Archive for Friday, March 10, 2006

Stoking nativist fever harmful to U.S.

March 10, 2006


At the beginning of this year - or even a month ago - no one would have guessed that a routine business transaction between two foreign-based firms would prove to be the lever for breaking up the governing Republican coalition in Washington.

But that is exactly what happened in the eruption of political protest over the proposed takeover of cargo operations at six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World from the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Congressional Republicans, spurred by what members describe as a wave of grassroots protest, were poised to block the sale despite President Bush's insistence that it be allowed to go forward. On Thursday, the Dubai company said it would pull out of the American ports' deal.

Before that, the conflict brought to the surface deep-seated resentments from the Capitol end of Pennsylvania Avenue toward the people around the president - and, surprisingly, toward Bush himself. The harmony that prevailed during most of Bush's tenure - the deference that a Republican-controlled Congress has generally shown to his wishes - disappeared. Even the normal circumspection with which congressional Republicans treat the White House withered in the unexpected heat of this dispute.

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, a committee chairman, told The Washington Post, "This is probably the worst administration ever in getting Congress' opinion on anything."

The rebellion was fueled by talk-radio and cable-TV commentators stressing that the proposed new operators are based in the United Arab Emirates. Efforts by the White House to point out that the UAE has been an ally in the war on terrorism and has provided important logistical support to the Navy did not quiet the uproar, and an offer to begin an additional 45-day security review of the deal came too late to reverse the tide of public opinion.

Even before the ports deal broke into the news, congressional Republicans were beginning to signal their inclination to go their own way - regardless of White House wishes. Despite six months of salesmanship by the president in 2005, his proposal for introducing private accounts into Social Security never caught on with the public and, as a result, it never even came up for a vote in the House and Senate.

The Bush budget proposals struggled throughout the year and finally were approved only in an overtime session. But this ports issue was striking because it tested Bush's political credibility on what had been his strongest front - national security.

His reputation in that area has been damaged by the continuing strife in Iraq, a nation which - according to this week's Washington Post-ABC News Poll - 80 percent of Americans now believe is headed for civil war.

In a pointed comment on the proposed ports deal, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said, "We (in Congress) will continue to use our best judgment on how to protect the American people." He left the clear implication that Bush was not necessarily doing that.

Democrats were understandably gleeful at the spectacle of the Republicans fighting among themselves - especially over what purports to be a national security issue. Partisan Democrats such as Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the head of his party's Senate campaign committee, jumped on the ports issue quickly - hardly expecting that the Republicans would be grabbing for space aboard the bandwagon.

Now the Democrats are broadening the argument, claiming that the Dubai deal is another example of the White House being unaware of, or incapable of anticipating, serious problems - whether they involve the insurgency in Iraq or the levees in New Orleans.

But before the Democrats get too gleeful, they ought to ponder the nativist sentiment that also was fueling this populist rebellion. Some portion of the antagonism stemmed directly from the fact that this is an Arab-based company.

Another Post poll this week reported that more than two out of five of those surveyed said they had recently heard negative comments about Arabs. Attitudes toward Muslims, the survey said, are even more negative now than immediately after the 9-11 attacks.

The same nativist spirit poisons the current debate about immigration. Talking to public officials recently from states such as Minnesota and Illinois - far from the southern border - I heard blunt expressions of the negative public reaction to the changing demographics of rural and suburban communities that have received many new immigrants.

Liberals like Schumer ought to reflect that they are playing with fire when they help stoke this fever.

- David Broder is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.


j_d 11 years, 6 months ago

Wow. Things must be slow at the ol' KU humanities departments.

xenophonschild 11 years, 6 months ago

Welcome to the real world. Any poli-sci grad student at almost any university in the country - except in Texas - could have told you that Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were dead wrong when they recommended to their gutless coward, cocaine-sniffing, cowboy idiot president that the Iraqi people would welcome American troops into their country the same way the French did in 1944. They overlooked, or perhaps were too stupid to understand, that Saddamn Hussein had decimated every supporting structure of Iraqi society - the intelligensia, media, middle class, business interests - except . . . fundamentalist Islam. We screamed the truth in blogs by the millions, raised alarms among policy-makers and the movers and shakers; to no avail.

Islam is not what we consider a normal religion. Muslims are not to be considered in the same light as Christians, or even Jews, who they more closely resemble than many Semites find comfortable. Islam is a mind-construct, a tool deliberately designed to capture and hold evil, weak, foul individuals in a system of laws and social mores from "God," by "God."

All the sky-god religions (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam) are more or less a jumble of mythological superstition, but Islam is different in that it allows nothing to interfere with God's hold on every nuance of an individual's existence. In the 13th century, when Islam was barely six-hundred years old, Islamic societies were the most advanced, the most vibrant on the planet. The could claim the most accomplished mathemeticians, philosophers, physicians, poets, and craftsmen of their day. Islamic cities gleamed, while Paris and London were little more than mud-and-twig hovels.

But the mullahs, the imams and religious leaders, saw the growth of secular power as a threat to their control of Islamic society, and subsequently branded the pursuit of knowledge and secular thought as "contrary to the will of Allah." In short order, Islam stagnated, and by the end of the 14th century, it was finished.

The imams still control Islamic societies today, and secular thought is and always will be their mortal enemy. It is heresy in the West to laud Josef Stalin, for he was a monster who murdered millions. But he understood the negative power religions hold over society, and he killed them, without scruple or hesitation. Perhaps someday we will need a new Stalin to rid the world of religious oponents to secular thought.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.