Affirmative Action Baby
The Yggster finds Mitt Romney saying
…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.
So, the Mittster is saying that cabinet positions are diversity tokens a President hands out to ensure representation of important demographic groups. Republicans hate that kind of talk, don’t they? This is going to kill him with the anti-affirmative action GOP base and elite punditry. If there’s one thing Republicans hate, it’s treating the cabinet like an “ethnic spoils system.” Poor Mitt’s going to get clobbered by the right wing magazines and blogs all week for this.
Right?
Postscript: As it happens, I reject Mansour Ijaz, the column author’s, contention that America “needs” a Muslim cabinet member because it would be a big help in the legendary “War on Terror.” Tokenism really won’t make aggrieved foreign or domestic Muslim communities forget any beef they have with US policy.We’ll never, for instance, have as many Muslims in the American cabinet as Hamid Karzai does, for instance. On the other hand, I’m under no illusion that President’s fill cabinet positions based on an unalloyed concern with “merit.”
Comment by the old switcheroo —
November 27, 2007 @ 9:12 am
“…based on the numbers of American Mormons [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a presidential position would be justified.”
Comment by Nancy Lebovitz —
November 27, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Having a Muslim in the cabinet would make the US look somewhat less anti-Muslim, but the big advantage might be having someone plausible to say “That’ll piss Muslims off”.
Comment by bryan —
November 27, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Based on your merits as a number one suckass Colin, you can be my Secretary of Defense.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
This is an obvious result of a policy based one “Invade the world; invite the world.” The former compels you at some point to placate people you otherwise wouldn’t give two sh*ts for, and the latter compels you to divvy up government slots based on race or religion–even the party opposed to it in “principle” has to play the game.
Like it or not, we’re heading down the same path as Lebanon, India and Yugoslavia. Hopefully, the worst will be a mediocre Brazilian malaise.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Having a Muslim in the cabinet would make the US look somewhat less anti-Muslim, but the big advantage might be having someone plausible to say “That’ll piss Muslims offâ€.
Maybe a better use would be to list those things that don’t piss Muslims off. It would certainly be more time economical.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
November 27, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Maybe a better use would be to list those things that don’t piss
Muslimspeople off. It would certainly be more time economical.Comment by mds —
November 27, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
At this point, even a heavily adulterated concern with “merit” would be a substantial improvement.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Sure, Tom, since as we all know, people constantly throw riots over cartoons.
Comment by MMGood —
November 27, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Well, maybe not cartoons, but parades, man parades are a problem.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
November 27, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Sure, Tom, since as we all know, people constantly throw riots over cartoons.
Yeah, because it was nothing but Muslimness that lead to those riots – not a larger history of antagonism between an elite class of wealthy Christian Europeans and an underclass of poor Muslim immigrants, exacerbated by Western support for American military intervention in the Middle East. It was just those crazy wogs getting all upset over some pictures in the newspaper.
Comment by mds —
November 27, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Exactly, Iron Lungfish. What benighted savages, quick to take offense over the most trifling perceived slights to their religion. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to resume shrieking “War on Christmas!”
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Yeah, because it was nothing but Muslimness that lead to those riots…
Actually, from the non-Muslim side, what does it more than anything is this sort of excuse-making on the part of you and other handwringers.
I’m sure you even have an apology for the teddy bear riots in Khartoum all fired up and ready to go.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
“War on Christmas!â€
Yes, since as we all know, angry letters to the editor are essentially the same thing as burning embassies and attacking nuns.
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 27, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Funny, I’ve been reading the teddy-bear riot story this afternoon, and thought about blogging it later. The London Times article notes that the school is in the midst of a tax dispute with the government. And of course Sudan is one of the most despotic regimes on the planet. But it must be the ROP behind it all, I guess, not a cynical government siezing an opportunity and using its control of the media to whip up hysteria, I guess.
Comment by Eric Martin —
November 27, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Yes, since as we all know, angry letters to the editor are essentially the same thing as burning embassies and attacking nuns.
Or killing doctors with sniper rifles in their homes…oh wait. Scratch that last one.
But it’s nothing like condoning a culture of pedophilic abuse…oh wait, scratch that one too.
