Big Tent Revue has moved to it’s new digs, which look like the old digs.  Please go to www.bigtentrevue.org to get all the latest posts.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

I decided to weigh in on the conversation about the proposed Islamic cultural center in NYC after participating in a short discussion about the subject on Facebook this weekend. Let me state clearly right at the start that I support the building of the center and it pains me that I seem to be splitting with many of my fellow conservatives on that point. One thing that is not unexpected in today’s media atmosphere is the way this entire issue has been branded. ‘The Ground Zero mosque’ is neither mosque nor at Ground Zero. Matt Sledge, writing for The Huffington Post

From 45 Park Place, the former Burlington Coat Factory building that will make way for the Cordoba House, it’s two blocks, around a corner, to get to the WTC site. Park Place doesn’t lie between the construction site and any mass transit stations, so you would need to go out of your way to have it offend you.

This is where I have to ask the most basic question: How far away would be far enough? 10 blocks? 20 blocks? Outside of Manhattan? Outside of NYC? When we draw these arbitrary lines based on cultural sensitivities, things get a little murky. At some point the WTC is going to be so tall that you will probably be able to point out several NYC mosques from its heights. Will they all be subject to public complaints or do they get a pass because they are pre-existing structures?

The real head-scratcher of this debate is that the building itself is not actually a mosque. Sledge describes its function:

In addition, the building planned for 45 Park Place is a cultural center with a prayer room — not a single-purpose house of worship for Muslims, which is probably what we should reserve the word “mosque” for. As Haberman also explains, “That it may even be called a mosque is debatable. It is designed as a multi-use complex with a space set aside for prayer — no minarets, no muezzin calls to prayer blaring onto Park Place.”

As a YMCA member I pass a small dedicated prayer room every morning on my way to my locker. Afterall, the YMCA is a Christian organization, even though it is open to the public and I’m quite sure it hosts members of many faiths. Yet aside from a few bible quotes on the walls and the prayer room, you could hardly call the building a church. It’s much more of a community center with lots of room for exercise, a daycare and a some generic space for other actitivites. In fact, it is this model that the NYC building is based on. Having been a YMCA member for several years now and having met a lot of nice people from many races and backgrounds there, I think we should be welcoming, not condemning this construction. I’m also comforted by what I have read about the people who will be running the center. From Pamela K. Taylor at The Washington Post:

All of my concerns, however, were washed away when I found out recently just who is proposing the mosque — an organization led by fellow On Faith panelist Imam Feisal Rauf. Imam Rauf has a long track-record of interfaith cooperation and dialogue. His understanding of Islam is liberal, tolerant, pro-woman. I have no doubts that the center, as run by Imam Feisal, will not only serve the needs of the local Muslim community, but also be a forum for bringing people together, fostering healing between communities, and building bridges where the crimes of others have driven wedges between us.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

This is the post where I ask people who are interested in blogging to let me know.  A few people have sign up, but we need to have a cadre of prolific bloggers who are good center right thinkers and love, love to write. At current we have a number of bloggers who write very occasionally, and while we are thankful for them, a blog has to be update pretty often to get noticed.

So, I am asking again for bloggers, but before you send me an email expressing your interest, this is what we are looking for:

• Someone that loves to write….a lot. Again, we have had some people express interest in blogging and write a post, and then we never see them again.  If you only write a blog post once every six weeks, then this might not be for you. In a perfect world, we would like to see someone who would want to write everyday, but in reality, if they could write at the very least once a week, you will make me a happy man.  In short: if you love to write, please see me.  If not, don’t bother.
• Someone committed to center right reform. With the state of the GOP these days, it is very easy to descend into  despair or worse yet, cynicism.   We want people who are on the center-right and want to build a party that is committed to inclusion and small, innovative government. If you are that kind of person…we want you.
• Knowledge of Social Media. We are looking for people who know how to blog, can create a hot link and know a thing or two about Facebook or Twitter.

If you have any of these traits, then please send me an email at denminn@gmail.com. But please be serious about this. Lukewarm writers need not apply. Thanks.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

..and they are taking their fellow Republicans to task for their opposition to the building of the Cordoba House project also known as the so-called Ground Zero mosque.

