism went through after the middle ages. A stong bond between church and state remains (which originates from old monarchys that used to be in place, which is not the fault of the muslim). This is why when we point a finger to a corrupt government, it can be wrongly be assumed we're attacking their religion. We dont assume the hindus in are blaming christians when India blames the US for something, church and state are seperated.

To conclude i would like to point back to the first paragraph. All 'muslim' terrorists are Nazis hiding behind a religion. They are only muslims by heredity. A fascist is a fascist, no matter what religious cloak they hide behind. If freedom is ever attacked, we will throw off that cloak and destroy the nazi that had soiled it.

 

[Ohwell]

Many people claim this is a war against muslims. It is actually a war against fascism. The only difference between an al-Qaeda member and a nazi is that the terrorist hides behind a religion. You can punch both but punching the terrorist would be like punching a girl.

If a white supremacist group in america bombed something, christians would be quick to bring them to justice. Muslims need to do the same to the terrorists that hide behind islam.

The reason democracy is such a shock in the middle east is that the middle east didn't have a religious reformation that christianity and jeudism went through after the middle ages. A stong bond between church and state remains (which originates from old monarchys that used to be in place, which is not the fault of the muslim). This is why when we point a finger to a corrupt government, it can be wrongly be assumed we're attacking their religion. We dont assume the hindus in are blaming christians when India blames the US for something, church and state are seperated.

To conclude i would like to point back to the first paragraph. All 'muslim' terrorists are Nazis hiding behind a religion. They are only muslims by heredity. A fascist is a fascist, no matter what religious cloak they hide behind. If freedom is ever attacked, we will throw off that cloak and destroy the nazi that had soiled it.

Do you even know what fascism is?

 

[amadeus]

1. Muslims attacked the World Trade Center. Not an extremist group, but muslims. Most Americans have very limited experience with Muslims, and so generalization supercedes differentiation because there is no knowledge to differentiate with. This is not to say that most Americans hate muslims, at least not overtly. However, with lack of understanding comes fear, and the lack of understanding is certainly there.

Are Americans really at blame here? I certainly don't think so. Look at a majority of the world's predominantly Moslem/Arab countries. I'm going to use the term interchangeably as all of the hijackers were from Arab countries.

* There was not one functioning democracy, but a series of dictators, some called themselves President or Prime Minister, others called themselves King or Sultan. Americans for the most part, probably rightfully so, don't trust countries like that.

* When all of the video coverage came in from the Middle East, most of it was generally supportive of the attackers and not the United States. If it was nationals of Italy, Argentina, or the Phillipines, it is very unlikely that we would have seen these kinds of films roll in. Some of the countries in question here did a better job of suppressing the celebrations, but there was still a significant amount of jubilation that would bring our attention.

* The idea of all people being "equally dangerous" is also false. You can say there are Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Shinto, or atheist extremists, but there's no actions to back up the accusations. So some bombs were sent to Planned Parenthood or the home of a Jewish congressman. That's hardly anything like what we saw on September 11th.

* Forty years of skyjackings and terrorism committed against the United States has mostly been by Arabs/Moslems. You can sprinkle in a few Puerto Ricans and communist revolutionaries, but even they couldn't hold a candle to the PLO.

2. The US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq to insure that this does not happen again. Both wars are lumped into the same category, but the casus belli for each was, in reality, quite different.

One would arguably say the same for World War II, when we fought Japan and Germany for alternate reasons.

History will record the invasion of Afghanistan as a direct result of 9-11, as the government refused to give up those the US saw as responsible for the attacks.

I object to the word "saw." Hasn't it yet been proven that Afghanistan-based al Qaeda members were responsible for the attack? I don't see how any logically-minded person could conclude that Afghanistan was somehow a scapegoat for al Qaeda's actions.

The invasion of Iraq occurred for a multitude of reasons including oil, Saddam's anti-US rhetoric, the spread of democracy, the need to finish a job, and fears of WMD. The generalization here is that the two wars are directly linked, and that Iraq was a logical follow-up to Afghanistan.

I very much object to the idea that Iraq was attacked for their oil reserves. The idea that Iraq has oil, we use oil, so it must be about oil is absurd when you consider that the highest official in the United States, the President, was able to convince a majority of both houses of Congress, the Department of Defense, and a majority of the American people into believing what you imply is a lie. Even a master propagandist would be hard pressed to do any one of those things above.

In short, the republicans used fear of muslims to convince people that muslims needed to be changed through the spread of democracy.

I'm going to skip right to here, because I believe that you would hold this belief regardless of what the Republicans say or do.

You've basically assumed that because we have won the election, we've used some kind of dubious tactic to consolidate and reinforce our power in Washington. My best advice, sincerly, would be to examine your candidates and your positions to see if it's not the Republicans who are at fault for Democrats losing the elections, but Democrats losing the elections themselves.

I'll tell you this much: we learned it from Dole in 1996 - just hating the other guy doesn't win you elections and it never will.

 

[Verbose]

The reason democracy is such a shock in the middle east is that the middle east didn't have a religious reformation that christianity and jeudism went through after the middle ages. A stong bond between church and state remains (which originates from old monarchys that used to be in place, which is not the fault of the muslim). This is why when we point a finger to a corrupt government, it can be wrongly be assumed we're attacking their religion. We dont assume the hindus in are blaming christians when India blames the US for something, church and state are seperated.

You're right about the ME loosing out on the last 500 years of development in the west. They were poised to take the plunge in the 13th c. Unfortunately the fundies won and the ME is still paying for that.