But at least Christians don’t persecute nuns that get pregnant/HIV after getting raped by priests…damnit, I know I’m going to get the hang of this sooner or later…
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
I think the fact that the government CAN use something as silly as a teddy bear to start an incident of this nature should be troubling enough.
And of course Sudan is one of the most despotic regimes on the planet.
And, like a majority of the despotic regimes on the planet, it’s a Muslim nation. Of course, we can pretend that those two trends are entirely coincidental, I suppose.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Eric,
Every counter-example you cite differs in this one important measure: They’re not only condemned by Christian society, but made illegal by it.
That is not the case on the other side. Very often the government, with the support of the populace, either encourages or even carries out the outrages I’m talking about.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 27, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
I think the fact that the government CAN use something as silly as a teddy bear to start an incident of this nature should be troubling enough.
I wonder what fraction of our population could be whipped up into a frenzy over a burning flag.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Well, there hasn’t been any lack of attempts, so you really have your answer. The most that happened was an abortive attempt at an amendment using legal means. And when that died, the issue did as well.
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 27, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
Death threats and banning against the Beatles for an interview comment; prosecution and semi-violent demonstrations over kicking a Mary statue in a Catholic country; but it’s true, we are a less religious, better organized for grievance-expression and more liberal society so we don’t get as violent over things like that. Like we used to (e.g. driving an entire population out (and they were white people too!) for polygamy (which face it, most guys think is kind of a cool option.)
It’s not a matter of excuses or apology but looking for looking for real common human motives (none of this paleo- we are all different breeds of dog stuff) and motivations (e.g. violent response to symbolic insult is universal), rather than running to the one factor that probably least influences or explains human social behavior — religious dogma.
Especially as we here are barely a few generations removed from similar behavior. Or worse — letting off murderers who kill a black kid for whistling at a white woman.
Comment by Jean —
November 27, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
A Christian society instituted the Spanish Inquisition.
One of the Doctors of the Western Church defended pogroms.
Let’s not get carried away.
Comment by Happy Jack —
November 27, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
I wonder what fraction of our population could be whipped up into a frenzy over a burning flag.
During the first Gulf War, I witnessed a mob of construction workers pummel a flag burner in Cleveland. They appeared to be self-starters, but if they would have had flash mobs back then, I’m quite sure others would have joined in on the fun.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
A Christian society instituted the Spanish Inquisition.
Gosh, really staying up to date, eh? You got something other than atrocities that happened hundreds of years ago, and which the Church itself has admitted were wrong?
It’s this kind of equivocating that makes serious reform in the Muslim World less likely.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 27, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
During the first Gulf War, I witnessed a mob of construction workers pummel a flag burner in Cleveland.
Let’s compare the case here. Flag-burner deliberately sets out to get a rise, and, lo and behold, he gets it.
Teacher lets students name teddy bear, and they settle on “Muhammad”, which is a common name in that area, and local mohammedans go batshit insane–with their government’s encouragement. Yeah, you’re right, these are exactly the same things. Why didn’t I see it before.
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 28, 2007 @ 12:38 am
Because no one wants to shut down schools here because of religiously offensive content.
And no one drew those Danish cartoons to get a rise.
Nor did anyone get upset over The Last Temptation of Christ to the point of making death threats, no, that doesn’t happen here, only over there among the Mohammedans. NOT!
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 28, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Better link on school – here.
Better link on Last Temptation death threats, here.
Comment by Happy Jack —
November 28, 2007 @ 1:22 am
Yeah, you’re right, these are exactly the same things.
Actually, my anecdote was directed at Thoreau’s comment, to point out government direction isn’t required to whip up a frenzy.
However, since we’re on the subject, I should direct you to the Nixon Tapes. You’ll notice government officials talking about using union members to beat up “hippies.” Although a link has never surfaced between this conversation and the Hard Hat Riots, the organizer, Peter Brennan, later became Nixon’s Labor Secretary.
Comment by ajay —
November 28, 2007 @ 6:31 am
And, like a majority of the despotic regimes on the planet, it’s a Muslim nation. Of course, we can pretend that those two trends are entirely coincidental, I suppose.
