Neda Agha-Soltan and the Price of Liberty

by Michael Kaplan

This past spring (Monday June 14) HBO showed a documentary For Neda that explores the life of Neda Agha-Soltan, the young Iranian woman who was brutally murdered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s thugs last year. Like so many people throughout the world I was horrified and filled with awe at the sight of this brave young woman who paid the ultimate price standing up for liberty. Unlike most of us who, whether out of fear or inertia, talk about liberty but don’t do much about it, Neda did something. She would not let those who’ve enslaved her country bully her. She would not let the theocratic tyrants control her mind or soul. In 1775 Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty, or give me death.” In 2009, in a country halfway around the world from Henry’s Virginia, Neda took up his challenge; she was going to be the mistress of her own destiny, wherever it might lead. And in doing so she became a martyr—a true martyr, a martyr for the liberty of all human beings, not one of those false martyrs who die for the jihad in hopes of finding 72 virgins in the afterlife.

Now, more than a year after Neda’s tragic death I have to ask the question that the makers of “For Neda” asked at the documentary’s end: “. . . did she die in vain?” Thomas Jefferson wrote from Paris in 1787 during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, what he believed to be the price of liberty: “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.” Jefferson said many brilliant things as well as some contradictory and ridiculous things in his long public career. Some of them would outrage polite opinion in the twenty-first century. But the Sage of Monticello was on the mark here. Liberty is a hard won prize. Jacksonians understand that liberty is always easy to lose and once lost is very hard to regain. Which is why the right to bear arms, enshrined in the Second Amendment, is so important to them as the very bedrock of liberty. Declarations and constitutions are just beautiful words without the willingness and ability of the people to stand up for the principles they proclaim. It is almost impossible to win liberty from a tyrannical government that possesses a monopoly of fire power. The people of Iran have paid for that lesson in blood.

So far, a year and a half after Neda’s martyrdom, the prospects for liberty in Iran are not good. The Green Movement, driven underground, is down, though not out. The Islamic regime has, for the moment, survived the crisis. Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei, and the mullahs are using the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia as their iron fist to crush any protesters brave enough or foolhardy enough to raise their heads. The Basij, many of whom are nothing more than street thugs, have been especially brutal, consistently engaging in the rape and torture of arrested protesters. The blog Islamization Watch posted (on February 21) a video and transcript of one Basij member who protested against the abuse of a group of children, all younger than 14, who had been taken into custody, stripped naked, and confined in a container. “What was this path that we’d taken,” he asked, “that it is an Islamic directive that people’s wives and children are being raped?” For his trouble this basiji with a conscience was himself arrested and tortured and driven into exile. This is just one example of the forces those Iranians yearning for liberty have to face.

A Krystal Ball into the Future?

by Michael Kaplan

Virginia’s First Congressional District has been called “America’s First District.” Created in 1788 after Virginia ratified the Constitution, the district was the setting for a number of milestones in America’s early history. In fact the first successful English settlement in North America, Jamestown, the seed which would grow into the United States, was planted in the swampy soil of the district in 1607. In 1781 America won its independence at the decisive Battle of Yorktown, also in the district. This was Virginia’s Tidewater country, in its heyday home to many opulent plantations and an aristocracy whose wealth was derived from the unrequited toil of its slaves. Some of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War were fought on the district’s soil, including the Battle of Fredericksburg in December 1862, one of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s greatest victories. George Washington spent his boyhood years at Ferry Farm just outside Fredericksburg. Washington biographer Ron Chernow writes that “The young George Washington could peer across the river and see a perfect tableau of the British Empire in action. Moored at town wharves, ships bulging with tobacco, grain, and iron gave glimmers of the lucrative transatlantic trade with London that enriched the colony.”

Mary Ball, mother of George Washington.

And now Fredericksburg has given us a freshman political candidate with a most New Age name: Krystal Ball. Yes that really is her name. “My father has a Ph.D. in physics and did his dissertation on crystals. Fortunately or unfortunately, my mother allowed him to name me and so he chose the name Krystal Ball.” The young Ms. Ball—she’s a 28-year-old professional woman, wife, and mother—is running as a Democrat for Congress in the 1st Virginia against Republican incumbent Rob Wittman. If elected she would be the first woman under 30 ever to serve in the United States Congress. Not as momentous a Virginia first as being the first colony and supplying the first president, but important nonetheless. In fact Ms. Ball could well be related, albeit quite distantly, to the Father of the Country—George Washington’s mother’s name was Mary Ball. But I doubt that General Washington, when he took the oath of office as the first president in 1789, could ever have imagined that a candidate for public office would be better known for sexually suggestive imagery than for her positions on public policy. Then again old George could never have imagined any woman ever holding public office, even one who might somehow be related to him.

