Centerfield

I am having trouble seeing a problem with much of what Fukuyama is saying. He does seem to be on a course with Huntington on the "Clash of Civilizations." Now, to say he is blaming it on those damn "libruls" you say it as if it is the US political definition of liberal and conservatives, which it is not. It is the style of liberal democracy, which has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with structure and freedoms.

If Fukuyama did not think there were Islamic radicals in the past, he would not use the modifier of "contemporary radical Islamisim." What he is saying is that the push of liberal democratic freedoms combined with the inability of many countries in Europe to assimilate young Muslims into their culture opens up the opportunity for the radicals to seize on the lack of a feeling that they belong and offers them a group where they feel welcome.

As far as your theory, it is too localized. Your theory does nothing to explain the growth of Al-Qaeda nor does it address the Islamic Revolution that occurred in Iran was a reaction to Western policies. Plus, it was essentially Iran's Islamic Revolution that started Hezbollah.

As far as Saudi Arabia goes, Don't forget that Al-Qaeda really did not exist until after Gulf War I and the US had established bases there.

Even in the US, look at the problems with Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota who are trying to push group ideals over US cultural norms.

He is arguing group action of Islam versus the individuality of liberal democracy. I don't see him as blaming western democracy as much as he is saying that radical Islam preys upon the cleavages between the openness of some western democracies and a large group of young Muslims who are seeking a place to belong. Problems in France with the riots of young Muslims is symbolic of this cleavage that is far more evident in Europe than it is in the United States. That is a danger sign for Europe.

Here is one critique:

Dhimmi Watch on Fukuyama

The dilemma of immigration and identity ultimately converges with the larger problem of the valuelessness of postmodernity. The rise of relativism has made it harder for postmodern people to assert positive values and therefore the kinds of shared beliefs that they demand of migrants as a condition for citizenship. Postmodern elites, particularly those in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place. But aside from their celebration of endless diversity and tolerance, postmodern people find it difficult to agree on the substance of the good life to which they aspire in common.

What Jim M. said, though I can't resist pointing out that AQ as an organization actually originated in the Afghan resistance of the 1980's and the Maktab al-Khidamat movement there, well before Gulf War 1.

Not that the "blame the liberals" meme is completely missing in Fukuyama's analysis. He directly blames the strain of multiculturalism that champions differing legal standards for different groups as an enabler of terrorism and a driver in the identity politics of terrorism and the modern culture clash of the West and Islam, particularly in European immigrant populations.

This type of argument shows up in rape discussions as well, and is often labelled as either "excuse the criminal" and/or "blame the victim," but there's a fine distinction betweeen precautionary prevention advice, explanations of contributing motivational factors without any moral assignation of blame, and outright justifications of bad behavior. ("She was asking for it!")

That we sometimes dress provocatively and wink too often at parties and then walk home on dark deserted paths still isn't justification to drag us off into dark alleys against our will. But that doesn't mean that dressing more sedately and not flirting or walking home in the dark might not reduce assaults. Am I making allegorical sense here?

So, is Fukuyama saying it's our fault for dressing provocatively, or is he saying that we could avoid future trouble by changing our behavior, without assigning previous behaviors as a justification for the the terrorists? Your own mileage, I fear. It could be cast either way. But the core of the argument certainly sounds real familiar when looked at in light of other "identity politics" arguments of the last few decades.

I think Jon makes a good point: there is a strain of self-important Western thought, common to both left and right, that believes that all the evils of the world stem from actions taken in America and Europe. (Whether any or all of the good in the world stems from such actions seems to depend more on political views of the holder.)

I suspect that a lot of this can be attributed to simple intellectual laziness: if everything is due to the West, then you don't have to put in the time and effort to actually understand other countries and cultures. Because if you did, you'd notice that the actions of people elsewhere is driven largely by their experiences at home. Not least because so many people never leave the land of their birth. At most, better communications technology has brought the availability of knowledge of how things are done elsewhere (and not only in the West). Which can bring a recognition of alternatives.

"If postmodern societies are to move towards a more serious discussion of identity, they will need to uncover those positive virtues that define what it means to be a member of the wider society. If they do not, they may be overwhelmed by people who are more sure about who they are."

