Dr. Paul's Malpractice
By Tom Bevan
Real Clear Politics
In the spin room after the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term "Islamic fascism."
"It's a false term to make people think we're fighting Hitler," Paul responded. "It's war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread."
Now, when Paul asserts that the war in Iraq is a mistake that is bankrupting America, he's making a serious argument which current polls suggest a majority of Americans agree with -- though not most Republicans. When he says 9/11 was the result of "blowback" from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he's on somewhat more precarious ground, but at least there is still some shred of intellectual basis for his view -- albeit a Chomskyite one.
But when Paul says that the term "Islamic fascism" (or, for the purpose of discussion, its synonymous twin, "Islamofascism") is propaganda designed to spread war, he's veered off into the sort of paranoid fringe kookiness that keeps his campaign relegated to a side-show novelty act.
Real Clear Politics
In the spin room after the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term "Islamic fascism."
"It's a false term to make people think we're fighting Hitler," Paul responded. "It's war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread."
Now, when Paul asserts that the war in Iraq is a mistake that is bankrupting America, he's making a serious argument which current polls suggest a majority of Americans agree with -- though not most Republicans. When he says 9/11 was the result of "blowback" from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he's on somewhat more precarious ground, but at least there is still some shred of intellectual basis for his view -- albeit a Chomskyite one.
But when Paul says that the term "Islamic fascism" (or, for the purpose of discussion, its synonymous twin, "Islamofascism") is propaganda designed to spread war, he's veered off into the sort of paranoid fringe kookiness that keeps his campaign relegated to a side-show novelty act.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 9:24 PM
2 Comments:
Bzzzt! Sorry, Tom, you lose.
Dr. Paul is absolutely correct. I see the "Islamofascist" term bandied about everywhere. It has become jingoist jargon. It had very little meaning to begin with, and its meaning grows less as it becomes ever more trite.
What makes it propaganda, Tom, is that it plays on the populist ignorance of the masses. If you say fascist to Joe Average, the most likely response you'll get will be Hitler. As with every other bit of jingoist nonsense, that is incorrect. Hitler and his Nazis were socialists. And the Islamic jihadists are no more fascist than were the Nazis.
We can't even say for sure whether most jihadists support the authoritarian theocracy of Sharia.
The term is (mis)used to create a false notion that there is a large and organized entity with the intent and means to threaten our sovereignty. Nothing could be further from the truth. While Islam unites jihadists with a fundamental ideal, everything else about them diverges after that. The point of using the term is to misrepresent the need to fight the jihad with conventional tactics and a conventional army.
That is not war propaganda. It is simply using language to define an enemy that represents a very real threat to the United States.
Nice twist, Tom. You have offered nothing that supports your assertion that jihadists are a "very real threat" to the United States. You falsified your own predicate.
Ron Paul is the ONLY politician who knows history and what he's talking about. Check out his website. The man is WONDERFUL!
Post a Comment
<< Home