Krystal Ball

Krystal Ball was catapulted into the national spotlight this month when racy photographs, taken at a Christmas party after she graduated from the University of Virginia in 2003, were posted on a conservative blog. The nine photos show Ball dressed in a “naughty Santa” costume leading her then (and now ex-) husband around on a leash and sucking a red dildo on his nose. Here’s one of the now infamous photos.

Ball told an interviewer with a local news station that posting the photos was part of a coordinated attack to derail her campaign. If so it failed miserably. Ball ’s campaign has seen a marked increase in donations since the scandal went national. Much of the money is coming from women who admire her grit in the face of adversity, a very Jacksonian trait. Before the photos came to light Ms. Ball was largely unknown and her campaign was a long shot. Now she’s attracted national coverage for her campaign, writing an impassioned article in The Huffington Post, and appearing on Fox News with Megyn Kelly and MSNBC with Dylan Ratigan. Ball was outraged as she told Ratigan that the bloggers were trying to paint her as a whore:

KRYSTAL BALL:  For years women have been delegitimized and denigrated by being portrayed as whores, and I can’t believe that I’m on your show saying that word, but I think that’s true.  The new twist is that now that we have Facebook, now that so many of us live so much of our lives online and so much of it is recorded digitally, what does that mean? I think I’m sort of the first person who's had to face this particular thing, but I certainly don’t think I’m the last.  So part of the reason that I believe this story has gotten so much traction is simply because we have to ask ourselves as a society, as people of my generation, both young men and young women [who] come of age and decide to run for office: How are we gonna handle this particular issue?

She even caught the attention of Rush Limbaugh, who devoted segments of his October 12 and 13 shows to her. Alas, Rush was less than chivalrous when discussing Ms. Ball, dismissing her outrage as Facebook generation self-absorption. “No, Krystal, you’re not. Krystal, you’re not the first person to whom this has happened. This is the thing when I always tell you, ‘People think that history began the day they were born,’ this is what I mean. Everybody’s historical perspective begins the day they were born. So poor Krystal Ball here thinks that this is the first time something’s happened like this, happened to her.” And besides, Rush suggested, a little sex-tinged scandal never hurt a Democratic candidate. Rush also noted that Ms. Ball bears a striking resemblance to Demi Moore, which she does (the Demi Moore of 20 years ago, pre-Ashton Kutcher, that is).

Peter Berkowitz on Why Liberals Don’t Get the Tea Party Movement

by Michael Kaplan

Peter Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution has written an excellent piece in The Wall Street Journal taking liberal progressive pundits like E. J. Dionne to task for their less than knowledgeable analyses of the Tea Party movement. The critics of the Tea Party may have degrees from our top universities, but they are surprisingly ignorant of American political history and the founding principles embodied in the Constitution. Higher education is doing a terrible disservice (among many other disservices) to the younger generation of Americans by focusing on social history and trendy ethnic and gender group feel-good studies to the exclusion of political and military history. Not that I have anything against social history—I have done research in it—but I would agree with Berkowitz that social history and its focus on issues of race, class, and gender, is being used by some in the liberal progressive elite to condemn America as racist, exploitative, and patriarchal, rather than to understand the complex process of nation building. We need to study political and military history alongside social and cultural history to achieve a well-rounded and sophisticated understanding of the human condition.

While Paul Krugman labeled the Tea Party “AstroTurf,” a fake rather than a genuine grassroots movement, Dionne dismissed the Tea Party as a fringe of the far right, wallowing in paranoid fantasies that nobody should take seriously. Here, according to Berkowitz, Dionne is following in the footsteps of historian Richard Hofstadter who showed a consistent hostility to populist movements in his writings. Hofstadter popularized the notion of a “paranoid style” on the right that displayed “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.”

Berkowitz concedes that Tea Party has its share of offbeat wingnuts; yes, some of its more prominent candidates have made statements and embraced policies that leave something to be desired. Then again so have liberal progressives. Berkowitz continues:

Born in response to President Obama’s self-declared desire to fundamentally change America, the tea party movement has made its central goals abundantly clear. Activists and the sizeable swath of voters who sympathize with them want to reduce the massively ballooning national debt, cut runaway federal spending, keep taxes in check, reinvigorate the economy, and block the expansion of the state into citizens’ lives.

