“Perhaps the most important source of the new (and not so new) American radicalism is what used to be viewed as a source of conservative values: namely, religion. Many commentators have noted that perhaps the biggest difference between the United States and most European countries (old as well as new in the current American distinction) is that in the United States religion still plays a central role in society and public language. But this is religion American style: namely, more the idea of religion than religion itself.
True, when, during George Bush’s run for president in 2000, a journalist was inspired to ask the candidate to name his “favourite philosopher”, the well-received answer – one that would make a candidate for high office from any centrist party in any European country a laughing stock – was “Jesus Christ”. But, of course, Bush didn’t mean, and was not understood to mean, that, if elected, his administration would feel bound to any of the precepts or social programmes actually expounded by Jesus.” – Susan Sontag, in the Guardian. This is a classic. Notice the assumption of the idiocy of America not to laugh out loud at a politician’s invocation of Jesus. Notice also the idea that Jesus actually expounded on various “social programmes.” So instead of the Sermon on the Mount, we have the Sermon on Medicare. Or Social Security. Or the Clean Air Act. How ignorant can Sontag be of Christianity to make such crude and stupid claims?
KRUGMAN AND ANTI-SEMITISM: Almost self-parody this morning. The point about Mahathir’s critique of Islamic backwardness is a decent one – and one I made yesterday. But the notion that he is forced into anti-Semitism by Bush is astonishing. Here’s the money quote:
Not long ago Washington was talking about Malaysia as an important partner in the war on terror. Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.
Is everything Bush’s fault? Even the hate that the president this morning actively condemned? The deeper theme here is a refusal to see that the enemies of George W. Bush – just because they are his enemies – are not therefore good. For Krugman to find a way to excuse virulent anti-Semitism for domestic political points shows how low the opposition has now gotten. (For a terrific analysis of Krugman’s Bush-hatred, check this column out from a Naderite.)
The Dish 