This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Conor Friedersdorf responded at some length to my irritated post about his irritated post. His response is obviously sincere. It made me feel small for having been so short-tempered; that never really advances a discussion.
You know, Okan called me yesterday. He's optimistic and even-tempered by birth, so when he says "You're right, it's time to freak out completely," this should probably be assigned more weight than when I say it. We both agreed that we were staggered by the tone of the commentary in the United States.
These were, he said, the most frightening events he had witnessed in his entire life. It is so obvious that yes, this could go right, but if this goes wrong, it means lights out. Yet so much of the discussion about these events was, in his words, "mental masturbation." A crude phrase, but he's getting at something important--there's this abstracted, detached, academic tone in a lot of this, as if this is all very interesting. He and I aren't the only ones noticing this; this Tweet sums it up:
abumuqawama "But I just want to pick up on something Fouad Ajami said which is VERY important..." #wordssaidonamericantelevision
At moments like this, I do understand the totalitarian impulse to say, "Shut up, all of you. This isn't a game. We cannot seriously be having a debate about the subtle distinctions, if any, between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood!"
But of course, we can and we are, and the whole point about an open society is that you do indeed have to make the case for your ideas, even when the stakes are incredibly high. No one wins an argument by screaming hysterically (not in America, anyway). So part of me feels I should respond in the same vein and argue this one carefully and patiently, line by line. It might require a book-length answer at this point.
But another part of me thinks that Andy McCarthy is more than able to defend himself if he wants to, and the exercise is sterile. Conor, you are absolutely right to say that I judge "Mr. McCarthy's big picture judgments about the Muslim Brotherhood to be sound, and as a result [am] less inclined to hone in on the sort of rhetoric I've outlined." You're right. So let's leave him out of it, because we could argue about him eternally, and the only reason we'd do so at this point is for the pleasure of arguing. The world doesn't need that.
The facts about the Muslim Brotherhood are out there already. My advice to anyone who wants to make sense of this is to skip all the pundits. Skip me, skip Conor, skip Andy, skip the whole debate, and just go directly to the source. Here's what they themselves are saying. If you don't trust MEMRI's translation of this, find someone you trust to translate it for you.
[The Arab and Muslim regimes] have forgotten, or are pretending to have forgotten, that the real enemy lying in wait for them is the Zionist entity. They are aiming their weapons against their own peoples, while avoiding any confrontation with these Zionists and achieving neither unity nor revival for their nations. Moreover, they are disregarding Allah's commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah's word will reign supreme and the infidels' word will be inferior...
"Today the Muslims desperately need a mentality of honor and means of power [that will enable them] to confront global Zionism. [This movement] knows nothing but the language of force, so [the Muslims] must meet iron with iron, and winds with [even more powerful] storms. They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life."
How much clearer does it get? And this is not cherry-picked; it's standard Ikhwan. Yet we've somehow entered a topsy-turvy world in which we're debating, angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin style, whether Andy McCarthy's a sophist and whether they'd be apt to tear up the peace treaty immediately or maybe in a few years. And that isn't even the main concern! The main concern is what they'd do to the Egyptian people, immediately.
The key point, the urgent point, is this: There now seems to be an effort among pundits to dismiss fear of the Muslim Brotherhood as "phobic." This is verging on real propaganda: Apparently, even to voice concern about the utter calamity their seizure of power would represent is to side with the brutal dictator against the Egyptian people. That's the new mainstream wisdom.
I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood started this uprising. I don't think they're the majority. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't represent Egypt. It doesn't represent the "people." There are millions upon millions of Egyptians who want nothing to do with them. These people have been risking their lives to protest Mubarak's regime, and they deserve our support. What the hell has the Brotherhood done to earn the legitimacy the world now seems so eager to convey upon them?
There is overwhelming evidence from history that revolutions are dangerous, and none but a child could dismiss that evidence. Well-organized, violent ideologues can take advantage of a power vacuum. This has happened over and over and over.
I don't know how much Americans can do, concretely, to help Egypt's liberal democrats and keep the Muslim Brotherhood from exploiting this chaos. Maybe very little. But telling the truth about what the Muslim Brotherhood says has to be the starting point, it has to be the starting point. Liberal democrats have to say two things truthfully: Mubarak is a corrupt tyrant, and the Muslim Brotherhood means lights out. Pointing out the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean "siding with Mubarak," it means siding with liberal democracy.
