The "Muhammad Riots" and Essential Values

from allvoices.com

Muslims across Northern Africa rioted last week because they saw an American-made video depicting Muhammad as a homosexual and an idiot. Coming as they do so closely on the heels of the Arab Spring and the recent elections in Egypt, the protests -- many of them violent -- raise serious questions about the clash of values between "Western" and "Islamic" societies.

I have never bought Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis, in which he argues that the future of diplomacy will be focus on conflict between essential cultural groups. My problem with his argument is that he provides no useful definition of "civilization," despite his efforts to do so, and therefore can offer no universal rubric as he claims.

But there is no question that the people rioting in Cairo last week do not share American priorities, and Americans do not understand what the protesters are saying as a result. David Kirkpatrick said it best in the Times:

When the protests against an American-made online video mocking the Prophet Muhammad exploded in about 20 countries, the source of the rage was more than just religious sensitivity, political demagogy or resentment of Washington, protesters and their sympathizers here said. It was also a demand that many of them described with the word “freedom,” although in a context very different from the term’s use in the individualistic West: the right of a community, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish, to be free from grave insult to its identity and values.

Many people, when interviewed, simply would not accept the claim that the US government does not ban Holocaust deniers. They assume that every community has the right -- even the obligation -- to ban expression that it finds offensive. The failure to impose such a ban suggests to these Muslims an implicit endorsement of the expression.

We can never resolve this "disconnect." Muslims will not change their views on freedom of expression, and I certainly hope Americans will not change theirs. Both sides have merit, but the American position is, frankly, better.

It is the job of leaders, however, no navigate these differences wisely. Some clashes must result in serious conflict, and some must not. Distinguishing between the two is the essence of statesmanship. So far, President Obama has done well by exerting pressure on Egyptian and other leaders to maintain control while not ratcheting up the rhetoric in a way that will only exacerbate the problem.

What We Ought to be Debating

This cartoon, published at The National Review On-line, represents the crux of our political dispute over the economy.

In the view of conservatives, including (maybe) Mitt Romney, the federal government slows economic growth by restricting the liberty of individuals to adapt and innovate. It also creates dis-incentives for profit, because the government taxes people when they acquire more wealth.

In the Democratic Party view, articulated by President Obama's "you didn't build that" line, government facilitates growth rather than inhibiting it. Building infrastructure, refereeing financial markets and priming the pump all must be done at the federal level, they say, because no other institution has the resources for such big jobs.

The problem is that we are not engaging in debate. Because Romney will provide us with no specific idea of how much government he would tolerate or even endorse, we can't test his assertion that Obama has strangled us.

One reason the Tea Party protester is confused about the government's "hands on Medicare" is because she has not heard any serious exchanges about what that phrase might possible mean. A "debate" in which one side refuses to engage is like the sound of one hand clapping.

Do They Even See the Irony?

Also, maybe a little more cash for schools?



Courtesy of "The Dave Factor" :  http://davefactor.blogspot.com/2011/08/signs-signs-everywhere-teabagger-sign.html

Jindal Makes the Case for Obama

Not long ago, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal was the darling of the Republican Party. Even more recently he won the favor of Tea Party types by refusing to participate in the new federal health care exchanges.  He likes to call himself a true conservative, the kind of guy who will keep the government off our collective back.

But when stuff hits the fan on the Gulf Coast, he's more than happy to take some help. In fact, he thinks we all should be backing him up down on the bayou. After Hurricane Isaac hit earlier this week, Jindal said “Protecting the Louisiana coast is good for Louisiana — it’s also good for this country .... It’s a good investment for the country to be making... It’s investing in the goose that’s laying the golden eggs.” 



That "investment" took the form of millions of dollars in infrastructure planned, built and paid for the Army Corps of Engineers, the ultimate in federal agencies. The result, Jinda argues, is the growth of important industries, like fishing, in that part of the world. In other words, shrimpers make the money, but they need federal government help to do so. In other words, the federal government has an important role to play in economic growth. Sort of like what President Obama said earlier this summer, when Romney and his ilk mocked the idea.

Guess rugged individual only applies to the other guy.