Hip-Hop Republican shares a note from a number of Islamic Republicans speaking out against the opposition to the building near Ground Zero. Here is a snippet:

While some in our party have recently conceded the constitutional argument, they are now arguing that it is insensitive, intolerant and unacceptable to locate the center at the present location: “Just because they have the right to do so – does not make it the right thing to do” they say. Many of these individuals are objecting to the location as being too close to the Ground Zero site and voicing the understandable pain and anguish of the 9-11 families who lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy. In expressing compassion and understanding for these families, we are asking ourselves the following: if two blocks is too close, is four blocks acceptable? or six blocks? or eight blocks? Does our party believe that one can only practice his/her religion in certain places within defined boundaries and away from the disapproving glances of some citizens? Should our party not be standing up and taking a leadership role- just like President Bush did after 9-11 – by making a clear distinction between Islam, one of the great three monotheistic faiths along with Judaism and Christianity, versus the terrorists who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and who are not only the true enemies of America but of Islam as well? President Bush struck the right balance in expressing sympathy for the families of the 9-11 victims while making it absolutely clear that the acts committed on 9-11 were not in the name of Islam. We are hoping that our party leaders can do the same now – especially at a time when it is greatly needed.

Republican Muhammed Ali Hasan, the founder of Muslims for Bush, is even more to the point, calling those against the project bigots:

I am deeply proud to be an American, with a proud, personal history of denouncing terrorism, including my founding of Muslims For Bush. However, what truly reeks within this debate is not the shadow of bigotry, but rather, the cloak of dishonesty. In the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, where I was born and raised, it is believed that your word — your honesty — is everything that makes you a man.

My fellow conservative leaders, please quit lying. If you are against the mosque, then call yourself a bigot and give us the gift of an honest dialogue, the kind we carry on so proudly here in America.

Yes, you will be a bigot — but at least you will be a man.

Read both articles.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

I have not said much about the Target controversy. For those not in the know, the discount-store chain Target, decided to give $150,000 to an indpendent political committee that supports Republican Tom Emmer for Governor. Emmer tends to be not-so-friendly when it comes to gay issues. Target, which is based in Minneapolis, made the donation because they view Emmer as pro-business, while Mark Dayton the Democratic candidate is not viewed in the same way.

(Irony alert: Dayton’s family started the Target chain.)

This has set off a storm of protest from many in the GLBT community who were shocked that Target would do something like this. Target has a reputation of being one of the better employers for gays and has been viewed as incredibly gay-friendly. Many gay folks were shocked that Target would ever dream of doing something like this.

While I was dissapointed, I wasn’t surprised. I know that Target executives had supported Republicans at the local and national level for a while and I also know that Target was making a business decision; not a moral one. Emmer’s pitch is about trying to shrink government and lower taxes while Dayton is all about taxing the rich. If you are a large business, I can tell pretty much tell you that they are going to go for door number one. Do I think it was a good decision? No. But I also understand why Target did it.

I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about it all; on the one hand, in this post- Citizens United world, where companies can give directly to campaigns, those businesses that give to campaigns are now free to give openly. That said, having the freedom of speech to give to a campaign now means that you are opened up to criticism, which is also a freedom our nation celebrates. If Acme Widgets decides to give money to a campaign that supports clubbing baby seals, Acme should prepare for anger from their customers.

But I also have take some issue with how the gay community is dealing with this issue. As I’ve said, Target has had a history of being a good friend to the gay community. I think that has to be taken into account in light of this donation. The problem is , many in the gay community have not looked at its past actions and weigh that against the current issue. Groups like the Human Rights Campaign have tended come out against the company with both guns blazing-demanding that Target either give back the donation or give an equal amount to a cause or campaign that supports gay equality. Now, this might have been a worthy request to make. The problem is that it should have been done behind the scenes. Why? Because for the most part, Target has been an ally. It makes sense to handle some of this away from the public and not try to purposely embarrass Target. But many wanted to make an example of Target. I guess in my view, I would have hoped that they would have quietly worked for an apology and maybe a donation to a gay rights group without trying to rake Target over the coals.

The other problem that I have here is that there seems to be a hint of partisanship here. As Stephen Miller notes, I doubt that there would be so much kerfluffle is Emmer was a Democrat:

Of course, if Emmer were a Democrat who opposed gay marriage it’s doubtful that HRC would be targeting Target, given that HRC has itself supported the campaigns of candidates such as Virginia’s Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat who favors keeping “don’t ask, don’t tell,” as well as a great many Democrats who oppose gay marriage to varying degrees. Maybe HRC should target itself?