This whole discussion has an absolutely surreal quality--as Okan put it yesterday, the West seems to be having this very sincere, earnest, seminar-style conversation about solving its mafia problem by means of empowering Al Capone, and meanwhile in reality it is perfectly realistic to imagine a scenario in which this whole region falls into a darkness from which there would be no return, with consequences of indescribable suffering to incalculably many millions of human souls.
Let me make a suggestion, Conor. I know you're writing in good faith. Let's try, both of us, to yank this discussion away from narcissistic intra-pundit point scoring and work together to plead for some sanity here.
Can we agree that the source for understanding what the Muslim Brotherhood means should not be a bunch of American pundits fighting for air time and fussing over their camera makeup, but rather the Muslim Brotherhood itself?
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Classy post Claire. And while I don't agree with Conor's rebuttal, per se, I think the disagreement centers around his overly optimistic appraisal of a kinder, gentler Muslim resting for control of The Muslim Brotherhood. It reminds me of the European enlightenment ethos that permeated Dostoevsky's novels (and which he ruthlessly criticized) in which Western intellectuals believed they could talk and reason their way through pretty much anything.
Instead, "some men just want to see the world burn."
Jul '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
I keep returning to Orwell. "There are some things so stupid only an intellectual could believe them." Or words to that effect.
Oct '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Conor Friedersdorf used to work for Bob Wright's bloggingheads.tv.
If he wants to, he can invite Andrew McCarthy and grill him on the Muslim Brotherhood at bhtv and whether being anti MB amounts to "islamophobia".
Edited on Feb 4, 2011 at 5:29amSep '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Claire you make excellent points and a great rebuttal to Conor Friesendorf, but this paragraph jumped out at me:
He says, the Muslim Brotherhood "is currently the subject of wide disagreement. For our purposes, it's enough to know that there are some people who think they're wildly dangerous, and should never be dealt with or trusted; other people who think they can definitely be engaged and influenced politically; and a mix of folks who aren't sure or take some middle ground. I don't have a dog in this fight – or if you prefer, I am in the group that is uncertain, and open to arguments from either extreme. Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Berlinski share a belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is tremendously dangerous."
Does he really wish to reduce the debate between "extremes" positioning himself in some rational middle? And because he claims to be neutral this is supposed to make him the arbiter of the debate?
Oct '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
We keep hearing the same arguments from left against right. The right, be it McCarthy or Glenn Beck or generic rightwingnut villain of the day, quotes left wing and/or islamist intellectual while adding (sometimes over the top) analytical flourishes and the left punditry explodes in outrage over window dressing. It is a substitution of form for substance. Is Beck a nut? Sure, I think that he appears to be a bit of a nut who happens to be right about most of the really important stuff.
The left wants us nuanced into confused submission. There is no reason to be confused about the "real" political intent of people who write manifestos.
May '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
I agree with Pseudodionysius
Classy post Claire.
I need to take lessons on how to engage in a heated discussion and defuse it as you have. There is great danger in believing in a "kinder, gentler MB".
Sep '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Apologizing for the MB is just another way of establishing your open-mindedness bona fides to your fellow mutliculturalists.
Dec '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Yes, it appears he does; but isn't that his whole shtick? Doesn't he claim to be of center/right sensibilities: some kind of liaison or interpreter between conservatives and lefty intellectual types? I am impressed by Ms. Berlinski's skill to stay on the issue and not be drawn away from what is truly at stake here (I'm always impressed by Ms. Berlinski for that matter).
Sep '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Does he really wish to reduce the debate between "extremes" positioning himself in some rational middle?
I've read a great deal of material on President Barack Obama and have been impressed how by all us members of the VRWC can converge on a single agreed point of view, backed up, it seems, by the recent leaks of invitations extended to the Muslim Brotherhood. I find this Administration's naivete combined with Narcissism (I defer to Krauthammer on that one) effectively leaves them in the position of aiding our enemies whether it was their express intention or not. Stanley Kurtz's work in particular, combined with President Obama's olympian regard for his own Demosthenes-like powers of persuasion, have painted a compelling portrait of someone who, deep down, believes that his unique Muslim-Christian(?) heritage and his willingness to criticize the United States, means that he and he alone can solve the problems of the Middle East and usher in a new era where the lamb shall lay down with the lion by being seen as the one person who can arbitrate all sides as the logical progression of the head of the law review.
Edited on Feb 4, 2011 at 7:02amDec '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
And separating yourself from the right wing nuts - "See, I'm not like them!"
There is more than enough information out there, with more coming in each day, for reasonable, rational, and critically analytical people to have credible and serious reservations about the MB. The knee-jerk apologetics and dismissals of valid concerns coming from some quarters is telling, especially when it comes from sources that are routinely very critical.