In other words, the tea party movement is inspired above all by a commitment to limited government. And that does distinguish it from the competition.

But far from reflecting a recurring pathology in our politics or the losing side in the debate over the Constitution, the devotion to limited government lies at the heart of the American experiment in liberal democracy. The Federalists who won ratification of the Constitution—most notably Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay—shared with their Anti-Federalist opponents the view that centralized power presented a formidable and abiding threat to the individual liberty that it was government's primary task to secure. They differed over how to deal with the threat.

The Anti-Federalists—including Patrick Henry, Samuel Bryan and Robert Yates—adopted the traditional view that liberty depended on state power exercised in close proximity to the people. The Federalists replied in Federalist 9 that the “science of politics,” which had “received great improvement,” showed that in an extended and properly structured republic liberty could be achieved and with greater security and stability.

This improved science of politics was based not on abstract theory or complex calculations but on what is referred to in Federalist 51 as “inventions of prudence” grounded in the reading of classic and modern authors, broad experience of self-government in the colonies, and acute observations about the imperfections and finer points of human nature. It taught that constitutionally enumerated powers; a separation, balance, and blending of these powers among branches of the federal government; and a distribution of powers between the federal and state governments would operate to leave substantial authority to the states while both preventing abuses by the federal government and providing it with the energy needed to defend liberty.

Whether members have read much or little of The Federalist, the tea party movement's focus on keeping government within bounds and answerable to the people reflects the devotion to limited government embodied in the Constitution. One reason this is poorly understood among our best educated citizens is that American politics is poorly taught at the universities that credentialed them. Indeed, even as the tea party calls for the return to constitutional basics, our universities neglect The Federalist and its classic exposition of constitutional principles.

Elite liberal progressives, who see themselves as champions of a childlike and easily misled American public who need guidance and protection, can’t get their heads around the idea that a grassroots movement can emerge from the right instead of the left. Krugman, Dionne, and other pundits who dismiss Jacksonian America (70% of the nation) as a tribe of kooks, wackos, and weirdos—boobus americanus—should not be surprised when the Jacksonian Tea Party rejects them and their patronizing condescension. Other liberal progressive pundits and academics simply can’t believe that Tea Partiers can have a proper understanding of history, one that’s different than their own. Lorelei Kelly, director of the New Strategic Security Initiative, a liberal internationalist NGO, writes in The Huffington Post (October 15, 2010) that the Tea Party in its ignorance has appropriated American history and symbolism and transformed them into kitsch. “The Tea Party is taking a joyride through the world of American ideals. Along the way, it has grabbed the best revolutionary symbols, the cinematic frustration of the masses, and an irreproachable sounding plan (Fiscal responsibility! Constitutionally limited government! Free markets! Yay!)” Kelly continues in the same condescending tone, “But it's all emotions and fantasy. Despite the symbolic appeal, Tea Partiers don't really speak to tradition. They speak to nostalgia. These signals resurrected from the past are not representative. They are kitsch.” Tea Partiers certainly don’t have the intellectual heft to understand America’s founding principles, rubes that they are. Again are progressives really surprised, given those attitudes, that Jacksonians turn away from them in disgust?

As Berkowitz makes clear the Tea Party patriots understand American liberty better than their supposed betters. “Our universities have produced two generations of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental American principles, even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses.”

© 2010 Michael Kaplan

Is the Tea Party Populist?: Fareed Zakaria GPS Panel Debates Populism and Conservatism

by Michael Kaplan

Kudos to Peggy Noonan and Richard Brookhiser for some first rate analysis of the Tea Party and populism on Fareed Zakaria GPS (October 10, 2010). The other half of the panel, historians Robert Caro and Charles Postel, fell back on the well-worn liberal progressive caricature of the Tea Party as racist, nativist, and a puppet of corporate interests and the well funded right-wing hate machine. Noonan and Brookhiser did a good job challenging Caro and Postel on this point and engaging them in a debate on whether or not the Tea Party really is a populist movement.

Here is the video. The panel starts at 3:40.

The differences between the conservative and liberal halves of the panel turned on a broad versus a narrow definition of “populism.” As I pointed out in a previous post, Jacksonian populism is neither completely of the right nor the left, and at different times has switched its allegiances between the Democrats and the Republicans. Jacksonians lean left populist on economic issues (they hate collusion between big government and big business), while they lean right populist on social and cultural issues. Noonan and Brookhiser incorporated both right- and left-wing populism in their analysis while Caro and Postel limited their definition of populism to the left-wing version, in particular the Populist movement of the 1890s.

