Franklin D. Roosevelt commented, in his first inaugural address in 1933, "...that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." He wanted to reassure Americans that the economic depression and subsequent fear regarding the future was "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified."
Since then, the quote has become one of America's firmly held beliefs. Americans don't fear war; Americans don't fear economic depressions; Americans don't fear anything. Patriotically, we are a nation that always stays one tier below fear. We will be frenzied, but not afraid. We will be paranoid, but not frightened. We will be knocked down, but get right back up. Israel's unofficial motto is "never again," the American national motto ought to be "courage in spite of adversity."
I believe this is the national consensus. I haven't done research to back up my assertions, but I feel comfortable stating that our courage exists today in roughly the same manifestation as it did in Roosevelt's days. I believe that, even though we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, if any of our allies were defensively invaded (non-instigator) by any non-allied country, we would subsequently and unflinchingly leap to assistance.
That courage is an American virtue. I think individually, Americans are the same as everyone else in history with respect to fear. When an individual is threatened, an American and Russian will react similarly, if not exactly the same. So, where does all this lead? Where do these comments come from? Frustration. I'm frustrated that my empirical evidence for a courageous America is finding counter-examples. I'm frustrated because I'm finding instances of America and Americans wincing in the face of fear. Case in point: International Burn a Quran day.
When I first heard the story, I was disappointed. I didn't appreciate the intentional (if unstated) attempt to divide religious communities. I figured the whole intended message would backfire and hurt American credibility and commitment to American ideals. All in all, I thought it was a mistake.
Despite my queasiness about the situation, I was viewing the process as a Constitutional question for freedom of speech. I remembered Skokie, Illinois, when the American Nazis wanted to march through Jewish neighborhoods with large populations of Holocaust survivors in the late 70's. I abhorred the message and process and my initial urge (if I were there and a judge) would've been to forbid the marching. But I remembered an ACLU lawyer commenting on the virtues of the First Amendment. With reluctance, I decided I would either support their right to march or admit I wasn't as committed to freedom of speech as I imagined.
The major difference between Skokie and Dove World Outreach is in the latter case, as far as I can tell, there were no attempts to silence Dove through legal means. In Skokie, lawsuits and city ordinances attempted to stifle the political message. However, I am angered to see government officials using fear tactics to silence Dove.
Fear? Yes, fear! General David Petraeus, U.S. Commander of American forces in Afghanistan, stated "It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan" (CNN). In other words, he said that if Dove burned the Quran, Americans would die and our goals in Afghanistan could fail. Even simpler, he said that he fears the consequences of Dove's demonstration.
Even more surprising, President Obama said the same thing: "It's also the best imaginable recruiting tool for al Qaeda...This is a way of endangering our troops" (CNN story here). The President takes fear one step further -- he says this demonstration strengthens our enemies AND endangers our troops. He's afraid of what will happen.
And to top it off, Dove backed down. Dove surrendered to fear -- Pastor Terry Jones essentially said that his goal was to move the Ground Zero Mosque and "accomplished" this, although Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf didn't echo the agreement. It appears as if Pastor Jones was looking for a graceful exit and intentionally misinterpreted the Imam and others. I can't fault him too badly because I don't want blood on my hands either, even if the blame is hard to confirm.
So, what are we afraid of? Are we fearing fear or something else? I'll answer -- we fear Muslim repercussions. We fear that the burning will radicalize moderates and lead non-jihadists into the arms of established terrorists. We are afraid of our enemies.
Read that last sentence again. Who was the last enemy we feared? Can we say, historically, that we feared the Soviets? Possibly, but I would argue we were more afraid of the consequences of war and not the Soviets themselves. We were afraid of nuclear war, but we stood up to the Soviets in some places (Cuban missile crisis) and backed down in others (Afghanistan 1979). Historically looking back, our several Red Scares appear focused more on lifestyle fear than physical fear -- fear that America would morph into Russia.
I agree with President Bush and Obama that we are not at war "with Islam." But I'm frustrated that our leaders (mainly President Obama and General Petraus) exhibit such wide-reaching fear -- almost begging American citizens to avoid angering Muslims.
So our leaders call political expression un-American -- contrary to the "tolerance" that was espoused by American founders (really?). President Obama stated "The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for. It's contrary to what this nation was founded on." It seems that delivering a strong demonstration against a religion was actually the cause for American founding (leaving a "civilized" country to carve your way in the wilderness so you didn't have to be part of your country's church...looks like a giant middle finger to me).
I remember reading a few years ago, during the Bush years, several commentators criticizing the Patriot Act. They discussed that the limitations of our rights was un-American, unconstitutional and evidence for the effectiveness of terrorism. I may not be repeating their arguments as elegantly as they wrote, but I laughed a little bit: "Why did terrorists attack the U.S.? To curtail our rights and freedoms." I remember President Bush incorrectly stating "they hate our freedoms." Now we know better.
But let's try asking the question again: "why did they attack us?" I believe it was a show of strength -- "Americans attack our people and enjoy immunity on their own soil, so let's show them they're mistaken." Simple revenge. And now we're afraid. We're afraid of Iran. We're afraid of continuing Israeli support. And once we're afraid of the world, we're afraid to be a messenger of liberty to the world.
Does our fear of Muslims "paralyze needed efforts to convert retreat into advance"? When we're paralyzed by fear of demonstrating a political or religious message, that seems like a retreat.
No comments:
Post a Comment