The other day, I mentioned the strange business of leftists on Islam (here). I can’t explain for certain what’s going on with them, but here are six possible theories, one of which might do the job. There might be others, of course.
1. The Stuck-in-the-Sixties theory. According to this theory, leftists are stuck in the Sixties and haven’t noticed anything significant that happened since then. For me, I was sympathetic to Muslims, until the day when they began butchering leftists in Iran after the Shah was evicted, after which I took a much more cautious approach. But other leftists apparently never noticed or somehow excused this action. To excuse murder against one’s own group, one has to be suicidal, but apparently that is what is happening on the left.
Evidence (that is, similar behavior of leftists in other domains): (a) the leftists who are my age still cannot bring themselves to like soccer, a sport that emerged into the American consciousness after the Sixties had ended, (b) although the rebels from the Sixties long ago took over our culture, many of them still talk as though there is some sort of “Establishment” that must be rebelled against, (c) though people like Mark Steyn have pointed out the dangers of low birth rates in the West, one can still find feminists railing against the idea of having children, and (d) despite being proved wrong on many environmental dangers, environmentalists keep churning out the verbiage about the dangers of global warming and other illusory demons.
2. The Contrarian theory. According to this theory, leftists automatically take up a position against whatever the right takes up, so if the right decides to hate Muslims, leftists cannot find their own reasons for being against Muslims but must be in favor of them.
Evidence: (a) The right thinks that keeping the price of gas low is a good thing, so the left thinks it’s a bad thing, even if having it high hurts the poor. (b)The right is against (or is perceived to be against) immigrants, so the left is for them, even though they come from a culture that is somewhat more reactionary than our own. (c) The right is for vouchers, so the left must be against them, even though inner-city blacks like them.
3. The Oppressors-and-Oppressed theory. According to this theory, everyone is either an oppressor or is oppressed, but not both. The left chose to regard Muslims as the oppressed, and so cannot abide any talk of them also being oppressors. Telling them about the plight of women or gays in Muslim societies elicits the odd response of leftists actually defending, to some extent anyway, reactionary practices.
Evidence: (a) the leftist practice of refusing on theoretical grounds the idea that blacks could be racist, (b) calling all white males privileged, thus ignoring all class differences in this group, (c) the reluctance to make Darfur a big issue, because it meant calling some Arabs (in Sudan) oppressors when they were committed to saying that all Arabs were oppressed, (d) the belief of some leftists that Muslims were never imperialists, (e) the refusal of leftist academics to do anything about the jobs crisis in academia, for they themselves were on the side of the oppressed and so couldn’t also be oppressors, (f) saying that the “world” hated us when in fact it was mostly Muslims and their friends in western Europe who hated us; eastern Europe didn’t count because it was still considered part of the West and therefore on the side of the oppressors; ditto for Christians in Africa.
4. The Unity-of-the-Causes theory. According to this theory, leftists think that progress on any of their fronts represents progress on all of their fronts, or at any rate, progress on one front couldn’t possibly mean regress on another front. So, helping Muslims fight against the “prejudice” of conservatives couldn’t possibly hurt the cause of women and gays.
Evidence: (a) Environmentalists never stop to consider how their own causes may hurt the poor (for example, wanting gas to go to $5/gallon), (b) the leftist idea that diversity in terms of race and gender is enough and that diversity in terms of class background isn’t really needed.
5. The We-Are-Guilty theory. According to this theory, leftists feel so guilty about past imperialism that they excuse or overlook reactionary tendencies among Muslims. Presumably, Orientalism by Edward Said had an enormous effect here.
Evidence: (a) I once heard of a white woman in California during the late Sixties who felt so guilty about the treatment of blacks that she allowed a black man to rape her. (A few years later, when feminists became enraged about rape that would have been unthinkable.) (b) Then there are the “male feminists,” who feel so guilty about patriarchy that they accept whatever feminists say.
6. The Near-Enemy-vs.-the-Far-Enemy. According to this theory, the left views the near enemy as a threat and the far enemy as benign, even though the far enemy is far worse than the near enemy. The near enemy is fundamentalist Christians, and the far enemy is reactionary Muslims.
Evidence: Offhand, I can’t think of any parallel behavior. I’d like to think this is all just ignorance on the part of leftists, but who knows?
So there you have it. Take your pick. Or tell me about your own theory or theories.
1. The Stuck-in-the-Sixties theory. According to this theory, leftists are stuck in the Sixties and haven’t noticed anything significant that happened since then. For me, I was sympathetic to Muslims, until the day when they began butchering leftists in Iran after the Shah was evicted, after which I took a much more cautious approach. But other leftists apparently never noticed or somehow excused this action. To excuse murder against one’s own group, one has to be suicidal, but apparently that is what is happening on the left.