Noonan led off the discussion arguing that the Tea Party movement was both conservative and populist, and that by challenging both Democratic and Republican elites it could appeal to centrists. “The Tea Party has some of the style and—and spirit, if you will, of classic populist movements. It is anti-establishment, it is anti-elite, it is broad, it is spontaneous, it is still evolving. It is not something that is set.” She added that the Tea Party is “very much within American tradition, and I also think it is where the energy is on the political scene right now.” Caro, biographer of Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson, insisted that the Tea Party cannot populist because it rejects the liberal progressive idea of social justice. The Populists of the 1890s, like William Jennings Bryan, Tom Watson, Lyndon Johnson’s grandfather Sam, and many others according to Caro, wanted the government to use its power to make life better for those without power and influence. Lyndon Johnson’s father once told him that “the job of government is to help people cordon the tentacles of circumstance. That’s what populism wanted. Populism was for social justice, where government’s stepping in to help people fighting forces too big for them to fight themselves.” Postel, author of The Populist Vision, agreed with Caro that the quest for social justice is the essence of populism. “The Tea Party is a conservative movement, not a populist movement. It's a conservative movement that doesn't think the government should make a better life for poor people, for—for the common person.”

Tom Friedman’s Tea Kettle and the Mandarin Delusion

by Michael Kaplan


A defective Martha Stewart Everyday Brand Tea Kettle. A metaphor for Tom Friedman?

I’ve long been an admirer of Tom Friedman, the New York Times award-winning foreign affairs columnist. I’ve spent many days happily absorbed in his articles and books, which often inspired my own thinking on world issues. Friedman’s analysis of the realms of politics, culture, economics, and religion was incisive, penetrating beneath the surface of events, bringing historical perspective to current conflicts. Whether discussing Middle Eastern politics, global capitalism, or America’s place in the world, Friedman connected the dots with grace, elegance, and humor. Several years ago, when I taught at Yeshiva University, some students asked me how I could like both Tom Friedman and Rush Limbaugh. I replied that I don’t march in lock step with anyone and I’ll take my wisdom from wherever I can find it.

How disappointing it is to find that Friedman’s analytical and expository power, that allows him to get to the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict or explain globalization, fails him when he turns to his own country. Friedman is frustrated with democracy, at least in its two-party incarnation. The sad truth is that Tom Friedman, like so many other liberal pundits, does not understand Jacksonian America. I really shouldn’t be so surprised. Friedman was never a Jacksonian, but unlike many liberal progressives he is an American nationalist. In his writings Friedman usually tries to strike a balance between American nationalism and liberal internationalism, which is not an easy task. Friedman’s nationalism likewise tends to balance the patriotism of affirmation with the patriotism of dissent. No matter how critical he may be of America’s dysfunctions as he sees them, whenever he returns home from one of his globe trotting adventures, Friedman metaphorically kisses the ground and says “God bless America!”

A pensive Tom Friedman. Trapped in the mandarin delusion?

But getting to the point. As I said Friedman is frustrated with American democracy in its current two-party duopoly. Since at least 2005 Freidman’s writings have been dominated by three themes: the urgent need to develop green technologies and a green economy even if it has to be forced on a recalcitrant American public by governing elites who know better; the hijacking of American politics by the ideological far right and far left and the disintegration of the political center; China as the model of an enlightened autocracy where wise mandarin elites can impose reform on society unhampered by the dysfunctions of democracy (the mandarin delusion). Friedman really wants a third party, a party of “the radical center,” that can bring together the majority of Americans who are center right or center left (New York Times, October 3, 2010). Such a coalition, Friedman believes, can bring needed reforms to address America’s urgent social and economic problems and restore democracy to health. A new centrist party would, in Friedman’s view, see the wisdom in the policies that the liberal progressive elite want to impose on the nation, some of which have already been implemented by the Obama administration. I believe Friedman is mistaken in this. The center right is just as opposed to the progressive green agenda as the far right is, as indicated by the level of popular support for the Tea Party. And America is a center right (not a center left) nation. As Democratic pollster Pat Caddell told Monica Crowley on her WABC radio show (October 9, 2010), the Tea Party is “the tip of the spear” of a much larger Jacksonian populist revolt against the liberal progressive agenda.

