Here are three more theories on the left and Islam. (See here and here for the first batch.) Recall that the question was, Why would leftists have an alliance or be fellow travelers with some of the most reactionary people in the world? It made sense for the left to be either communists or fellow travelers of communism, for communism was generated by the left and was wholly infused with leftist thought. Islam, however, was never part of the left, and the old left which thought of religion as the opiate of the people would no doubt be much surprised to find leftists of today allying themselves so closely with any religion, much less one that seems so reactionary. What, aside from anti-Americanism, do leftists have in common with these people? Nor can anti-Americanism bind them very much since anti-Americanism, after all, isn’t the exclusive preserve of the left. Many people have adopted it, for various reasons.
Moreover, some of these Muslims have come to the West with the idea of imposing their own religious law (shari’a) on us. The obvious leftist response would be to oppose this, instead of which the left seems to be enabling it.
So, here are my latest theories:
10. The They-Aren’t-Really-Muslims theory. This theory says that all these Muslims who are entering Europe and occasionally causing problems aren’t really Muslims. They’re really leftists in disguise. (Or else the few actual Muslims among them are outnumbered by the leftists.) The evidence for this is a few accounts I’ve read from leftists who said that they knew of socialists from the Muslim world who had given up on socialism as a way to change the world and were co-opting Islam. This would explain why the left is so reluctant to acknowledge that Muslims are ever acting from religious motives. It’s always political, according to them. So, the youths from suburban Paris were not motivated by their religion, but by economic conditions.
11. The We-Don’t-Want-to-Admit-We-Were-Wrong theory: Throughout the 1970s, leftists in the West supported leftists in Iran who wanted the Shah out. But once the Shah was out, the Muslims took over, elbowing aside the leftists and butchering many of them, and setting up a reactionary theocracy. The whole affair was a complete disaster for the left, and to top things off, the president here in America at the time, Jimmy Carter, handled it all so poorly that he failed to get re-elected and leftists had to endure twelve long years of Republican presidents.
What was the left supposed to do in the face of these disappointments? The obvious answer was to acknowledge that this affair was a disaster, but that would be to admit that one was wrong, and leftists never want to do that. So, instead the left has never been angry with the Muslims, were happy simply to have the Shah (and American influence) out, said almost nothing when Salman Rushdie was threatened, and have continued to act as though America was the worst thing on earth.
So, when 9/11 came along, what could they do other than to say that it was all our fault and embrace the Muslims? Such a response fit seamlessly into their worldview and made them very happy, because it shows that their bitter domestic enemies, the conservatives, were to blame. To have explored the possibility that this wasn’t our fault, that the terrorists weren’t acting in response to legitimate grievances against us but were working for their own religious goals, would have required a lot of self-criticism, which they just weren’t capable of.
12. The America-Is-Always-the-Bad-Guy theory: Under this theory, America is always perceived as the bad guy, and no other culture is ever to blame. As evidence for this, the left’s view of the Korean comfort women is not that Japanese culture was to blame, but that patriarchy was to blame. Perish the thought of blaming another culture for their misdeeds! Accordingly, the idea that Islam is sexist and homophobic could not possibly be the case (nor could Islam be a threat to the left). In fact, Islamic society is now being treated as some sort of ideal: with Islamic Spain being held up as a multicultural wonderland, with Muslim imperialism practically wiped clean from the left’s historical record, and with leftists siding with Muslims rather than Hindus over Kashmir, even though historically the Muslims were the imperialists over Hindus.
Just for the record, here are the other nine theories:
1. The Stuck-in-the-Sixties theory.
2. The Contrarian theory.
3. The Oppressors-and-Oppressed theory.
4. The Unity-of-the-Causes theory.
5. The We-Are-Guilty theory.
6. The Near-Enemy-vs.-the-Far-Enemy theory.
7. The Eventually-We’ll-Be-Proved-Right theory
8. The Leftists-Are-Weenies theory
9. The Right-Controls-Everything theory
It’s possible that there is some overlap here among all these theories. It’s also possible that with this many theories, maybe the whole project is misconceived in some way, though I don’t know how at the moment.
Loving it! Keep up the great work!
Posted by: Mike Valle | 01/29/2011 at 09:56 PM
This is simply outstanding.
The inability to engage in self-criticism is fatal. The Left is much, much weaker because of it. It leads them to credulously swallow the most astonishing drivel.
Posted by: Borepatch | 01/30/2011 at 09:28 AM
Yes, it's true. I try to educate liberals and leftists with my blog, but of course not many will look at it.
Posted by: John Pepple | 01/31/2011 at 05:29 PM
Oops, that was directed to Borepatch.
Thanks for being such a faithful reader, Mike.
Posted by: John Pepple | 01/31/2011 at 05:31 PM
John,
Ever have a serious conversation with a hard multi-culti leftist about muslim "extremists"?
They honestly don't believe the muslims mean what they say.
When they say "we want you all to convert or die", they simply assume it is inflammatory rhetoric for a political purpose.
See, they don't have any beliefs they would be willing to kill or die for... nothing they could ever conceive of that was more important than their number one consideration: THEM
... and they think everyone else is just like them.
This essential narcissism makes it impossible for them to conceive that anyone else could be any different.. could possibly MEAN IT when they say things like that.
You talk to them and they say "Oh they don't really mean that. IT's just political posturing"... and you simply cannot convince them otherwise.
Posted by: Chris Byrne | 02/01/2011 at 01:07 AM
Thanks for your input, Chris. What you have observed would fall under my explanation #10. Others may actually believe what the Islamists are saying, but think they couldn't possibly be a threat against the "all-powerful" West. And other explanations are possible, as I've been suggesting.
It's a very strange phenomenon.
Posted by: John Pepple | 02/01/2011 at 07:18 AM