Evidence (that is, similar behavior of leftists in other domains): (a) the leftists who are my age still cannot bring themselves to like soccer, a sport that emerged into the American consciousness after the Sixties had ended, (b) although the rebels from the Sixties long ago took over our culture, many of them still talk as though there is some sort of “Establishment” that must be rebelled against, (c) though people like Mark Steyn have pointed out the dangers of low birth rates in the West, one can still find feminists railing against the idea of having children, and (d) despite being proved wrong on many environmental dangers, environmentalists keep churning out the verbiage about the dangers of global warming and other illusory demons.
2. The Contrarian theory. According to this theory, leftists automatically take up a position against whatever the right takes up, so if the right decides to hate Muslims, leftists cannot find their own reasons for being against Muslims but must be in favor of them.
Evidence: (a) The right thinks that keeping the price of gas low is a good thing, so the left thinks it’s a bad thing, even if having it high hurts the poor. (b)The right is against (or is perceived to be against) immigrants, so the left is for them, even though they come from a culture that is somewhat more reactionary than our own. (c) The right is for vouchers, so the left must be against them, even though inner-city blacks like them.
3. The Oppressors-and-Oppressed theory. According to this theory, everyone is either an oppressor or is oppressed, but not both. The left chose to regard Muslims as the oppressed, and so cannot abide any talk of them also being oppressors. Telling them about the plight of women or gays in Muslim societies elicits the odd response of leftists actually defending, to some extent anyway, reactionary practices.
Evidence: (a) the leftist practice of refusing on theoretical grounds the idea that blacks could be racist, (b) calling all white males privileged, thus ignoring all class differences in this group, (c) the reluctance to make Darfur a big issue, because it meant calling some Arabs (in Sudan) oppressors when they were committed to saying that all Arabs were oppressed, (d) the belief of some leftists that Muslims were never imperialists, (e) the refusal of leftist academics to do anything about the jobs crisis in academia, for they themselves were on the side of the oppressed and so couldn’t also be oppressors, (f) saying that the “world” hated us when in fact it was mostly Muslims and their friends in western Europe who hated us; eastern Europe didn’t count because it was still considered part of the West and therefore on the side of the oppressors; ditto for Christians in Africa.
4. The Unity-of-the-Causes theory. According to this theory, leftists think that progress on any of their fronts represents progress on all of their fronts, or at any rate, progress on one front couldn’t possibly mean regress on another front. So, helping Muslims fight against the “prejudice” of conservatives couldn’t possibly hurt the cause of women and gays.
Evidence: (a) Environmentalists never stop to consider how their own causes may hurt the poor (for example, wanting gas to go to $5/gallon), (b) the leftist idea that diversity in terms of race and gender is enough and that diversity in terms of class background isn’t really needed.
5. The We-Are-Guilty theory. According to this theory, leftists feel so guilty about past imperialism that they excuse or overlook reactionary tendencies among Muslims. Presumably, Orientalism by Edward Said had an enormous effect here.
Evidence: (a) I once heard of a white woman in California during the late Sixties who felt so guilty about the treatment of blacks that she allowed a black man to rape her. (A few years later, when feminists became enraged about rape that would have been unthinkable.) (b) Then there are the “male feminists,” who feel so guilty about patriarchy that they accept whatever feminists say.
6. The Near-Enemy-vs.-the-Far-Enemy. According to this theory, the left views the near enemy as a threat and the far enemy as benign, even though the far enemy is far worse than the near enemy. The near enemy is fundamentalist Christians, and the far enemy is reactionary Muslims.
Evidence: Offhand, I can’t think of any parallel behavior. I’d like to think this is all just ignorance on the part of leftists, but who knows?
So there you have it. Take your pick. Or tell me about your own theory or theories.
This post is INCREDIBLE. I believe that you have identified all of the major causal influences here. Wow. Did I say this post was incredible?
This post deserves to be expanded and published somewhere important.
Posted by: Michael Valle | 07/12/2010 at 08:12 PM
Well, thanks, though I should mention that Keith Burgess-Jackson pointed out one that I had missed: that liberals and leftists are such weenies that they are afraid of the Muslims and so have allied themselves with them. They know they can attack the fundamentalist Christians and not worry about reprisals.
Posted by: John Pepple | 07/13/2010 at 08:19 PM
"b) Then there are the “male feminists,” who feel so guilty about patriarchy that they accept whatever feminists say."
Though some of what you say in this post has merit, I believe that this is a strawman. A male feminist is simply a man who believes, for whatever reasons, that women should enjoy the same opportunities and rights as men. There is nothing there which commits us to supporting the rank absurdities of the professional feminist movement.