The Tea Party is the Spirit of Jacksonian America

by Michael Kaplan


Daniel Shays (l) and Job Shattuck (r) leaders of Shays's Rebellion

The bloggers at the conservative What Would the Founders Think? posted “We’re ALL Tea Partiers Now” in response to the uproar over the Tea Party victories in the Republican primaries, especially Christine O’Donnell’s victory in Delaware. The Tea Party, they insist, is not a political organization. It is a grassroots awakening of average Americans at kitchen tables and workplaces across the country who are now engaging with politics. The Tea Party is the American people asserting their sovereignty over government.

This is very much a Jacksonian populist movement. Most Americans today, conservative and liberal alike, are mistaken about the commitment of the Founders to popular democracy. The Founders believed in liberty, which they feared could be destroyed by a tyranny of the majority, which is how they looked at democracy. In 1948, Richard Hofstadter observed that “Modern American folklore assumes that democracy and liberty are all but identical, and when democratic writers take the trouble to make the distinction, they usually assume that democracy is necessary to liberty. But the Founding Fathers thought that the liberty with which they were most concerned was menaced by democracy. In their minds liberty was linked not to democracy but to property.” (The American Political Tradition, p. 10). Fareed Zakaria, writing in Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 1997, p. 30), commented on the Founders’ concerns: “Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy about its accumulation and use. For this reason, many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals saw in democracy a force that could undermine liberty. James Madison explained in The Federalist that ‘the danger of oppression’ in a democracy came from ‘the majority of the community.’” Michael Mandelbaum writes in Democracy’s Good Name (pp. 17, 21), that the Founders, looking back to ancient Athens and Rome, were convinced “that the average person lacked the education, the judgment, the temperament, and the commitment to the public good to play a constructive role in public life.” The ignorance and lack of sophistication of the common people made them susceptible to the appeals of demagogues. Such demagogues would cultivate the politics of class envy, so that if a popular majority did gain control of the machinery of government, they would promptly proceed to redistribute property and wealth. This is why the Founders established a representative republic instead of a democracy. Of the major Founders, only Thomas Jefferson took issue with their suspicion of active participation by citizens in politics—and of democracy. The idea that ordinary citizens should be empowered to “take back our government” owes more to Andrew Jackson and the democratic movement of the 1820s that it does to the Founders.

There is one paragraph in the WWTFT post which I find to be an eloquent statement of the ideals of Jacksonian democracy and nationalism:

The Tea Party is us. Don’t let the establishment politicians and media brand us. Don’t let them “identify” us as anything but Americans who believe that we are best governed by ourselves, not a power elite. They are threatened by our belief in liberty. Tyrants always are. Remember that, and vote for people of quality and character regardless of how they are made to look on television. They may not be lawyers or glib performance artists. They may be rough-hewn and not articulate. But vote for those you can trust to go to Washington and do what is right for liberty. Don’t be seduced by the media smoothies. We know all about talkers who promise change but deliver poverty and stagnation; who lie and steal from the public treasuries and our wallets and our children’s futures. We are about reclaiming liberty. That is the battle here. It’s not between Republican and Democrat, or black or white, or Christian or atheist. It’s about the liberty to “be,” to shape our own futures. The branding being done by the Establishment is a distraction, an attempt to dilute and divide us. Don’t let it happen.  Stand for liberty.

Old Hickory could not have said it better himself. Jackson was determined to prevent self-interested elites from using government to promote their own special interests to the detriment of average, hard-working Americans.

Fareed Zakaria GPS Panel Is Clueless About Jacksonians

by Michael Kaplan

On his CNN show this week (September 19, 2010), Fareed Zakaria moderated a panel which discussed, among other things, the recent political success of Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries. Also up for discussion was the controversy surrounding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposed Ground Zero mosque. It didn’t take long for Fareed and the panel members—Kathleen Parker, Bernard-Henri Levy, Chrystia Freeland, and Dan Senor—to start complaining that Jacksonian populist conservatives are screwing up America.

I like Fareed Zakaria and I usually like his guests, the members of this panel included; I have enjoyed watching them on talk shows and have read some of their writings. I don’t always agree with them, but then again I’ve never been in lock step with anybody, left, right, or center. Here at The New Jacksonian Blog, we believe in free and open discussion and are always willing to entertain opposing points of view. What came through loud and clear was the panel’s liberal internationalist elite disdain for Jacksonian America. I hate having to keep saying it, I wish it were not true, but there it is.