But how do you figure the bond between church and state?:confusion:

It looks suspisciously like you're just extrapolating European history onto the ME. In actual fact religion has historically been very insignificant in shaping ME politics. This was the place where you really got naked power and despotism. The ruler's position was based on his ability to kill you, not any religious position. That is to say, this was the situatoion after the first 300 years when the caliphate was working.

After that most ruler were foreign invaders (Turks often), or adhered to a different sect (or religion, lots of christians around) than the people they ruled (shiite Fatimids ruling sunni/christian Egypt etc.)
Compared to Europe religion played only a small role. In Europe you got feudalism and royal absolutism by the grace of god, both of which underpinned by religion. Not so in the ME.

That's also the reason you get an islamist revolution like the Iranian. It's nothing traditional about it at all. It's a very new and modern concept. Fact is, in muslim countries the potential for some form of democratic rule has traditionally always been tied to the Ummah, the 'congregation of the faithful'. Within this group there are no real distinctions of class or social standing as all are technically equal in the face of god. The caliph happens to be the guy who leads them in prayer, that's all. So, if people are going to go democratic, religion is an obvious route. They just won't necessarily want to become 'modern' or 'western'.

The only rulers to day I can think of with anything like a traditional religious connection is the Hashemite dynasty ruling Jordan (descendants of the prophet, somehow), but their country was created by Britain who put them on its throne. They used to rule the Hejaz (Arabian coast of the Red Sea), until the Saudis kicked them out in the 1920's.

 

[carlosMM]

One would arguably say the same for World War II, when we fought Japan and Germany for alternate reasons.

But this was not portrayed and eprceived that way: Japan attacked the US and Germany was a threat to Allies - this distinction is well alive in all I have ever read from that period. They were lumped because they were allies, no more.

Please bring proof Iraq was allied with the Taliban.

I object to the word "saw." Hasn't it yet been proven that Afghanistan-based al Qaeda members were responsible for the attack? I don't see how any logically-minded person could conclude that Afghanistan was somehow a scapegoat for al Qaeda's actions.

I think you miss the point here - whatever *was* is not what decides an election, but rather how that what *was* is *seen* be the eletorate. And THAT is what we are discussing.

I very much object to the idea that Iraq was attacked for their oil reserves. The idea that Iraq has oil, we use oil, so it must be about oil is absurd when you consider that the highest official in the United States, the President, was able to convince a majority of both houses of Congress, the Department of Defense, and a majority of the American people into believing what you imply is a lie. Even a master propagandist would be hard pressed to do any one of those things above.

But the business opportunities were mentioned explicitly in that Rep. think tank paper from.... 95??? that recommended Iraq as a nation to invade And you can't deny that the US industries got the lions share of the profits - quite obviously, again, what was importeant was the perception, and the perception was at least partly 'we attacked because of the oil'. Especially as the need to help Kuweit because of the fear that iraq would otherwise control too much oil was often named as a reason for the 90-91 intervention and war even by government.

 

[eyrei]

Are Americans really at blame here? I certainly don't think so. Look at a majority of the world's predominantly Moslem/Arab countries. I'm going to use the term interchangeably as all of the hijackers were from Arab countries.

I don't blame Americans. I blame certain people who hold power and manipulate the masses in the style of the middle-ages. Many countries in the world are moving forward socially and politically. Those in power in the US (including many Democrats) seem to want to drag us backwards.

I object to the word "saw." Hasn't it yet been proven that Afghanistan-based al Qaeda members were responsible for the attack? I don't see how any logically-minded person could conclude that Afghanistan was somehow a scapegoat for al Qaeda's actions.

Fine. Change it to 'proved'. It doesn't make a difference, and I agree we actually had a very good reason to attack the Taliban.

I very much object to the idea that Iraq was attacked for their oil reserves. The idea that Iraq has oil, we use oil, so it must be about oil is absurd when you consider that the highest official in the United States, the President, was able to convince a majority of both houses of Congress, the Department of Defense, and a majority of the American people into believing what you imply is a lie. Even a master propagandist would be hard pressed to do any one of those things above.

Every one of these people in the upper levels of our government understands the importance of oil to our economy. It is a resource that is beginning to be in short supply. And he didn't convince anyone that wasn't already convinced, by the way. Many people just don't care that oil was a major motivation for the attack, as they see it as sufficient justification. Ask any Democratic Senator though (off the record) and they will certainly admit that they have their suspicions about oil being a primary reason for the invasion of Iraq.

I'm going to skip right to here, because I believe that you would hold this belief regardless of what the Republicans say or do.

You've basically assumed that because we have won the election, we've used some kind of dubious tactic to consolidate and reinforce our power in Washington. My best advice, sincerly, would be to examine your candidates and your positions to see if it's not the Republicans who are at fault for Democrats losing the elections, but Democrats losing the elections themselves.

I'll tell you this much: we learned it from Dole in 1996 - just hating the other guy doesn't win you elections and it never will.

First off...I'm not a Democrat. I feel a little more akin to that party than to the republican party, but I distrust and to some extent disdain them just the same. And to some extent I agree the Democrats did a poor job in that campaign, but their mistake was their estimation of the American public. They forgot the psychological premise that people feel somewhat responsible for the actions of their nation, whether those be good or bad. And convincing them that their nation did something bad is much harder than it is to convince them it was the right thing to do. The democrats assumed people would be swayed by a few simple arguments, when, in fact, they needed to do much more. They were far too nice for their own political reasons...namely that most of them voted to authorize military force. Bush should have been crucified repeatedly on television, radio and billboard for being a self-serving, oil hording hypocrit. But the Democrats had records nearly as bad. Without admitting their own error and shallowness they had no chance. If you want to show someone is 'evil', you have to make sure you don't appear to be hiding anything.