Thirty years ago, Muslim despotisms were outnumbered by Christian ones – what with the South American dictatorships, the Warsaw Pact and fascist Spain.
But that was pure coincidence, I suppose.
Comment by joe —
November 28, 2007 @ 10:16 am
And like virtually all of the states with the highest divorce rates, it’s an Evangelical Christian state, while all of the states with the lowest divorce rates are not. Of course, we can pretend that those trends are entirely coincidental, I suppose.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 28, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Derek-
In the not too distant past, most of the Catholic-majority countries on earth were despotic (either openly or in practice, via one party rule, e.g. PRI in Mexico). There were a variety of different reasons why so many Catholic countries were despotic, but the same outcome was observed in so many of them. Only very recently has this changed. It seems a bit premature to conclude that the situation in Muslim countries is a permanent phenomenon while what happened in Catholic countries was a passing fad.
Comment by Jean —
November 28, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Derek, the Church never did anything about the Inquisition. There is no such thing as “the Church”.
I suspect that you mean the Catholic Church, and I am going on that assumption.
Please be precise; when one discusses religion, one must keep at the forefront of one’s mind the non-monolithic nature of all modern faiths. (Excepting weird cults, and even they schism.)
The fact that those Christian atrocities happened a long time ago is immaterial. I am pointing out no one faith has a monopoly on evil, and, furthermore, looking at the historical evidence, I’d be very wary about making any generalisations about `Mulims’ or `Christians’ full stop..
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 29, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
And no one drew those Danish cartoons to get a rise.
But they didn’t go after the paper in question. They went after Denmark for having the temerity to not prosecute the paper.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 29, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Thirty years ago, Muslim despotisms were outnumbered by Christian ones – what with the South American dictatorships, the Warsaw Pact and fascist Spain.
But that was pure coincidence, I suppose.
In absolute terms, perhaps. Not in relative terms, which are more descriptive.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 29, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Thoreau,
The PRI is probably not so great an example, as it was deeply anti-Catholic. It even forbade clerics to wear their collars in public. Franco is a better example of what you mean.
The answer to that is Vatican II and the popes who followed who affirmed democratic priniciples. Until that time, a lot of the critique of Catholic culture was justified. The people most suspicious of Catholic immigration in the U.S., for example, were liberal abolitionists.
The problem is that this analogy really won’t hold up well with the Muslim world, which has no counterpart to the Papacy. The Sunni world is especially far more difficult to deal with. We’re talking a matter of a century or so, probably. I hope I’m wrong, but that’s the way it looks to me.
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 29, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Matthew in both cases you cited, there were two sides to the argument. That is not the case in the Muslim world. And in these cases, again, you had direct provocation. Yet no British embassy was burned because the Brits had the gall to not punish John Lennon.
The Emmet Till case is also inapt. You had private actors who were violating the law. Yes, they got away with it, but only because the system was corrupted. In the Muslim World, these things happen because the system is working as designed.
Comment by Gary Farber —
November 29, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
Derek:
The world is divided into two sides, Christian and Muslim?
Or were you speaking of Christianity and some other “side”?
“It’s this kind of equivocating that makes serious reform in the Muslim World less likely.”
Yes, without doubt, comments on a blog post at UO have a significant effect on the course of “the Muslim World.”
We must post more strongly in the cause of Christian freedom. I will work harder.
Comment by Jean —
November 29, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Oh, and Derek? Russell at the City College of New York. (And in fact, Russell’s entire career as a pacifist seems apposite here, as an example of how so-called `Christian’ societies have, very recently, treated dissenters.)
Comment by Thoreau —
November 30, 2007 @ 12:19 am
The PRI is probably not so great an example, as it was deeply anti-Catholic.
My point was that in the not too distant past much of the Catholic world was under some sort of oppressive regime. Now, you could say “Yes, but not all of those regimes were the same, some were anti-Catholic” and then I could observe that Saddam Hussein was very secular, as is Hosni Mubarak. And isn’t Muammar Kadafi also very left/secular? (And isn’t it a journalistic convention that Momar Qadaffi’s name must be spelled diffrently every time it’s printed?)
I was just trying to critique the Catholic world in the same manner that the Muslim world is frequently critiqued, in order to make a point.