Kathleen Parker, an establishment Republican journalist, started off saying that the Tea Party would be a disaster for the Republicans. Like most establishment Republicans, Parker was “appalled” at Christine O’Donnell’s victory in Delaware. Only Dan Senor had anything good to say about the Tea Party. But Senor misread the Tea Party when he pointed out their focus on conservative economic issues and silence on conservative cultural issues. “I think what's interesting about the Tea Party movement is in the 1980s and the 1990s, the fringe right of the Republican Party, those fights were fought and they were culture wars. Right? They were fought over abortion, they were fought over prayer in school and flag burning.” Senor continued, “What's motivating the Tea Party movement are not those issues. This is about spending. It's about bailouts. It's about the growth of government.” Yes, the focus is on fiscal issues, but the Tea Party is committed to conservative cultural positions on abortion, gay marriage, traditional values, and patriotism. Anyone who’s listened to Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell would know that. Lee Harris has written on this in The Weekly Standard. They are not the priority in this election cycle given the state of the economy—yes, as Freeland observed “this is an ‘it’s the economy stupid’ election.”

Parker, Freeland, and Levy agreed that economic uncertainty, the middle class fear of falling, is driving a tide of xenophobic nationalism that is behind such issues as immigration restriction and the mosque controversy. Levy lamented that America is abandoning its traditional pragmatism for extreme ideology. Parker raised the race issue: opposition to illegal immigration shows that Jacksonians are still wedded to white supremacy.

PARKER: I think we can’t -- it would be remiss to skip the race factor, because what you're talking about when you talk about immigration now, especially these more highly-skilled workers, are people from other countries with darker skin, and we are seeing -- the Tea Party is primarily male, primarily white, primarily over age 45. And there is the sense that despite our wonderful history of immigration and immigrants, that this country is going elsewhere.

And we know the statistics down the road. What is it? By what year whites will be the minority? I mean, there's a very strong, emotional sense that the country is becoming something else that is exclusive to them.

Jacksonian opposition to the mosque, the panel minus Senor agreed, was driven purely by Islamophobia. “Well, it’s classic. I mean, the mosque, in particular, is classic displacement, right? It’s looking for the other, looking for the enemy.” (Freeland) The three panelists contemptuously dismissed the idea that Ground Zero is sacred ground. When Senor, who opposes the mosque, spoke up for the majority of New Yorkers and Americans who also oppose the mosque, observing that the wounds of 9/11 were still raw, the other panelists jumped all over him. Parker complained that many Americans’ distrust of Rauf’s motives, fear of Sharia law, and concern that the mosque would be seen as a monument to Islamic triumphalism, was nothing more than xenophobia.

Unfortunately the GPS panel failed to provide a penetrating analysis that goes to the heart of why Jacksonians oppose the Ground Zero mosque. Ross Douthat in the New York Times and Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal, do understand the real cause of Jacksonian angst. Where liberal progressives see America in constitutional terms as a set of political propositions, Jacksonians see America in cultural terms as a distinct and unique national community. For liberal progressives building the mosque is a matter of upholding the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. For Jacksonians the mosque project is “an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness.” Jacksonians question whether Islam, with its heritage of Sharia law, is compatible with America’s culture of liberty and rugged individualism—just as it had similar concerns about Roman Catholicism in the nineteenth century. Liberal progressives, with this history in mind, argue that religious tolerance cannot be made conditional upon cultural assimilation. But Jacksonian America does expect Muslim Americans to make a greater effort to assimilate Islam to American democratic social and cultural norms if they want to be accepted as full members of the folk community. This includes showing respect toward Jacksonian sentiments on what they consider sacred ground.

So to sum it up, Fareed, Parker, Freeland, and Levy were basically saying that Jacksonian Americans (the 70 % who oppose the mosque) are just a bunch of racists, jingoists, xenophobes, and Islamophobes. This is just a recycling of the standard elite liberal progressive talking points. As much as I like Fareed Zakaria, he and his guests simply don’t get Jacksonian America—any more than President Obama does for that matter. Instead of trying to understand what motivates the 70% or so of Americans who are Jacksonians: their passion for liberty and honor; their love of God, family, and country; their commitment to keeping America exceptional; they just dismiss them as . . . you guessed it, boobus americanus. If Fareed Zakaria hopes to influence Jacksonian public opinion, he’s going to have to do better than this.

I've posted the video below. The panel discussion starts at around 4:30 minutes and ends at around 20:15.

© 2010 Michael Kaplan