It seems that the new game among many members of the intelligentsia (of both major parties) is not to dismiss publicly the dangers of islamism, but merely to act in a way as if those dangers are really not such a great deal. This tactic seems to imply that those who feel strongly about these matters may, perhaps, themselves be a little on the "extreme" side.
In the perception of many of them the jihadist dangers have been blown out of proportion - and, in fact, may not even exist. They are for the most part secular individuals, and, in truth, they do not believe in Jihad. They don't believe in people going to war for God. They believe in the rational nature of human beings. Therefore, if the islamists are angry with us, that must be because of some specific actions on our part which pissed them off. Correct our "mistakes", and everything will be cool. This is why "blowback" arguments have been gaining acceptance.
Once again, we are facing the dilemma of having been dragged into a religious war during a period in our history when, as a society, we have difficulties even understanding the meaning of this concept. George Bush is serious about his religion, and by extension, he is able to understand religious feelings of others, and also how such feelings can reach dangerous extremes, where they become in fact the opposite of what they should be. But to many seculars, especially among the educated classes, all this is nothing but a bunch of hogwash for "stupid" folks.
Psychologically, the behavior of such people - and I think Ron Paul is one of them - is quite appealing, but it is also a dangerous trap. Appealing - because those people sound intelligent, rational and kind of wholesome and above the frey - and we all like to feel this way. Dangerous - because their rationality is only in form, since it disregards to a large extent certain realities, and such a stance may lead us towards misjudging and underestimating our opposition. |