At the end of the day, I think that Target will learn a lesson: not to never give to anti-gay candidates, but to be far more discreet about the donation.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Indian-born Shikha Dalmia notes that even in the wake of the protests against the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” America is still a beacon of religious tolerance compared to other nations.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Josh Barro has written the best conservative defense of the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.”  He calls conservatives to task for violating some of their own tenets.  Here’s a peek:

What I find bizarre about some of the conservative response to Cordoba House is not just the objection to the construction of the mosque, but the conviction that it should be stopped by any means necessary—even if that means violating conservative principles about property rights, rule of law, and federalism.

Part of supporting limited government is understanding that sometimes, things you don’t like will happen, and the government (especially the federal government) won’t do anything about it. Getting to do what you want comes at the price of other people getting to do what they want—including build mosques where you’d prefer they didn’t.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Daniel Jack Williamson (aka Buckeye RINO) responds to an earlier post:

I couldn’t agree with you more. On my own blog, I also have written a post about the “Ground Zero Mosque,” (http://buckeyerino.com/2010/08/05/wsj-oped-on-religion-ground-zero-mosque/) and I will continue pleading for greater religious tolerance. I’ve called out other conservatives for religious intolerance in past posts at Buckeye RINO, also. Some REALLY thought I was a RINO after reading that one. (http://buckeyerino.com/2009/10/05/religious-intolerance-from-the-political-right/) I still feel as Republican as ever. If it weren’t for intolerance from the right, I think more Americans who identify themselves as Muslims would align themselves with the Republican Party rather than the Democrat Party, as, aside from foreign policy, I believe they view many issues in ways more similar to the way that Republicans view them.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

John McWhorter writes what might be the most honest and yet most depressing critique of the state of the black community , like ever.

In a review of a book by Amy Wax, he basically says that African Americans have spent too much time focusing on government programs and the legacy of racism than in trying to solve the problems that are plauging the community, such as poverty.

There is a belief among many African Americans as well as not a few liberals, that it is racism that hold us back.  The belief continues that if only America spent more money on the black community through increased government spending, then the problems facing African Americans would be solved.  McWhorter provides a living example of how simply more money won’t work:

In 1987, a rich philanthropist in Philadelphia “adopted” 112 inner-city sixth-graders, most of them from broken homes. He guaranteed them a fully-funded education through college if the kids would refrain from drugs, unwed parenthood, and crime. He even provided tutors, workshops, after-school programs, summer programs, and counselors when trouble arose. Forty-five of the kids never made it through high school. Thirteen years later, of the sixty-seven boys, nineteen were felons; the forty-five girls had sixty-three total children, and more than half had their babies before the age of eighteen. Crucially, this was not surprising: The reason was culture. These children had been nurtured in communities with different norms than those that reign in Scarsdale.

Of course, no one wants to talk about culture. It’s far easier to talk about race than it is about the cultural patterns that keep African Americans down. McWhorter gets right to the point that the best way for blacks to not be poor is not have babies before marriage:

One of the most sobering observations made by Wax comes in the form of a disarmingly simple calculus presented first by Isabel Sawhill and Christopher Jencks. If you finish high school and keep a job without having children before marriage, you will almost certainly not be poor. Period. I have repeatedly felt the air go out of the room upon putting this to black audiences. No one of any political stripe can deny it. It is human truth on view. In 2004, the poverty rate among blacks who followed that formula was less than 6 percent, as opposed to the overall rate of 24.7 percent. Even after hearing the earnest musings about employers who are less interested in people with names like Tomika, no one can gainsay the simple truth of that advice. Crucially, neither bigotry nor even structural racism can explain why an individual does not live up to it.

So, why are African Americans so afraid to talk about culture? Why are we more enamoured with the radical ala Jeremiah Wright?

I think the answers are many, but here are two points.

First, talk of culture seems like blaming the victim and ignoring racial prejudice, which does still occur. Second, culture tends to be associated with conservatives and most African Americans tend think that conservatives either are indifferent or hostile to the interests of blacks. White conservatives have not helped when they talk about culture and family in relation to African Americans, but then don’t seem to do anything to help change the situation. The common refrain of conservatives is to talk about the evils of big government, but then do nothing to help with civil society.

So what can change the situation? Well, African Americans are going to have to talk culture more seriously and realize that government can do somethings, but it can’t change people’s hearts. As Wax notes:

The government cannot make people watch less television, talk to their children, or read more books. It cannot ordain domestic order, harmony, tranquility, stability, or other conditions conducive to academic success and the development of sound character. Nor can it determine how families structure their interactions and routines or how family resources—including time and money—are expended. Large-scale programs are especially ineffective in changing attitudes and values toward learning, work, and marriage.