Well, I find it strange that pro-science West ignores what it knows of group-cooperation from an evolutionary model. Without identifying with the greater "group" you run into some problems about the future of cooperation. While those on the Right focus on the missing altruistic punishment Western society must levy on offenders, it is true that the open contempt of many Western Leftists and the failure of society to assimilate immigrants (not so much here) offers new opportunities for MODERN fascists wearing Islamic clothing to exploit weaknesses in our hegemony. In addition, Islam is not the only ones doing this. I find it refreshing that Liberal Democracy has been accused of helping the modern manifestation of Islamic radicalism after years of being told by Leftists that Republican Realists created the present mess with proxy forces or despots in Afghanistan and even Iraq. I would suggest Palestine plays a modern role in the new radicalism (really? How new?), but then again the UN authorized the Jewish State "identifying" more with expanding the "constitutional democracy" group’s hegemony in the face of totalitarianism rather than rejecting any “group” contradictions of a "religious" nation. I think Fukuyama has a point, but I don't see what he s suggesting.

"The rise of relativism has made it harder for postmodern people to assert positive values and therefore the kinds of shared beliefs that they demand of migrants as a condition for citizenship."

Leftists do have an imaginary group: a perfect all-encompassing socialist utopia (which is a large part of the Western in-fighting). As I said, the West does have shared beliefs and positive values although we are certainly going through a new dynamic between LIBERAL(classical idea) and DEMOCRACY(modern idea here).

The rise of Islamic radicalism has a long history. Who can ignore the huge contest between the sectarian schools of Islam now being waged from Africa to the Far East? Perhaps the Islamist decades ago saw the inevitable Western victory of Individual Rights and secularism and are moving now to disrupt that eventuality with help from China and Russia who also don't like where Western history is leading the world “group”..

I think, however, putting too much emphasis in Fukayama misses the mark (perhaps less than the "end of history"). Perhaps Fukuyama still doesn't get the concept of the historically new. It is true that the Left advocates a certain extreme "relativism" which it extends to political views. The present "new" political polarity in the West (which drive the Left to denounce Western Hegemony) explains the general lack of outrage over many declarations and actions coming from Caracas and Tehran. This also can be seen as a reason for our failure to recognize and support the need for altruistic punishment if we are to cooperate on a global scale and actually prevent the proliferation of terrorism, wmd and space weapons, let alone change the climate back and end poverty and disease..

Human Rights, National Security, Environmentalism are not relativistic concepts as far as our “Western” shared sense of identity. Carbon emissions either go up or down. Up is bad, down is good. Darfur is genocide. Genocide is bad. Darfur is bad. I would suggest that the Far Left (not so much Liberal Democracy) does indeed sometimes give our Islamic adversaries comfort and cover, but I doubt that the West does not know what it identifies with. Capitalistic domination and cultural arrogance also encourages Islamic resistance. I see this more about not being true to our principles rather than a confusion over what those ideals are. Perhaps the Islamic extremist can help us in our moment of indecision to re-define what we really stand for. I think the Democrats are undergoing this test.. Free Speech, Individual Rights, a more secular approach to government, the theory of evolution are all prevalent givens in Western society....In this light, I think the opposite of Fukuyama: It has been Western extremism in the form of intolerance, exclusion, jingoism, economic domination AND Leftist opposition to many of the "shared" values of Liberal Democracy coupled with Islamic fundamentalism that have made the distinctions between Islam and the West blurred. I would have to agree with Jim on this one.

Our apathy and distain for sacrifice may be much more a factor in Iran's strategy than their knowledge of who they are. Weak comes up more often than not in their descriptions, not confused.

That is leftists right? because that's a pretty small group...not to be confused with liberals, which is a pretty large group. Sorta like not confusing conservatives with the Klan....

Hey man... sexism, racism, poverty, war, global warming, AIDs, blame it all on the imperialistic military-industrial capitalism complex of the West! Love live Marx! (sarcasm)

Than would be 'long,' not love.

Jim_M:
... nor does it address the Islamic Revolution that occurred in Iran was
a reaction to Western policies.

Now, that's true. But neither did that or our support for the Afghan mujahedeen during the Cold War create Islamofascism; there were too many groups elsewhere and too much earlier for that to be a viable claim. And what agencies were reponsible for the failure of the Afghan state? Geographical neighbors - the USSR and Pakistan.

Your theory does nothing to explain the growth of Al-Qaeda . . . Don't forget that Al-Qaeda really did not exist until after Gulf War I and the US had established bases there.

Yeah, I know troops are their excuse. But, according to the CFR, they were founded in 1988. Does that sound familiar? It should - during the fall of the Soviet Union, when the Afghan War was starting to look like a W, with the comcomitant breakup of the coalition behind it - bin Laden was in danger of getting bored, and some of the Middle Eastern Afghan War supporters knew they'd have to find a new machine to keep the spirited/radicalized interested.

And at least one of those former Afghan War supporters, Saudi Arabia, was al'Qaeda's biggest source of support for a long time until we rapped their knuckles.

If al'Qaeda was really about unhappiness with US troops, a thing supported by the highly autocratic Saudis, why were the Saudis such big al'Qaeda supporters until we came and cracked knuckes? My / the Bush Admin's version explains ALL that.