"f) saying that the “world” hated us when in fact it was mostly Muslims and their friends in western Europe who hated us"
I would say that of the Europeans, the Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, whose tyrannical regimes were supported during the cold war solely because they were anti-communist and without regard to their crimes, have legitimate grounds for greivance.
I also think it is a mistake here to discount the powerful influence in many countries of fear of the spread of American culture, and the consequent decline of local traditions. Although this is mostly due to inadequate self-confidence in their own culture, it's an important element in explaining anti-Americanism.
Posted by: Immunophilosopher | 07/14/2010 at 03:10 AM
There is a lot of assertions here, but none so patently false as "despite being proved wrong on many environmental dangers, environmentalists keep churning out the verbiage about the dangers of global warming and other illusory demons."
The dangers of global warming is not in question by any environmental scientists. The existence of debate concerning its cause and nature does not dispel that fact.
Posted by: Brian | 07/14/2010 at 05:24 AM
I'm going to jump to a conclusion and assume that you are left of center. If so, then here is the dilemma I've been posing for those who are left of center: You can either say you trust the peer-review process that leads to what you call a "fact," or you can listen to people at the bottom, but not both.
What I mean is that people like me who were victims of the evils of peer review ended up on the bottom (in academia). If you want to say you listen to people at the bottom, you have to start listening to people like me about how awful and unreliable peer review is. And if you do, then you are going to have to take a close look at the "results" of these environmental scientists. You will demand to see papers that were rejected to see if they were rejected for legitimate reasons or merely because they were saying the wrong thing. I'm pretty confident that any close and impartial examination of peer review will reveal many irregularities, enough so that what you call a fact will no longer seem like one.
Take your pick. Either trust the peer-review process or listen to those of us at the bottom. Which will it be?
Posted by: John Pepple | 07/14/2010 at 07:47 AM
immunophilosopher, I always get a kick out of liberals and leftists talking about the horrors of American cultural influence, because the influence is cherry-picked. When it comes to McDonald's or tv shows they don't like such as Baywatch, they are horrified by it. But when it comes to rock music, they ignore it.
Also, a few years ago I found a Nigerian journalist online who complained about American influence in almost the very words you use. And what was the first item on his list? Basketball. But I've never heard of any Americans who worry about the spread of basketball. Like I said, people like you cherry-pick the items you think of as pernicious.
As for the crimes committed by regimes in Greece and Spain, I would agree that they have legitimate cause for complaint. But they should complain about those leftists who supported communism and not about those who tried to resist it. This blog is about being leftist, but at the same time being self-critical, and it is long past time to admit that communism was a horrible stain on the left.
I would respond to the bit about male feminists, but it would take too long, and today my time is limited.
Posted by: John Pepple | 07/14/2010 at 07:59 AM
You identify yourself as a member of the left, but I find that hard to believe. This 80 year old great grandmother finds you far too intelligent and capable of thinking to be of the leftist persuasion. Thank you for a wonderful article.
Posted by: Dixie Blankley | 07/15/2010 at 01:26 PM
Well, my basic orientation is egalitarian, so I call myself a leftist, but I'm also trying to reform the left. I don't expect to change the minds of any leftists over the age of about twenty, but if you know of any leftists younger than that, be sure to send them to my blog so that they can see a very different sort of leftism.
Posted by: John Pepple | 07/15/2010 at 07:22 PM
Well, for what it's worth, my theory on lefties and islam:
Leftists are convinced they are right in every way. They think that their way of thinking is superior. And it is just a matter of time until everybody else is coming around.
And that is why they don't oppose islamic fundamentalism even it is blatantly clear that islamism is the opposite of everything leftists ever stood for; equal rights for women and gays being the most obvious example. Their cognitive dissonance comes in very handy at this point.
They keep thinking that these islamists will eventually see the light and convert to progressive, secular western views.
They couldn't be more wrong.of course.
Posted by: Herman Benschop | 07/16/2010 at 01:55 PM
Thanks for your input. It's as reasonable as any other. I think you probably have to add something to make it clear why leftists saw Muslims as allies in the first place, such as their anti-Americanism, or something.
Posted by: John Pepple | 07/17/2010 at 06:59 AM
I'm a paleo, and I adhere to the near-enemy far-enemy thing. I think Noam Chomsky has given a similar explanation for why he critiques his own government rather than others. But I also side with the more local governing authority against the one above (with the topmost breadth being the U.N), which isn't quite near vs far. The smaller unit of government is easier to get away from and can muster less power, so it is less of a threat.
Posted by: TGGP | 07/19/2010 at 08:12 PM