I can remember my mother making poster boards of numbers and letters so that I would learn both before I entered kindergarten. That’s the type of parenting that will help a kid succeed.

Government has to play some role in helping lift people out of poverty. I know some will chafe at that notion, but we do need to have some safety nets to protect people from the ravages of poverty. But to help someone thrive, we need more. Conservativism has always believed that society is made up of institutions: businesses, government, the church, the family. I think what is needed is a revival of black civic culture. Churches and other civic groups need step up and help shape and form individuals to learn how to respect each other and not be making babies when they are no more than babies themselves. Many black churches are already doing this, but there needs to be more. If White conservatives really believe in civil society, then they will put their money where their mouth is
and fund initiatives that will help the black family. If you want to see an example of conservatives trying to use a conservative approach to solve social issues, one might want to at the Big Society initiative from the Conservative Party in the UK.

At the end of the day, though, it is up to African Americans to do deal with our own issues. We have to be willing to want to reduce out-of-wedlock births, and the crushing poverty rate and not dilly-dally. It’s time for us to heal ourselves.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Today’s Financial Times included a very interesting article on the structural future of the American economy. The article, which is linked here, looks at the challenges and potential for the U.S. economy as it emerges from the recession. It suggests, and I tend to agree to an extent, that a restructuring of the economy from a housing driven to an export/investment driven economy is likely. The writers made a number of recommendations as to how the government should respond to this structural shift, one of which I will look at here; that, of course, being the Value Added Tax (VAT). The Financial Times article suggested adopting a VAT in the United States would allow for reductions in the 35% corporate income tax rate and would signal a shift in priorities towards investment over consumption.

The history of the VAT originates, not surprisingly, in one of the most frugal countries, Germany, in the early part of the 20th Century with its recommendation coming from a German industrialist (I will not go too far into the history, we all know how to search Wikipedia). Today the VAT is a staple of European economies and acts as a major source of revenue for all of the countries in which it is used, but so far it has not caught on significantly in the U.S. Recently the VAT has been thrown around as a feasible, and in fact desirable, alternative to the present income-based taxing system. Henceforth, this post will focus on what the VAT actually does, how it compares to the present system, and if it is really so desirable.

It may sound overly simplistic, but the VAT is nothing more than a sales tax that is paid in parts to the government, rather than all at once from the consumers purchase. To explain that further, under the sales tax system, individuals buy $500 iPhones from the Apple store. Of course they pay somewhere around $535, assuming the sales tax is 7%. Apple then pays the government $35 and keeps $500. Assuming that they paid their respective parts suppliers $100 to buy parts for each phone, they are making $400 profit. Under the condition of a 7% VAT, every dollar amount above remains the same. The only thing that changes is how often the government gets paid.

In the sales tax example, the government was paid once, by Apple, in the amount of $35. Under a VAT, the government would be paid multiple times for a total of $35. Say, hypothetically, that all of Apple’s suppliers were based in the United States. When purchasing their $100 in parts, Apple would have to pay a 7% VAT; thus, they would pay $107 – $7 is paid to the government at this point by the suppliers. Then they would market the product to the customer for $500. The consumer would again pay $535, only this time Apple only pays $28 to the government, and keeps $507. Of course, they have already spent $107 on the supplies, so the profit remains $400. Additionally, if the Apple’s suppliers are located in, say, China, they would only pay $100 for supplies and then pay $35 of the $535 they charge for iPhones to the government – allowing them to maintain a $400 profit.

So what makes the VAT any different than a sales tax? First, the VAT is efficient by making sure the sales tax is placed on everything. In theory, people excluded from paying the common sales tax are intermediaries, and the tax – as described in the above example – is paid by the consumer in the final transaction. There is, as usual, a difference between theory and practice, and in some cases tax exempt entities are able to forgo sales taxes on items that are reaching their final destination, never to be sold to another consumer. In this way, the tax receipts for the government will increase. Additionally it eliminates the requirement of businesses to prove their tax exempt status; although, it requires every level of production, suppliers through retailers, to assess and pay sales taxes; this would be a new element for American business. Still, from a pure numbers standpoint, the VAT has the same effect as the sales tax.

However, the purpose of instituting an American VAT would not be to replace the sales taxes implemented by states and localities, but rather to reduce the income tax burden of businesses and individuals. So how does it compare to the income tax system?