If Fukuyama did not think there were Islamic radicals in the past,
he would not use the modifier of "contemporary radical Islamisim."

Then how does he see major causation from CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRATIC politics in Islamic radicalism? Particularly since most Islamofascists don't live in Europe?

It was Maktab al-Khidamat before it was AQ. AQ is a "co-op" of many organizations. Azzam and OBL differed about what MAK should do after the Soviets left. OBL wanted it to stay together for the purpose of fighting global jihad. Azzam thought it should use itsr esources to estabish a "pure" Islamic government in Afghanistan. Azzam got blowed up (probably by OBL) leaving OBL in charge and settling the argument. Afghanistan got the Taliban anyway, OBL got the organization.

If ya wanna be really picky, AQ is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928. As with many other offshoots, AQ/OBL disagree with the MB's officially non-violent approach at achieving the Caliphate.

some more comments. And yes, Tully is right. One can even explore the relationship between the NAzis and radical Islam. There are a number of google hits.

And Fukuyama....

More specifically,

"Modern liberalism arose in good measure in reaction to the wars of religion that raged in Europe following the Reformation. Liberalism established the principle of religious toleration—the idea that religious goals could not be pursued in the public sphere in a way that restricted the religious freedom of other sects or churches. (As we will see below, the actual separation of church and state was never fully achieved in many modern European democracies.) But while modern liberalism clearly established the principle that state power should not be used to impose religious belief on individuals, it left unanswered the question of whether individual freedom could conflict with the rights of people to uphold a particular religious tradition."

Fukuyama begins with spin and ends with spin. If one really takes the article line by line, a slalom course reaches its own end.

Religious toleration was ONE of SEVERAL reasons that spurred Liberalism. Tolerance is ONE aspect of Liberalism. And this Liberal toleration included the strained tolerance of moderate people for fundamentalism and sectarianism in general. The absence of ANY religious qualification to hold office in the Constitution speaks volumes of what our Founders felt about the reasonable place of particular religions in governing law or State. The legal and Constitutional processes that evolved from the first European experiments did far more than establish a baseline for toleration (despite witch burning to slavery). Freedom and Liberty have been a prime staple in our Western diet from the mid 1700s caaling an emerging Middle Class to identify with many symbols, aspirations and principles. I just don’t know how a modern dialectic of identity addresses the crisis at hand, gives broad account of Liberal Democracic history, although Europe is certainly at a demographic crossroad now with various issues of identity. As far as America, just look at the polls after illegals paraded with foreign flags.

It is true Individual Rights leads us to increased advocacy for more rights (or a fairer application of principle) from religious groups to homosexuals, but the emphasis Fukuyama places on individuality is half the culprit. Doesn't the Democracy part of Liberal Democracy matter? It points to a growing, complex group (who vote) governed by a process whereby "freedom" is secured through both Individual liberty AND an acceptance by the public of the secular nature of governance and law. And the immigrant or newly born are asked to pledge allegiance to the greater group of INDIVIDUALS comprising the United States of America (or name your Liberal Democratic country).

Another element of Liberal Democracy was the emerging dialectic of science it includes which even in 1776 raised doubts in our Founding Fathers of ALL fundamentalism. I doubt Benjamin Franklin thought prayer was going to correct his eyesight. Added to a defense of reason was the observation by our founders of unbridled power of wealthy elites thwarting nationalistic goals (the health of the "greater group"). Regulated commerce, third-party verification and open markets, common currencies and universal standards became the organizational pattern of the growing Liberal Democratic group. The defense and evolution of this group goes a long way in defining who Americans are.

Fukuyama ignores that the Constitution DOES answer the question of Individual Freedom conflicting with "traditional" religious practices. You cannot stone adulterers to death. You can wear a cross or a Star of David. You can worship in whatever church you want. Your donations cannot support terrorists. I see some Straw man argument here. Traditional religious customs can hardly include harboring terrorists or anyone "calling for the violent overthrow of the US government or violence against individuals or groups".

“If contemporary radical Islamism is understood as a product of identity politics and hence a modern phenomenon….”

Again I simply don’t buy what Fukuyama is selling. How about understanding radical Islamism as a reaction to Islamic leaders oppressing the will of their subjects, or as a consequence of religious fundamentalist leaders seeking to control their followers and protect themselves from other demagogues seeking to eliminate them. Didn't Ghengis Khan have some encounter with radical Islam? Fukuyama shapes his course and skis down his own track. One could as easily construct a reverse argument and posit present Islamic radicalism the result of a lack of identity caused by the dominating Individuality and prosperity of Liberal Democracy. Maybe the truth is at the center of a number of historical dialects in motion and spinning a complex web.

