Self-righteous political correctness —
— personified in the person of Peter Beinart, who uses Rep Peter King as his object of high-minded, indignant loathing:
Republicans like to claim that Democrats are the “European” party: the party that wants a big welfare state, believes in international law, and doesn’t think America is an exceptional nation. But I’ve noticed a certain Europeanification of the GOP of late, as regard to Muslims. For years, Republicans have explained that their brand of patriotism has nothing to do with blood and soil. Unlike right-wing European parties, which often fashion themselves bulwarks against the Muslim menace, Republicans—in their telling—defend the universal ideals of unfettered capitalism, traditional morality, and bucketloads for defense. They welcome anyone who adheres to those principles, no matter their complexion and faith (except perhaps if they don’t have one).
It would be nice if someone explained that to Representative Peter King. King, a Long Island Republican, will hold hearings this week on terrorism by American Muslims. Think about that for a second. King isn’t holding hearings on domestic terrorism; he’s holding hearings on domestic terrorism by one religious group.
[…] anti-Muslim bigotry is not a fringe view in today’s GOP. Most of the party bigwigs denounced the “ground zero mosque,” insisting that Muslims should have the good taste not to practice their religion in a place where non-Muslims might be offended, no matter how irrationally. Across the country, Republicans are rushing to head off the threat that America will soon be governed by Sharia (Islamic law). What’s next? The threat represented by Halacha (Jewish law)? After learning that the University of Michigan offers foot-washing stations to facilitate Muslim prayer, Mike Huckabee recently declared that “the accommodation we’re making to one religion at the expense of others is very un-American.”
In case you missed it, Beinart has now declared it “anti-Muslim bigotry” to take notice of what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and others have explicitly told us they are up do, both strategically and tactically; it is “anti-Muslim bigotry” to notice that the most visible of today’s pro-Muslim advocacy groups are oftentimes front groups for those who support terrorism — and tell us so. It is “anti-Muslim bigotry” to recognize that a strain of Islam — the Islamist strain, which commingles religion and politics and declares the two inextricably linked — is being actively insinuated into communities here in the US, with the attendant problems that such an insinuation is designed to cause.
Whereas, it is back-clapping time if you can manage to convince people that the bigger threat to the US are those awful conservatives who, in the midst of their hate hate hate, insist on taking notice such things, particularly if taking notice means not blindly and self-importantly adopting the precepts of political correctness and then feigning OUTRAGE over the fact that others have noticed problems where you have been trained not even to look.
Ironically, Beinart brushes right up against the point — and has it right there in reach — before his desire to put on display his ostentatious and empty “tolerance” pulls him down into the sticky fluff of liberal shibboleths. That is, he acknowledges — albeit in a glancing way — the precise problem with radicalized Islam in Europe (where, you’ll recall, many European leaders are coming to the belated conclusion that the leftist project of “multiculturalism” has failed) that King and many others are hoping to forestall from taking deep root here in the States. But rather than connect his own dots, Beinart instead uses the moment to try to gin up an instance of Republican HYPOCRISY: how can the GOP claim to “defend the universal ideals of unfettered capitalism, traditional morality, and bucketloads for defense” while at the same time looking into an entire religion? (After all, isn’t the job of demonizing religious groups the bailiwick of “progressives” like Amanda Marcotte?)
Yawn. Insert faux OUTRAGE here.
Here’s a question for Mr Beinart: is there in fact a Muslim menace, of the kind that is infecting Europe, where entire territories of modern European countries have devolved into no go zones for police, and are being run under Sharia law? If so, how is taking notice of — and suggesting that we need be able to talk candidly about — the ideology that foments such radicalization, a form of bigotry rather than an empirical observation? How is reality “hate”?
Conversely, if there is no radicalized Muslim menace in Western Europe, is Beinart then accusing those European countries of inventing a problem that unfairly scapegoats a portion of its own population (the Germans, for one, have done so before)? That is, does Beinart believe that such a threat is real and actual?
Peter King believes the threat real, and he’s looking into how best to combat it. Beinart? He’s looking for a way to buy some cheap grace — avoiding the unpleasant work of leading while basking in the canned glow of the kind of predictable self-aggrandizing that comes from having adopted the “correct” views.
Beinart has been so fully assimilated by the multiculturalist project that he believes his anti-assimilationist stance somehow brave and on the side of the angels.