The VAT, like the sales tax, is a consumption tax. It essentially adds a premium to spending money. Unlike the income tax, which taxes all income regardless of its subsequent use, the VAT would does not depend on the amount of income but rather solely on the amount of income used for consumption. The effect of a VAT, or sales tax for that matter, is to discourage consumption, which results in an increase in savings (i.e. investment). It is the fiscal equivalent of increasing interest rates. People become savers rather than borrowers. Under the current economic conditions, this seems like a pretty good idea and is certainly a positive outcome of the VAT.

There are, however, shortcomings of such a tax policy. VATs, like sales taxes, are generally viewed as regressive taxes. The poor pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the rich under this system – this is a completely opposite effect than that of the progressive income tax system that is currently in place in the United States where higher income tax brackets pay a higher proportion of income in taxes. Why is this? The higher ones income, the more spending is due to luxury rather than necessity. For example, an individual making $25,000 per year will likely spend all or nearly all of their income on basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, etc.); however, an individual making $50,000 per year will have more opportunity to choose between buying a new suit and saving that money for retirement or a later event. Under the progressive income tax the individual making $50,000 per year, in a sense, pays a premium for the freedom to choose how to spend his/her extra income. Under that pure VAT, conversely, our less wealthy friend pays 7% of $25,000 (we are still assuming a 7% VAT and that the individual spends all of his/her income) in taxes, while Mr. or Ms. $50K pays 7% of his/her consumption (i.e. less than $50,000). This means that the richer of these two individuals pays less than 7% of their total income in taxes. As one moves up the income ladder, the percentage of income paid in taxes continues to decrease. This is a clear negative of the VAT system.

To combat the regressive nature of the VAT, European governments have adopted tax refunds for low-income individuals. This reduces or eliminates their VAT exposure by compensating for VAT expenditures throughout the year. This is done at year-end, which means that the tax is still paid throughout the year and the effect is still felt. The result of this becomes a very complicated system of paperwork and recording that requires maintenance of income records, whether or not an income tax is maintained.

Above I have attempted to paint a picture of what the VAT is and how, in its pure form, it behaves. Practically, however, the VAT would likely be used as a supplement to the current system rather than an outright replacement – this would alleviate some of the unnecessary recording of income levels to provide VAT refunds. Still, the VAT’s ability to act as a replacement for some of the income tax burden of corporations in particular is questionable. Monitoring the VAT would require increasing federal regulatory capacity; whether you agree with federal regulation or not, this increase would cost money. This is not an impossible feat and would likely cost less than maintaining the IRS – of course the IRS would still exist – but would still add costs. Additionally the increased burden on lower income individuals, even with a refund, would result in highly regressive wealth redistribution at worst and stagnant wealth distribution at best. A “progressive” VAT is far too cumbersome to justify over the income tax system.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the VAT is that, unlike its sales tax cousin the FAIR Tax, it has political support (and opposition) on both the right and left. Speaker of the House Pelosi and some of President Obama’s economic advisors, including former Federal Reserve Chairman and Chairman of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board Paul Volcker, have voiced support for a VAT in the United States. Recently the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think-tank, suggested a VAT as well. At the same time, people ranging from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Grover Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, have voiced opposition to the idea of a VAT.

In the end, the VAT, or a sales tax for that matter, could act as a good supplement to the income tax system by encouraging investment and adding a new source of government revenue. It would obviously need to be coupled with a refund system and possibly an additional recalibration of the income tax brackets to help reduce the tax burden of the poorest individuals. As a replacement for the income tax system, a consumption tax of any sort will fall short. The complexity of monitoring and maintaining the system prevents it from behaving optimally. The VAT, as I stated before, would only be effective in the U.S. as an extra revenue stream and to direct money towards investment over consumption. Right now that is not a terrible goal, but the VAT’s potential regressive tendencies are a serious cause for concern.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Originally posted on Tyler Craft’s blog:

The immigration issue has gotten way out of hand in this country. This morning while reading Mississippi’s statewide newspaper, The Clarion Ledger, I was alarmed at some of the rhetoric used by a state legislator who introduced an immigration bill similar to Arizona’s (in)famous legislation. Rep. Becky Currie described an incident where she pulled over on the interstate to speak with a crew of workers who were mowing the grass and cleaning the road. Per the Clarion Ledger’s article:

“‘They looked like they were from out of town,’ Currie said, prompting laughter from some at the immigration-enforcement rally. ‘I asked them who is their supervisor (sic). Not one of them, not one of them could speak a word of English.’”