Then how does he see major causation from CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRATIC politics in Islamic radicalism? Particularly since most Islamofascists don't live in Europe?

Maybe this is the whole problem. What I see him writing about is the ultimate effect of Islamic immigration into European society. He is not talking about the Islamists in the Middle East. It is mainly about the ability of immigrants to become part of society. He is pointing out that Europe could end up with a far more serious problem of Islamic radicals because of the way the systems in Europe make it much more difficult for immigrants to succeed.

He is not applying his argument to other areas of the world.

But the problem in Europe at the moment is not just the (lack of) integration of Islamic minorities. It is the resistance to integration of ANY group from outside the country. See, for example, the hysteria a couple fo years ago. about a possible influx of "Polish plumbers" when the Eastern European countries were given free movement of labor within the EU. And those were Catholics, rather than Muslims. There are signs of change (a person of Hungarian ancestry is actually a serious candidate to be the next leader of France!). But there is a long tradition to overcome.

In the US, in contrast, integration is the tradition. It doesn't come easily -- see the 19th century screeds against the Irish immigrants, for example. But it is the expectation. In another generation, parades with Mexican flags will get the same level of negative reaction that St. Patrick's Day parades with Irish flags get today: not much. And the idea of a Muslim politician will get the same reaction that a governor of California of Armenian ancestry got a few years back: again, a non-issue.

In short, integration into American society is the expectation; it just takes a while for people to get used to the idea for each specific new source of immigrants.

"The radical Islamist ideology that has motivated terror attacks over the past decade must be seen in large measure as a manifestation of modern identity politics rather than of traditional Muslim culture." -Fukuyama

Fukuyama does not make sufficient differentiation between the Middle East which launched terror as part of a Islamic expansion and consolidation of extremist Ideology aimed at Liberal Democracy AND Muslim reformationists (including despots etc.).

" It is the resistance to integration of ANY group from outside the country." And resistance by Muslim groups in Europe to identify with the principles governing Europe. Just look at the cartoon crisis, or the car burnings. The Constitution doesn't accept a State within State except to a degree for the Indians who we took our land from. Freedom and Liberties are not without limit. I will say that Fukuyama does point to the historical expansion of Individual Rights in Liberal society to the point that citizens even question the government's right to enforce a DRAFT to save the State. This confusion may weaken us in light of radical Islam, but certain is not a cause.

Fukuyama doesn't do a very good job distinguishing between North America and Europe. England now discovers many of its Muslim immigrants embrace sedition as though it was protected speech. Lone Wolf actions are the main threat at the moment, and poverty (not the case with M.E. bombers) seems to play a role.

"He is pointing out that Europe could end up with a far more serious problem of Islamic radicals because of the way the systems in Europe make it much more difficult for immigrants to succeed."

Well, once terrorism surfaces the xenophobia will flare. Immigrants entered a secular society and attacking the "system" in many cases is hardly the answer. The real question is to what extent present welfare systems in Europe can afford to accommodate the influx of applications and whether the privacy guards that Europe is used to, will become necessarily encroached by the national security issues of the "immigrant problem". In the US, capitalism has a way to incorporate immigrants. Perhaps, the answer Fukuyama seeks is in the difference between the European and American experiments.

And of course, Islamic radicalism on a global scale is simply not the consequence of an identity crisis of Muslim immigrants in Europe.

On another note, the US just successfully tested a missile intercept. I think this escalation of twenty years is focused on the Islamic (and North Korean) radicalism. One should note that many US immigrants are participants in the development of such defense technology.

Muslim youth in Europe

Another point for Fukuyama

A search for identity?

On a related point, Europe is balking at imposing strong financial sanctions on Iran. Add that to their weak actions in Afghanistan and zero action in Africa. At the very moment US forces are showing a stick to the Mullahs, the Iranian people have publicly rejected their President's path and evidence mounts for both an Iranian nuclear program and complicity in attacks against US forces in Iraq, the Europeans seem to be rejecting the only remaining peaceful means to avert military confrontation.

I doubt one can make a very good case this is a question of a European identity crisis. Nowhere can I see it is written in European Constitutions, that ANYTHING trumps security, which forms the basis of liberty and other Western principles of Individual Rights. Am I missing something? Slipping into extortion, xenophobia and closed markets are NOT the hallmark of Liberal Democracy. I might make the claim that Europe's problem is that they are moving beyond the mainstream notion of Liberal Democracy to ideals that do fracture Western identity, estrange immigrants and lead Europe into dangerous waters. Shall we call it exclusionary socialism with little emphasis on national security and the defense of human rights abroad?