Unless one is romanticizing about the MB leading an Islamic rapprochement with the West, even the best case upside of an MB dominated Egypt isn't too attractive. There is more than one historical precedent illustrating the downside of such wishful thinking in the face of much evidence to the contrary.
It seems to me the prudent position is one of extreme skepticism and caution about the MB.
Edited on Feb 4, 2011 at 6:57amSep '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
That sentence I typed was so long I almost hurt myself.
May '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Those who excuse the Muslim Brotherhood sound like Jefferson saying that the French Revolution will turn out ok; that Robespierre fellow doesn't represent the majority...both close their eyes to the reality of the situation. History rhyming again...
Dec '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Yes and yes.
This is the position the self-styled "right-of-center moderate" almost always takes on controversial issues.
If the mirror image self-styled "left-of-center moderate" even exists, it is a rare creature.
May '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
I recall when Conor was active on Ricochet, and I don't remember him ever doing anything but refuting conservative positions. Self-criticism is fine, but I have yet to see what makes Conor different from David Frum.
Jun '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
History has shown that nuanced positions with evil men fail. Neville Chamberlain being the prime example of naive statecraft that in the end cost humanity tens of millions of souls.
George Soros and his insidious ilk are already on an anti-Semitic tear. So, he and his socialist mouthpieces only give aid and comfort to the MB cause. And those gadflies attempting to float above the fray and remain, in their own minds, neutral and intellectually superior, who refuse to recognize evil for what it is, and who ignore evil men's obvious designs, like Chamberlain, should be cast aside.
There must be consensus that the ascendency of the MB is not acceptable. It's one thing to assist in the demise of regimes due to incompetence but to provide energy and implied support to the wrong factions is beyond incompetence and serves to imperil the lives of millions. Our Neville Chamberlain in the White House invited them to his democracy speech in Cairo, so what does that tell you? If the Muslim Brotherhood manages to fill any power vacuums in Egypt, Jordan or elsewhere then hold onto your hats because the winds of war will begin to blow.
Edited on Feb 4, 2011 at 8:25amOct '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
Yes. The same type of delusion that causes the international (especially the American)press corps to waltz into what ammounts to a lions den in Cairo like they going to a garden party only to be shocked when they get mauled!
Jul '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
From reading Conor's work, all I can offer, with apologies to Billy Joel: Sophistry, is such a lonely word.
It is never about the subject matter with Conor, it is always about the punditry. About being 'right-er' than everyone else. Which is fine, but when it comes down to real world consequences, it makes no difference. Right and wrong, black and white. With Conor it's always about straddling the equivocation.
Dec '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
While the world is watching Tahir Square and the Egyptian government has the Internet shut down, this is what the Muslim Brotherhood's supporters are doing:
"(AINA) -- News of a massacre of two Christian Coptic families by Islamists just emerged from Upper Egypt with the return of the Internet connections after a week of Internet blackout by the Egyptian regime. The massacre took place on Sunday, January 30 at 3 PM in the village of Sharona near Maghagha, Minya province. Two Islamists groups, aided by the Muslim neighbors, descended on the roof of houses owned by Copts, killing eleven Copts, including children, and seriously injuring four others."
Dec '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
When the Muslim Brotherhood itself is contacted to comment on its view on regional peace and Egypt abiding by its treaty obligations, this is what it has to say:
Asked on CNN if his organization would support the maintenance of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Mohamed Morsy, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, dodged a direct answer but said Israel had failed to honor the treaty. He said it would be up to the Egyptian parliament to decide on the fate of the treaty, and that the parliament would reflect the will of the people.
Asked next if an Egypt with a Muslim Brotherhood component in government would even recognize the state of Israel, Morsy again evaded a direct answer despite being pressed several times. “It’s ridiculous to ask about the future,” he said at one point, and then responded with the question: “Does Israel recognize a Palestinian state?”
He also accused Israel of “shedding the blood of the Palestinians for more than 60 years.”
Morsy added that the Brotherhood “are not against the Jews. We are against Zionism. We are against torturing the Palestinian people.”
Dec '10
Re: This is No Time for Sophistry, Period
When the Muslim Brotherhood is asked directly if it renounces violence, this is its reply:
Morsy also said the Muslim Brotherhood opposed violence. “We do not use violence against anyone,” he said. But what was happening on “Palestinian land,” however, he said, was not violence but “resistance. And resistance is acceptable by all mankind. And it is the right of people to resist imperialism,” he said.