This statement, not surprisingly, was given at a gathering of Tea Party supporters. Honestly, I do not think that the Tea Party is inherently racist; however, this statement very obviously plays to racist sentiments. Additionally, it misleads the audience.

First she states that “they (presumably the workers) looked like they were from out of town.” What exactly does that mean? Is there some physical characteristic that can distinguish people from Brookhaven – Rep. Currie’s hometown – from the rest of the population? I will assume that, being this was an immigration-enforcement rally, she meant from another country. So did she mean they were tall with blonde hair and blue eyes and might be from a Scandinavian country? Of course, I know what she meant, just like everyone in that audience. They were Hispanic. Apparently there is no way they were one of the 40+ million Hispanic individuals in the United States that are citizens. Clearly they were part of a group of about 10 million illegal immigrants (not all of which are Hispanic; although, to be fair, most are). I believe I am correct in interpreting Rep. Currie’s statement to be, “if you look different, you must be from another country, and if you are from another country, you are probably here illegally.” But please correct me if I am wrong.

Unfortunately, Rep. Currie did not stop with simply assuming things about the workers’ race. She decided to speak with them; unfortunately for her, they did not speak the southern dialect of English that Rep. Currie is familiar with. At least, that is my assumption when she says they do not speak “English.” I will pretend that she made it clear that they spoke Spanish. What if the individuals were Hispanic (I am still only assuming they are Hispanic since she did not make that clear) immigrants from Scotland? I would have a lot of trouble understanding Scottish English when I am used to southern United States English. They are almost different languages. I guess it is a good thing then that the Constitution requires a uniform dialect of English be spoken within the U.S. territorial boundaries in order to prove one’s citizenship, allegiance, and intelligence… Only it does not. While it is less efficient, an inability to speak English does not preclude U.S. citizenship or immigration. Rep. Curry’s subtle suggestion otherwise is misinformation.

Statements like the one by Rep. Currie make it frustrating to be a fellow Republican. That, I suppose, is the nature of a two-party system. You will always have someone saying things you do not agree with in your own party. It is unfortunate that this sentiment has become acceptable in a debate over immigration reform. Is there a problem? Yes. Do we have illegal immigration? Yes. Does that mean that simply because someone looks different they are an illegal immigrant? No, plain and simple.

It is possible that Rep. Currie’s statements completely misrepresent her view, and because of that I will not criticize her as a person or legislator. I get frustrated when one statement is used to completely describe a person’s position. However, taken for its face value and in the context it was given, I feel very comfortable criticizing the statement. It does not advance a solution to the immigration issue; it does not solve problems; rather it only works to entrench both sides in stereotypes, dogma, and inaccurate beliefs.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Andrew Sullivan links to an old article about some of the early signs of Isalmaphobia among conservatives that helps to frame why it’s become so fashionable among conservative pols these days to not simply bash Muslim extremists, but the entire faith of a billion people as well.

It wasn’t that long ago that then-President Bush tried to separate the extremists within Islam from the rest of its adherents.  Bush had his faults, but he did try to present a more tolerant version of conservatism at least when it came to religion.  How times have changed. A recent Politico post shows that many of the potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees are already showing their anti-Muslim credentials in speaking out against the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.”

The thing about this, is that when you basically decide to play the game that Muslim extremists want- which is a war of between civilizations, there is basically only one way to settle things: through war.  I’m not a pacifist and I’m not anti-military, but I tend to think that you don’t want to use the military all the time.  Americans are willing to fight for what they believe in, but they aren’t willing to engage in endless war.

In someways, what Sullivan says in another post makes some sense:

I think it’s time to acknowledge what we are increasingly learning: the base of the GOP – aided and abetted by what’s left of their elites – want a religious war abroad and at home not on Jihadism, but on Islam itself. And a vote for the GOP is a vote for this agenda. It is a vote for global warfare and domestic division.

Now, I think that Sullivan is, as usual, being a bit too sweeping in his statement. I don’t think all Republicans support this bigoted agenda. But I do think that what is called the base of the GOP is declaring war on Islam and that’s bad news for all of us.

That said, it is up to those who are conservative and/or libertarian to speak up against such hatred and denounce politicians who play along. It’s the only way to save conservatism and the Republican Party from itself.

Email this post

Spread the Word: