The limits of American power

Rod, you write, "In the end, the Islamic traditionalists will lose." Are you sure about that? If that's so, why is there so much talk about Eurabia and the demographic conquest of Europe?

I used to vastly overestimate the power of modernity, back when I was a sort of New Leftist decrying "cultural imperialism". But Muslims have fought back, and the modern West now appears to be what's in retreat. It's looking more and more like the future belongs to anti-moderns, who will fight for their tribe and will perpetuate themselves by having large families. Whether any Western peoples will be among them remains to be seen.

In the meantime, I tend toward Lawrence Auster's separationism. Anyone else?

I don't actually look forward to the triumph of modernity, but I don't see how it can be stopped, absent a massive global civilizational collapse. I think we in the West assume that modernity requires liberal democracy. It doesn't. What modernity is chiefly about is, as scriblerus says, endless transition and unsettledness. If the Islamic world wants to participate in the global economy, and to quit falling behind in material terms, it will have to embrace as much modernity as it can. The AK Party in Turkey is trying to find a way to be modern and Muslim. Don't know if they'll succeed or not.

The Chinese became modern in a 19th and early 20th century sense when they embraced communism. Then they became truly modern when they turned capitalist. The massive migration of population in China, and the arrival of mass prosperity, is going to wreak havoc on traditional Chinese culture. Some of it will survive, of course, but what aspects will there be?

Similarly for the Arab Muslims, you might remember my telling you that a Muslim journalist who'd lived in Dubai said that one of the dirty secrets of life in that prosperous glittering land is that so many of the children of the new Arab Muslim elite crash their luxury cars from drunk driving. Prosperity is eroding their traditional moral and religious life, for better and for worse.

I do think the forces of modernity will conquer traditional Islam, but given what they're doing to us, I feel sorry for the Muslims, in a way. If the Muslims can find a way to live in modernity while maintaining their religion to a meaningful extent, perhaps we can learn from them. Never forget Juvenal's observation: "Prosperity is more ruthless than war."

Rod:

I absolutely agree with you that Sayyid Qutb is the animating philosophical force behind Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.

However, to say that Qutb is RIGHT -- that the square dances and church singing he saw in Greeley nearly six decades ago were truly "debauchery" (not that there isn't real debauchery in Western society, mind you) -- and that his rantings and ravings of a pathological and irrational hatred of America are to be agreed with or at least sympathized with ... that would make you either a nihilist or a theocrat.

"...but the longer this thing goes on, the more it seems to me that it's something that simply has to be endured until Islam makes the messy transition to modernity."

Islam will not make the transition to modernity. Out whole concept of meodernity is about to change. The entire world is about to return to 18th century agrarian life when fossil fuels are depleted in just a few short decades. The Global War on Terror will grind to a halt when there is no more cheap gasoline to fuel the US military. Commercial agriculture will give way to smaller, organic farming whe there is no cheap oil and gas for fertilizer and 1000 mile salads.

Western consumer culture and traditional Islam will have to co-exist in a world where our high-tech weapons and media will no longer be a factor. The sleaze, sloth and greed that passes for modernity in the US now will die or be killed off when survival depends on spending your waking hours raising your own food.

Islam will not make the transition to modernity. Out whole concept of meodernity is about to change. The entire world is about to return to 18th century agrarian life when fossil fuels are depleted in just a few short decades.

Darn, then all have is this useless uranium laying around. What a bunch of scaredy cats.

"Darn, then all have is this useless uranium laying around. What a bunch of scaredy cats."

The nuclear power club is an elite bunch that doesn't take kindly to all the newcomers. Remember Osirak. Lots of uranium lying around, all right. Pretty dangerous stuff, regardless of how you look at it. And converting nuclear power to food is not nearly as simple as making food from oil.

What is the difference between Islamic Extremists and every day Muslims?

In Islamic countries it seems quite clear that ONLY Muslims and Islam rule.

Making of course every Muslim an extremist.

It is time for Americans that support Democrats (I am not one) to realize that Barak Obama is not going to face the reality that where Islam goes, everything else goes away.

And please, please, someone mention Turkey, where Christians are still being murdered for not being Muslims.

Larry: However, to say that Qutb is RIGHT -- that the square dances and church singing he saw in Greeley nearly six decades ago were truly "debauchery" (not that there isn't real debauchery in Western society, mind you) -- and that his rantings and ravings of a pathological and irrational hatred of America are to be agreed with or at least sympathized with ... that would make you either a nihilist or a theocrat.

Oh, I think Qutb was a prude to a freakish degree, and certainly a loon. But on the broader question of the West being profoundly antithetical to traditional Islam, he was right.

Richard Bottoms: She has more to worry about from you people than from Osama.

I will never understand the leftist mindset that finds Pat Robertson more wicked than Osama bin Laden. It is utterly pathological.

Rebeccat, I think Donny's point is not that all Muslims are terrorists or extremists, but that Islam as a system of belief doesn't allow Muslims to truly oppose the extremists. The extremists have the religion on their side. That leaves the moderates stuck cowering in the corners for the most part. Where are the marches in Muslim countries calling for freedom of religion for Christians and others? They don't exist because Islam doesn't allow it. Sure Christians and Jews exist but only at a very minimal level as determined by Islamic law. As such, I think people are rightly concerned about the motives of Muslims in this country. Regardless of how nice individuals are, do they, as a group, represent a threat to our society because of their religious beliefs? And what will be the result if their numbers continue to grow? We are already seeing some results in areas where Muslims have concentrated with things like denying people cab rides because of seeing-eye dogs or alcohol.

I will never understand the leftist mindset that finds Pat Robertson more wicked than Osama bin Laden.

There you go again, reading some thing I never wrote.

I'll try again. Slower.

My lesbian sister will have her life more often affected negatively by the gay bashing GOP passing stupid laws and demonizing her than Bin Laden is ever likely to.

Why? Because the odds of Osama every doing something that is statically likely to ever touch her life directly as less than getting struck by lightning. Now being able to visit her life partner in the hospital if their family objects is a real possibility.

Not being able to get married is a real fact. Enduring another campaign season in which hysteria is whipped up about the HOMOSEXUAL agenda is as close to guaranteed to happen as anything his.

So I will be Mr. States the Obvious:

Osma Bin Laden is evil, really, really, really evil, more evil than Pat Robertson evil, more evil than Haliburton, slightly less evil than Hitler, but still really, really, really evil.

So the difference between Robertson and Osama is just that Robertson never had political power (though he tried once) and so doesn't bear direct responsibility for atrocities. But he was a big cheerleader for people as bad or worse than Osama.

Snap!

"Osma Bin Laden is evil, really, really, really evil, more evil than Pat Robertson evil, more evil than Haliburton, slightly less evil than Hitler, but still really, really, really evil."

"My lesbian sister will have her life more often affected negatively by the gay bashing GOP passing stupid laws and demonizing her than Bin Laden is ever likely to."

Posted by: Richard Bottoms . . .

Mariage is a man and a woman. Let's first start to reaffirm that, instead of furthering the really, really, really, evil that exists in people inventing selfish systems of "anything goes."

I'm guessing, since the LGBT forces in our public schools say that there are many, many gay people in society, that more homosexuals were killed in the 9-11 by Bin Laden's attack, than have ever been bothered physically by some anti-Gay biblical religionist.

It is time to ask the Gay Agenda to take a break from inserting its selfish evil onto us all.

Don't ask, don't tell, used to be a decent thing to do. Let's bring back decency.

Don't ask, don't tell, used to be a decent thing to do. Let's bring back decency.

The thing I like about the upcoming election is, after we crush the GOP in November, we'll be in a position to really hunt down Bin Laden as well as work to overturn the theocratic agenda your side has been working to bring about for three decades.

All courtesy of the dunce you voted into the White House.

We really appreciate it.

"I will never understand the leftist mindset that finds Pat Robertson more wicked than Osama bin Laden. It is utterly pathological."

Maybe your time would be better spent trying to understand the mindset that finds Pat Robertson's nutty pronouncements at the least a big part of the problem with American power. I'm not surprised that you would excuse Pat Robertson's bellicosity as you have made the same kind of irrational, revengeful calls for preemptive killing that he has.

Try to understand that you have a big bully pulpit, Rod, and like Robertson, you have abused it. When you and other nominal Christians call for the bombing of cities and the assassination of foreign leaders, the word gets out and it tends to poison the already shaky discourse between the US and the rest of the world.

Richard, the people who support the arts in this country are the people who buy music, pay to see concerts, hang paintings in their homes, go to the theatre or cinema, and read books. Quite frankly, if an artist can't find patronage on his or her own then let them pursue their passion in their spare time and get another job to support themselves. What this has to do with this post about modernity and islam, I don't know

Thank you Richard Bottoms.

I wasn't sure I could vote Republican this year, given the eight-year train wreck of the Bush administration. You've helped me over my fear. I'm pulling the lever for whichever Republican nimrod is nominated. I don't care if he advocates bombing Mecca.

Thanks again.

"PS Christian Fanatics don't tie bombs to their bodies and walk into busy places, filled with children and families. But if they did, it would be obvious they didn't know much about Jesus."

You're right. Christian fanatics use cruise missiles and stealth bombers to deliver preemptive attacks on busy places, filled with children and famiies. What does that say about their knowledge of Jesus?

I don't see peace and love flowing out of George Bush, Franklin Graham, John Hagee, Pat Robertson and dozens of other high-profile Christians, including Rod Dreher. Stop using others' abuse of Islam as an excuse to abuse your own Christianity.

My thinking on this has been evolving, since I've read and reread Paul Berman's excellent book, "Terror and Liberalism." Sorry to be a broken record about it, but I really think it is "must reading" for everyone who wants to stand the basic nihilism at the bottom of all totalitarian thinking, including Islamist terrorism.

At this point I am a bit more hopeful than I was, because I think there is a difference between totalizing Islamists, and average Muslims who, for the most part, want to live and let live, but feel under attack for both good and bad reasons.

As far as modernity is concerned, Berman's book says that most Islamists don't oppose the scientific and technological aspects of modernity, only the liberal democratic values that go along with it.

To me, the advance will come when we stop arguing about who is right about God and religion, and realize that, in all liklihood, we all might be wrong about God. Through a mirror dimly, that sort of thing. And we should grant each other the right to be wrong.

I like "Crunchy Cons" because there are a lot of interesting and thoughtful people (starting with Rod) who comment on this board, and I feel it enriches me. Do we have to descend to the level of "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" on the school yard?

Oh please. I don't think that the US Armed Forces sits around planning to blow up families and children and busy markets. They have targets, those who are trying to kill them. However I am sure they occasionally make mistakes and hit innocents.

Anyways, enough on that, I ain't here to start no fights.

Thanks Alicia for the reading tip. I am going to see if its at my library.

That's the point, obmoody. The US Armed Forces doesn't count Arab casualties. People don't exist; targets do. As long as the consideration for which targets to hit does not include the people who live in and around those targets, work in those targets or use thos targets, the US Armed Forces amoral stance on "collateral damage" is going to continue to make us enemies worldwide.

What makes the right wingers more fearful (is there a consensus)? Is it homosexuals or the Muslims? Inquiring minds ....

A French lesbian Muslim of course.

"Oh please. I don't think that the US Armed Forces sits around planning to blow up families and children and busy markets."

No, they're just following orders.

We are flat going to kick your behinds.

This is just pitiful. One of these days, Richard, I'm going to get fed up with your juvenile habit of reducing every question, ultimately, to cheesy playground machismo. And that's the day you're going to be booted permanently. You're a smart guy who has interesting things to say, and it's certainly true that everybody, including me, goes too far from time to time and says things that lower the quality of debate. I get that, and I'm tolerant of it.

But I've warned you time and time again to knock it off, and you seem incapable of restraining yourself. The very next instance of it I see is going to be the end of your ability to post here.

A French lesbian Muslim of course

Fear? Man, that sounds kinda kinky.

Richard, you can't scare the right-wingers that easy. Nice try, but you libs are going to have to share.

M_David, your comment at 12:01 hits the nail on the head. The burden of proof these days is definitely on the side of those who expect modernity to triumph.

"I wish I knew how this country could better deal with the problem of Islamic extremism, but the longer this thing goes on, the more it seems to me that it's something that simply has to be endured until Islam makes the messy transition to modernity.""

A rather odd comment Rod, considering that when you are not writing anti-Muslim rhetoric in your column, you are bewailing the messy transition of Christianity to modernity"

PS-this thread is the best in ages.

Kim M

You're welcome, Dale. One of interesting things Berman talks about is how all of the totalitarian movements of the 20th Century were organized in opposition to liberal society, because of the many failures of liberal society.

And he also draws a lot on Camus, talking about how the high ideals of the social revolutionaries and those joining these popular mass movements of the Left and Right inevitably led them to murder, mass murder, and suicide. Cheery, eh? (But actually, for me, thrillingly insightful.)

Here's something interesting. One of the very few times Muslim opinion of the US has gone up in the past years has been when we sent military support after the 2004 earthquake in Pakistan and after we flooded SE Asia with military and relief agencies after the tsunami. It's not true that these things *never* help, but they need to be more consistent to have much effect.

M_David, I recommend Berman's book to you, in particular. It is, IMO, a profound history lesson, on the limits of attempting grand utopian experiments, whether by radical Muslims or not.

Alicia, radical Muslims are not some strange atypical culture. Modernism, rather, is the grand utopian experiment. What a perfect definition. And, like the citizens in Brave New World we simply cannot grasp that any other culture could possibly triumph but ours. Who else, we wonder, has such cool Soma holidays? And who could reject it when offered?** A toast: To our death! Onward the Malthusian drill!

I don't agree that modernist culture is doomed, though it is certainly troubled. There are many things about modernist culture that I don't like and I'm sure the same could be said by most of the people posting here.

Well...regardless of what we "like" or "don't like", facts are hard things:

1) there is not a single modernist country today maintaining its population without importing bodies

2) the entire world is set to begin population decrease within 50 years

3) the more modern the lifestyle, the faster the population loss

4) cultures rejecting modernity grow in population at exponential rates

5) the future belongs to those who show up for it

**besides Iraq!

M_David, the "grand utopian experiments" that proposed to destroy Western, liberal modernity were the ones that took masses of people, lemming-like, off the civilizational cliffs. These included Pol Pot, in Cambodia, Stalin in Russia, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini. All were revolting against what they perceived as decadent culture, usually intellectual, "Jewish," and (in Mr. Cheeks' words) effete. We see how well that turned out for the world.

What do the murderers in Cambodia who killed those wearing glasses have in common with the rioters in Nigeria chanting "Down with Beauty" to drive the "decadent" Miss World pageant away? Not religion, but rather idealistic dreams of a perfect society that had curdled into totalitarian barbarism.

Alicia, I agree with your analysis of Pol Pot,, Stalin, etc.

The Nigerian analogy - not so much.

Trying to stop rampant sexual display is not "utopian", but simple common sense. Every culture that has lasted for any time in the history of humanity has done this. It's self-preservation. It is more "utopian" to think we can treat women as sex objects and still last as a culture.

I have worked with several Nigerians, and talked with them about their view of American sexual ethics (including a long discussion about Bill Clinton!). From a logical, Darwinian perspective, they make a lot of sense, as their culture loves children, motherhood, and family.

They have a TFR (total fertility rate) of 5.8 (2004 UN data). Population=131m; by 2050 projected to be 260m. They are one of the few areas in the world who will still be growing after 2050. They must be doing something right.

In summary: no matter what our ethnocentric cultural views, Nigerians are not reflecting some "idealistic" culture by holding women in a mother's role rather than flaunting them as sex toys. Their position is both historical and logical. We, rather, are the ones who should be struggling to defend ourselves - from strictly scientific point of view.

Thanks, M_David. From my understanding, Nigeria has a lot of problems, including the rampant criminality, which someone I know who consults with African governments says has to do with the damage to their society that has been done because of their large oil reserves.

I have no desire to see the sillier and more exploitative sides of Western culture forced down the throats of people in traditional societies. In fact, it's not the fact that the conservative Muslims of Nigeria didn't want the Miss World pageant that bothered me -- it was the rioting, the murders, and the unintentionally sad and hilarious chant, "Down with Beauty," that got to me.

They have a TFR (total fertility rate) of 5.8 (2004 UN data). Population=131m; by 2050 projected to be 260m. They are one of the few areas in the world who will still be growing after 2050. They must be doing something right.

Or horribly, horribly wrong.

M_David, I hope Rod will understand what he finds wrong with your argument. It reminds me of the way that people say, "liberals need to convert other people's children to survive". Rod seems to expect that liberals (or at least "moderns") will start having considerable success in this area, but right now it looks like the tide has turned against them. The fact that liberals' philosophy also blames themselves for the maladies of European Muslims speaks volumes. Low birthrates + Western guilt = the grim death of a civilization, correct?

I've not been back to this thread in a while. Let me clarify my position.

I broadly sympathize with M_David's view of modernity, but I've had to revise my position in light of data showing major population decline predicted worldwide. The only numbers that really matter, though, are the relative numbers. In the near long term, Islam is going to do very, very well, certainly when compared to Europe. But Muslims are experiencing declining numbers too; Spengler has written a lot about how Iran is headed for a major crisis because of this.

I am not convinced that modernity, in the sense of cultural and physical rootlessness, can be stopped. Wendell Berry said that "homelessness" is the modern condition. I think he's right. M_David, I was in the Mideast a couple of winters ago, at an Arab media conference. Mass media is just beginning to wash over those insular societies. They've been closed up for a long time, but technology and wealth are opening them up. A notable scholar (American) who was at the conference, and who had just done a year in Damascus, told me, "Imagine that all the revolutionary changes that TV brought to American society over the last 50 years were compressed into 10 years, and unleashed onto a culture that is far less flexible than our own. That's what the Arabs are just now starting to deal with."

It seems to me that the entire world is in the grips of tectonic changes that we can scarcely grasp, much less predict. It's driven by economic changes, and technological. Not all societies are going to develop along American lines; there will be local variations. But those societies that want to progress materially will have no choice but to abandon their traditions to a certain extent. Educate their women, most especially. But with female education comes female desire to work, and thus lower fertility, and all the problems M_David has spoken about.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Islamic society will be able to withstand modernity in the long run, absent a total economic collapse that destroys the engine of modernity, which is industrial and postindustrial capitalism. I say this as someone whose work is about finding ways to resist modernity, and to hold on to tradition. The thing is, the tradition we in the West wish to hold on to is in many (most) respects a more humane tradition than the Islamic one. I would much rather live in a modernist European capital than in a traditional Islamic village, even though I'd rather live in neither place.

There's lots of talk around traditionalist circles about how conservatives are having more babies than liberals. I'm not sure I believe that -- or to be precise, I'm not sure I believe that we're having enough babies to make a big enough difference. America is supposed to be a relatively conservative country, but if not for immigration, we'd be at or below replacement rate.

Also, you write:

"It seems to me that the entire world is in the grips of tectonic changes that we can scarcely grasp, much less predict. It's driven by economic changes, and technological. Not all societies are going to develop along American lines; there will be local variations. But those societies that want to progress materially will have no choice but to abandon their traditions to a certain extent."

My position is that a large share of Muslims are not going to get themselves involved in these changes. Many Islamic countries have no desire to be integrated into the global economy; all they see in globalization is foreign domination. Not all Muslim countries are like that, to be sure. But Iraq has practically committed national suicide in the past few years for the sake of avoiding American domination. Iran would do about anything for the sake of resisting those changes as well. And seeing these holdouts has made the pro-globalization faction in America nervous; it wants to squash all resistance now, so there’s no alternative model to serve as an example to other countries that might want to resist globalization.

Economic change does not just happen as the globalist crowd would have us believe; it is always governed by purposeful human action of some sort. Americans are conditioned to assume that economic values will always win out. We believe we would never resist the temptation of prosperity for the sake of defending any non-economic value, even though at some point we probably would defend other values.

But as I see it, Muslims are in the midst of a long war precisely to defend their tradition against changes that would destroy them. Their resistance to American domination of Iraq is inseparable from resistance to modernity. I don't see how people can continue to argue, "No one will ever spurn modernity (in the broadest sense)," when we see it happening right before our eyes in Iraq.

With respect to your comments about the mass media, I would like to think there’s some society that would decide the changes brought about by that kind of “openness” to the Western world were unacceptable. Some society, someday, must say no. It might try to be open for a while, but find that the effects of its openness were mostly negative, and ultimately reverse its decision. I may be wrong: it may be that not even a Muslim society will ever do such a thing. In that case, the world’s last bastion of militant antimodernism will be gone, and liberalism will be unstoppable.

And setting aside any moral questions, would you, in the position of an Islamic leader, decide that education of women is a good thing? I wouldn't. I’d think that my country must not go down the slippery slope you have correctly described, leading toward women in the workforce, seeing what looks like the impending demise of Western cultures that have taken that path. As much as they may admit their societies are not as successful as they wished, Muslim leaders must think that their hated rivals from the West are on their last legs. Why risk change when one’s culture is already prepared to inherit the earth by the mere facts of demographics?

My point is that if Muslims saw where they could stop on the road to modernity, they might not be so reluctant to take their first steps in that direction. However, they see no end to the modernizing process. They see the adoption of even the most trivial liberal and capitalist elements as a grave threat to their civilization, a cancer that can grow over time.

Alicia, you've hit on an intriguing paradox. From the standpoint of economic development, fertility can be way too high, and education for women would probably help to lower it. But the way things are going right now, it seems that the countries that have babies are going to outlast and even conquer the ones that don't, even if they remain far more backward economically. We're so used to assuming that the countries with the best technology are invulnerable, but right now it looks like they're being successfully invaded by people who are way behind. So from the standpoint of survival as a culture, it's better to have a fertility rate that's too high than too low. And survival as Muslims is what the Muslims care about more than anything, I'd argue.

John Savage says "As you've said many times, most of us go to church on Sunday and then we live like terrible sinners the rest of the week." Maybe if we took to violence like the Muslims and had a religion which said it was ok to kill people we could equalize ourselves with the antimoderns. Maybe they'd even back off on killing us so much who knows?