Book Review, Who Really Cares, America's Charity Divide, Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks, 183pp plus appendix and notes. Basic Books, 2006
Arthur C. Brooks, professor of public administration at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, has written what I regard as a very important book. This book reports his researches into charitable giving, especially in the U.S. He admits that he was surprised at the results.
Brooks' studies used voluntary giving as the primary measurement but also looked at things like blood donations, volunteering time, returning the extra when a cashier gives too much change, and even being willing to give directions to a stranger. With monetary and time donations he looked at both the fraction of each group donating and how much each group donated per person. Results were quite consistent, a group that donated more money was also more likely to donate time and blood, return too much change, etc.
Contrary to popular perceptions, “conservatives” are more generous than “liberals.” However the real key is not political belief but religion. After controlling for religion he found that conservatives were only slightly more generous than liberals. However religious people, and even those who are not now religious but were raised in religious homes, are much more generous than the non-religious. Nor does this apply only to donations to churches. The religious contribute significantly more to secular causes as well. While political conservatives are significantly more charitable than are liberals, that is mostly due to the fact that conservatives are more likely to be religious.
While religion is the biggest key to giving, there are other factors as well. Surprisingly the class that gives the highest percentage of their income to charity is the working poor. Percentage-wise they donate more than the middle class and even than the wealthy. The poor who receive welfare, on the other hand, are the least charitable.
Marriage and family also make a big difference. Married people, especially those with children, are more likely to be charitable than the unmarried or childless. Brooks speculates that the reason is that having children is itself a charitable act (except for those on welfare who get money for each child).
Charity is negatively correlated with welfare and with the belief that government should re-distribute income or care for people's needs. As the availability of government welfare increases, voluntary giving declines. Even in the absence of increased welfare, people who believe government should provide such welfare or re-distribute income are much less likely to voluntarily donate money or time, to give directions to a stranger, or return too much change. There seems to be a sense among those people that “it's not my job to do what government should do.” On the other hand, those who oppose easy welfare and income re-distribution tend to be generous, voluntarily donating to causes they support.
Throughout the book are comparisons between the U.S. and other countries. Other countries have more welfare and believe that is the way to go. Hence their people leave it to the government and do not voluntarily donate very much. The U.S. is, by a wide margin, the home of the charitable. Our citizens lead the world in voluntary giving. Others, particularly the Europeans often accuse us of selfishness because our government does not give as much to disaster recovery as their governments do. However when we add in voluntary donations we are actually more generous than they. That does not faze the Europeans who want to count only government largesse.
The author also spends considerable ink on why charity matters. He points out that the charitable tend to be healthier, happier, and more likely to improve their own lot in life. In fact one chapter is entitled, “Charity Makes You Healthy, Happy, and Rich.” He attributes this to the fact that the charitable are likely to have more social connections and to feel better about themselves. Personally I believe there is also another factor: the charitable are taking action, being proactive. That is the sort of thing that leads to success in the workplace, and to better mental and physical health.
Not only does charity have individual benefits, but countries with more voluntary giving tend to have the advantage over those with less charity. This is partly the result of individuals being healthier, happier, and richer. It is also the result of the good works done by the charitable. However the biggest factor may be that the charitable tend to be involved not only in charity but in the community and politics.
The author includes suggestions for how to teach children to be charitable and to increase voluntary giving generally. Then the appendix covers the author's sources, how he did his calculations etc. Here he gets into some of the gory detail that would make the book less readable if included in the body.
Charity benefits the recipient, the giver and the country. As a result, I think this is a book that can make a big difference in our country if only people will read and apply it. Any book that points the way to more civic involvement, better health and happiness, and the other benefits Brooks here describes, deserves our attention.
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Monday, November 8, 2010
Statism
As discussed previously, most of today’s so-called liberals are really statists. Maybe we should discuss statism, the idea of strong government control. What are its advantages and disadvantages?
The statists point out that true liberalism allows inequalities. Those who have more ability and work harder will have more, as will their descendants (until they become wasteful or lazy and lose it). In fact some will have more simply due to luck. They also point out that in a liberal society the poor often lack good medical care and similar benefits. While those accusations are true, we must be careful about the proposed solution. It is easy to find problems and nearly as easy to propose solutions. The difficulty comes in making those proposed solutions effective without causing more serious problems.
Indeed one of history's most colossal failures was the result of well-intentioned solutions to the problems mentioned above. Communism, the ultimate form of statism, was supposed to fix inequality, poverty, lack of medical care and the other problems allowed in a liberal society. The results were the exact opposite of the intentions. Poverty was rampant, the government class was "more equal than others," medical care was abysmal for most of the people. Why? Why was statism such a failure?
The problems with statism start with the assumptions one must accept in order to believe in it. Implicit in statism is a belief that government is somehow wiser and more moral than the average citizen. Unless it possesses that wisdom and integrity there is no reason to trust government instead of average citizens.
Communism demonstrated that, contrary to statist assumptions, government has no special wisdom, nor is it less subject to temptation to abuse of power than is the average person. Good intentions may be comforting but they make a poor supper.
The communist state attempted to be all things to all people. It gave quotas to farms and factories, telling them what to produce and how much of it. It even assigned people jobs.
The result was one of the most spectacular failures in human history. The five year plans failed. The factories and farms did not their quotas and what they did produce was often shoddy. The people were held captive in an unworkable system. Communism produced shortages of nearly everything except misery.
We must now ask, where would government get the wisdom and integrity statists think it has? It must come from one of two sources:
1. Divine wisdom. Monarchists claimed that the king was God's anointed. If one accepts that, he could also accept that the king has some special, God-given wisdom. However most statists in the U.S. today seem to deny that God should have any voice in government. With few exceptions, U.S. citizens will reject the divine right of kings, and with it any divine wisdom or integrity for government officials.
2. The second possible source of special governmental wisdom is the wisdom of the majority. If we believe that the majority is always right or at least right more often than the average person, then we can believe that leaders elected by the majority are wiser than that average person. However, the beliefs of the majority will inevitably be the beliefs of the average person. Majority rule is, after all, essentially an averaging process.
Integrity is even worse. Majority integrity suffers from a mob effect. People will do as a group things they would not think of doing as individuals. People who agree theft is wrong may think it is somehow just fine to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.
(cf http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/2009/07/mob-rule-part-1.html)
One of the more pernicious aspects of statism is its tendency to turn social theory and personal preference into law. Be it the old official state church or modern political correctness, this tendency leads to silliness at best and institutionalized idiocy at worst. For example, the mayor of Portland, Oregon once proposed outlawing "snout houses," houses on which the garage projects out in front. What business did she have forcing her architectural preferences on everybody else? If people want to avoid those houses they can buy a different style. They can even live in neighborhoods where voluntary covenants prohibit them. However it is a serious infringement on liberal freedom for government to decide what kind of house everybody should live in.
Clearly there are problems with classic liberalism and freedom. However those problems are not nearly as serious as those we cause when we allow a statist government to rule our lives, whether we call that government "progressive," "positive," "modern" or anything else. Freedom leads to more production and more goods for everyone. Statism leads to less for everyone except the ruling class.
The goal should not be elimination of inequality but enhancing life for everyone, even if the rich still have more than the poor
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
The statists point out that true liberalism allows inequalities. Those who have more ability and work harder will have more, as will their descendants (until they become wasteful or lazy and lose it). In fact some will have more simply due to luck. They also point out that in a liberal society the poor often lack good medical care and similar benefits. While those accusations are true, we must be careful about the proposed solution. It is easy to find problems and nearly as easy to propose solutions. The difficulty comes in making those proposed solutions effective without causing more serious problems.
Indeed one of history's most colossal failures was the result of well-intentioned solutions to the problems mentioned above. Communism, the ultimate form of statism, was supposed to fix inequality, poverty, lack of medical care and the other problems allowed in a liberal society. The results were the exact opposite of the intentions. Poverty was rampant, the government class was "more equal than others," medical care was abysmal for most of the people. Why? Why was statism such a failure?
The problems with statism start with the assumptions one must accept in order to believe in it. Implicit in statism is a belief that government is somehow wiser and more moral than the average citizen. Unless it possesses that wisdom and integrity there is no reason to trust government instead of average citizens.
Communism demonstrated that, contrary to statist assumptions, government has no special wisdom, nor is it less subject to temptation to abuse of power than is the average person. Good intentions may be comforting but they make a poor supper.
The communist state attempted to be all things to all people. It gave quotas to farms and factories, telling them what to produce and how much of it. It even assigned people jobs.
The result was one of the most spectacular failures in human history. The five year plans failed. The factories and farms did not their quotas and what they did produce was often shoddy. The people were held captive in an unworkable system. Communism produced shortages of nearly everything except misery.
We must now ask, where would government get the wisdom and integrity statists think it has? It must come from one of two sources:
1. Divine wisdom. Monarchists claimed that the king was God's anointed. If one accepts that, he could also accept that the king has some special, God-given wisdom. However most statists in the U.S. today seem to deny that God should have any voice in government. With few exceptions, U.S. citizens will reject the divine right of kings, and with it any divine wisdom or integrity for government officials.
2. The second possible source of special governmental wisdom is the wisdom of the majority. If we believe that the majority is always right or at least right more often than the average person, then we can believe that leaders elected by the majority are wiser than that average person. However, the beliefs of the majority will inevitably be the beliefs of the average person. Majority rule is, after all, essentially an averaging process.
Integrity is even worse. Majority integrity suffers from a mob effect. People will do as a group things they would not think of doing as individuals. People who agree theft is wrong may think it is somehow just fine to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.
(cf http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/2009/07/mob-rule-part-1.html)
One of the more pernicious aspects of statism is its tendency to turn social theory and personal preference into law. Be it the old official state church or modern political correctness, this tendency leads to silliness at best and institutionalized idiocy at worst. For example, the mayor of Portland, Oregon once proposed outlawing "snout houses," houses on which the garage projects out in front. What business did she have forcing her architectural preferences on everybody else? If people want to avoid those houses they can buy a different style. They can even live in neighborhoods where voluntary covenants prohibit them. However it is a serious infringement on liberal freedom for government to decide what kind of house everybody should live in.
Clearly there are problems with classic liberalism and freedom. However those problems are not nearly as serious as those we cause when we allow a statist government to rule our lives, whether we call that government "progressive," "positive," "modern" or anything else. Freedom leads to more production and more goods for everyone. Statism leads to less for everyone except the ruling class.
The goal should not be elimination of inequality but enhancing life for everyone, even if the rich still have more than the poor
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
I Am a Liberal
If you've been reading my blog for a while here's some surprising information for you. I am a liberal. Yes it's true. Have been for years, not even realizing it for many of those years.
Now before you faint you might ask just what kind of liberal I am. After all, I have criticized many today who call themselves liberal. The answer is that I am a classic liberal which is almost the polar opposite of what passes for a liberal today.
I believe in liberty and individual responsibility. Furthermore I believe our liberty is a God-given right, not something government doles out to us. I believe strongly in the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”
Now if each of us has inalienable rights it follows that government should not take away those rights. That is true if government is a monarchy, a democracy, or a republic. Even if 99% of the people want to restrict the rights of the other 1%, they have no justification to do so.
That is liberalism in its true sense. It is the historic meaning of the term. Any political philosophy that unduly restricts liberty is not liberal, it is statist. The appropriation of the word by today's statists is Orwellian newspeak, a triumph of public relations but a detriment to our supposedly free society. Some call themselves “modern liberals,” “positive liberals,” “progressives,” etc. but the fact remains that they want increased government and less individual freedom. They are statists.
Sadly, the real liberals did not step up and point out the fact that "positive liberalism" is in many ways the opposite of true liberalism. Rather than being "progressive," it is in fact a regression to the days when government was regarded as having divine wisdom to which the people should defer.
One example happened recently in Oregon. A farm in the eastern part of the state hosted a wedding. I confess that I fail to see who was harmed by that event. My liberal attitude says that we should allow them to use their property as they see fit. It is their property after all. However the statists who call themselves liberals have created a law that governs how people use property. Farmland must be used for farming until the government blesses some other use. The owners of that farm had to pay a fine for their horrible crime.
The whole thing is reminiscent of the children's game, “Mother May I” in which each child must do exactly as instructed by the child playing the part of the mother. However in this case I would call it “Big Brother May I.” The statist attitude is that Big Brother, that is government, knows best and we all better obey. If we want to do something out of the ordinary we darn well better ask permission first. That is the opposite of the liberal attitude that allows us freedom to do whatever does not infringe on the rights of others.
This newspeak also creates confusion when we read literature written before it came about. I've recently read Hayek's book, “The Road to Serfdom” written during World War II. He continually talks about liberal ideas as opposed to various forms of socialism. What he means by liberal is freedom and individualism. However today's “liberals” tend towards exactly the socialism he was opposing.
We should not fall for the linguistic tricks of the statists. Instead any discussion of the topic should focus on the ideas themselves and how effective they are in benefiting humanity. A start is to use correct language which means we must insist that they are properly called statists. Webster defines statism as, "The principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty." That obviously fits today's "liberals." In fact it fits many politicians of either party in the U.S., though the parties differ in how they apply their statist ideas.
Today's “liberals” are illiberal statists, not liberals. Our “progressives” are regressive statists, not progressives. They believe in big government, not freedom and individual responsibility. Let's call them what they are.
Next time I plan to discuss some of the problems statism creates.
If you like my blog please tell others.
If you don't like it please tell me.
Now before you faint you might ask just what kind of liberal I am. After all, I have criticized many today who call themselves liberal. The answer is that I am a classic liberal which is almost the polar opposite of what passes for a liberal today.
I believe in liberty and individual responsibility. Furthermore I believe our liberty is a God-given right, not something government doles out to us. I believe strongly in the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”
Now if each of us has inalienable rights it follows that government should not take away those rights. That is true if government is a monarchy, a democracy, or a republic. Even if 99% of the people want to restrict the rights of the other 1%, they have no justification to do so.
That is liberalism in its true sense. It is the historic meaning of the term. Any political philosophy that unduly restricts liberty is not liberal, it is statist. The appropriation of the word by today's statists is Orwellian newspeak, a triumph of public relations but a detriment to our supposedly free society. Some call themselves “modern liberals,” “positive liberals,” “progressives,” etc. but the fact remains that they want increased government and less individual freedom. They are statists.
Sadly, the real liberals did not step up and point out the fact that "positive liberalism" is in many ways the opposite of true liberalism. Rather than being "progressive," it is in fact a regression to the days when government was regarded as having divine wisdom to which the people should defer.
One example happened recently in Oregon. A farm in the eastern part of the state hosted a wedding. I confess that I fail to see who was harmed by that event. My liberal attitude says that we should allow them to use their property as they see fit. It is their property after all. However the statists who call themselves liberals have created a law that governs how people use property. Farmland must be used for farming until the government blesses some other use. The owners of that farm had to pay a fine for their horrible crime.
The whole thing is reminiscent of the children's game, “Mother May I” in which each child must do exactly as instructed by the child playing the part of the mother. However in this case I would call it “Big Brother May I.” The statist attitude is that Big Brother, that is government, knows best and we all better obey. If we want to do something out of the ordinary we darn well better ask permission first. That is the opposite of the liberal attitude that allows us freedom to do whatever does not infringe on the rights of others.
This newspeak also creates confusion when we read literature written before it came about. I've recently read Hayek's book, “The Road to Serfdom” written during World War II. He continually talks about liberal ideas as opposed to various forms of socialism. What he means by liberal is freedom and individualism. However today's “liberals” tend towards exactly the socialism he was opposing.
We should not fall for the linguistic tricks of the statists. Instead any discussion of the topic should focus on the ideas themselves and how effective they are in benefiting humanity. A start is to use correct language which means we must insist that they are properly called statists. Webster defines statism as, "The principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty." That obviously fits today's "liberals." In fact it fits many politicians of either party in the U.S., though the parties differ in how they apply their statist ideas.
Today's “liberals” are illiberal statists, not liberals. Our “progressives” are regressive statists, not progressives. They believe in big government, not freedom and individual responsibility. Let's call them what they are.
Next time I plan to discuss some of the problems statism creates.
If you like my blog please tell others.
If you don't like it please tell me.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Freedom of Conscience
The senate special election in Massachusetts brought yet another example of the conflict between freedom of religion and the perceived rights of some. One of the accusations Martha Coakley made against eventual winner Scott Brown was, “1,736 WOMEN WERE RAPED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 2008. SCOTT BROWN WANTS HOSPITALS TO TURN THEM ALL AWAY.” That was sent in a mailing to voters with that statement in big letters on the cover. It is completely untrue. Brown never said any such thing. It was based on a gross exaggeration of his record.
What Brown did was sponsor legislation to allow some emergency room personnel to follow their conscience and avoid involvement in “Plan B” contraception for rape victims. It would not have turned rape victims away from the hospital. It would not even have prevented hospitals from providing that treatment. It simply would have allowed people with religious objections to follow their conscience and leave that decision to others. I believe that should be permitted.
So you know where I’m coming from, I oppose abortion but have no objection to “Plan B” for rape victims. In fact I believe it is permissible for rape victims to have an abortion (though they should think carefully about it, preferably with the help of a competent counselor). However I am not willing to force someone else to go against his conscience except in extreme circumstances. If someone’s religion forbids Plan B, there are others in the hospital not so constrained. The laws forcing people with such beliefs to violate their consciences have the effect of denying them the freedom to practice their religions.
There are other examples of disdain for religious freedom. In Minneapolis, Muslim taxi drivers are required to take passengers with dogs or alcohol, contrary to their religion. Elsewhere, pharmacists are required to dispense contraceptives, even Plan B, against their religious beliefs. A New Mexico photographer was ordered to take pictures at a homosexual wedding though it violated his conscience and other photographers were available.
Anyone who refuses to take an action that is legal but against his conscience is likely to be accused of forcing his beliefs on others. That is backwards; those trying to force their beliefs on others are the people who want to force others to violate their consciences. The people ordering the photographer to take the homosexual wedding pictures forced their beliefs on that photographer. Those ordering Muslims to transport dogs or alcohol are forcing their beliefs on those taxi drivers.
In fact this sort of thing is a case of misplaced objectives. The supposed objective in the case of Plan B for rape victims is so the victim won’t have to carry the child of the rapist. That objective is easily achieved by just letting someone else provide the information and pill. Instead, many such as Coakley want to force particular people to provide it. Their objective appears to be forcing their ideas on everyone. You are free to disagree with them as long as you do what they say.
The Muslim taxi driver situation is similar. It would be easy for those drivers to post something in their windows indicating that they will not take dogs or alcohol. That would be a boon to other drivers who would get more business, and it would achieve the ostensible objective of providing taxi rides for those who want them. However it would not force the Muslims to bend to the wishes of those who don’t like their religion. I have to believe that the real objective was to restrict Muslim freedom of religion, not to provide transportation for dogs or alcohol.
Those who want to force others to go against their conscience are demonstrating an intolerant bigotry. They ignore the constitutional protection for freedom of religion. They claim others can believe as they wish as long as it doesn’t affect how they act. In that they ignore the fact that the first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not just religious belief. How can a Catholic have freedom to exercise his religion if he is forced to violate its teachings to keep his job? How can a Muslim have freedom to exercise his religion if he must violate its teachings to keep his job?
Ironically most of those trying to force their views on others today call themselves liberals. Their liberalism does not extend to allowing others to live according to their consciences. They believe that has the freedom to agree with them. However they are not willing to tolerate disagreement. That is a corruption of what the word “liberal” once meant. It is also a corruption of human tolerance and of the constitution.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
What Brown did was sponsor legislation to allow some emergency room personnel to follow their conscience and avoid involvement in “Plan B” contraception for rape victims. It would not have turned rape victims away from the hospital. It would not even have prevented hospitals from providing that treatment. It simply would have allowed people with religious objections to follow their conscience and leave that decision to others. I believe that should be permitted.
So you know where I’m coming from, I oppose abortion but have no objection to “Plan B” for rape victims. In fact I believe it is permissible for rape victims to have an abortion (though they should think carefully about it, preferably with the help of a competent counselor). However I am not willing to force someone else to go against his conscience except in extreme circumstances. If someone’s religion forbids Plan B, there are others in the hospital not so constrained. The laws forcing people with such beliefs to violate their consciences have the effect of denying them the freedom to practice their religions.
There are other examples of disdain for religious freedom. In Minneapolis, Muslim taxi drivers are required to take passengers with dogs or alcohol, contrary to their religion. Elsewhere, pharmacists are required to dispense contraceptives, even Plan B, against their religious beliefs. A New Mexico photographer was ordered to take pictures at a homosexual wedding though it violated his conscience and other photographers were available.
Anyone who refuses to take an action that is legal but against his conscience is likely to be accused of forcing his beliefs on others. That is backwards; those trying to force their beliefs on others are the people who want to force others to violate their consciences. The people ordering the photographer to take the homosexual wedding pictures forced their beliefs on that photographer. Those ordering Muslims to transport dogs or alcohol are forcing their beliefs on those taxi drivers.
In fact this sort of thing is a case of misplaced objectives. The supposed objective in the case of Plan B for rape victims is so the victim won’t have to carry the child of the rapist. That objective is easily achieved by just letting someone else provide the information and pill. Instead, many such as Coakley want to force particular people to provide it. Their objective appears to be forcing their ideas on everyone. You are free to disagree with them as long as you do what they say.
The Muslim taxi driver situation is similar. It would be easy for those drivers to post something in their windows indicating that they will not take dogs or alcohol. That would be a boon to other drivers who would get more business, and it would achieve the ostensible objective of providing taxi rides for those who want them. However it would not force the Muslims to bend to the wishes of those who don’t like their religion. I have to believe that the real objective was to restrict Muslim freedom of religion, not to provide transportation for dogs or alcohol.
Those who want to force others to go against their conscience are demonstrating an intolerant bigotry. They ignore the constitutional protection for freedom of religion. They claim others can believe as they wish as long as it doesn’t affect how they act. In that they ignore the fact that the first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not just religious belief. How can a Catholic have freedom to exercise his religion if he is forced to violate its teachings to keep his job? How can a Muslim have freedom to exercise his religion if he must violate its teachings to keep his job?
Ironically most of those trying to force their views on others today call themselves liberals. Their liberalism does not extend to allowing others to live according to their consciences. They believe that has the freedom to agree with them. However they are not willing to tolerate disagreement. That is a corruption of what the word “liberal” once meant. It is also a corruption of human tolerance and of the constitution.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Knowing the Enemy
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Terrorism, especially that committed by Islamic fanatics, continues to be a threat to the world. For that reason instead of presenting my own thoughts today I’m presenting a book review. Though I recommend everybody read the book, I believe this review contains good information that everybody should know about this problem.
Knowing the Enemy, Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror by Mary Habeck. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2006. 177 pp plus notes, glossary and index.
Mary Habeck is an associate professor, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. I thought that I knew and more or less understood the motivations behind the attacks on embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the 9-11 attacks etc. However this book showed me that my previous understanding only scratched the surface.
Habeck is careful to distinguish between most of Islam and the small group of fanatics who carry out the terrorist activities. She shows that people like Osama bin Laden draw on out-of-mainstream understandings of Islam to create a version of the religion that sees violence against any who reject it as a positive good. Their ultimate objective is Shari'a rule of the entire world, beginning with Islamic lands. And their definition of an Islamic land is any land ever ruled by or paying tribute to an Islamic ruler. That includes Spain, the Balkans, even Russia.
In the minds of those fanatics the very existence of any system of government other than the caliphate is an assault on Islam. That is because it tempts people to not join the "true" religion and government. Therefore they hate every country on earth, even countries most would regard as Islamic. In their view true Islam requires a land ruled by the caliph strictly by Shari'a, God's rule. To them any other form of government is idolatry since it puts man's will before that of God. They regard democratic self-rule as a serious evil.
The ultimate objective of the jihadis is a worldwide caliphate in which Shari'a is the law of the land. That is their definition of freedom and nothing else will do. They believe that democracy, kings, and all other non-Islamic forms of government will eventually be replaced as people see how wonderful life is under the caliphate. They regard any western presence in Islamic land as an assault. Bin Laden even considered the US aid to Somalia in the early 1990's as an attack because it put representatives of an infidel government on Islamic land. This may be difficult for the western mind to understand, but understand it we must if we are to protect ourselves from the fanatics.
We must also understand that this viewpoint antedates the establishment of Israel and the oil states. It cannot be blamed on Israel, though that country is today regarded as the start of western colonization in Islamic lands.
There is a lot of what I would term groupthink and wishful thinking among the jihadis. For example, bin Laden believed that the 9-11 attacks would cause Muslims world-wide to rise up and join the "true" Islam and that the US would fold and leave Arabic and other Islamic lands. When his predictions did not materialize he had to change his tune but that has not changed the minds of the fanatics. They just ignore the fact that his predictions did not come true. They are not what we would consider reasonable people and will not be deterred by reason or even by battlefield losses.
The Islamist mindset is briefly summarized as, "Because history is dominated by the struggle between good and evil, jihadis assert that all Muslims are called by God to participate in the fight physically if possible, or at least by word or financially acting as God's sword on earth to deal with the evildoers and their wicked way of life." This becomes a duty even if such a fight makes no actual progress toward the caliphate. In their view, if a jihadi dies while killing or attempting to kill the enemy, he gets a reward beyond comprehension in this world.
With the jihadis having the described mindset, it is easy to see why they are such a danger. We cannot reason with them, nor can we gain by negotiations (except for brief periods while they re-arm). Any treaty they make they consider useful only to advance their cause. Furthermore, they believe they can break treaties pretty much whenever it suits their purpose to do so.
Habeck briefly suggests some things we can do to effectively fight the jihadis, though she is clear that a complete plan is beyond the scope of her book. She believes (and I agree) that we must deny them a land to rule as we did in Afghanistan. We must intercept their finances to deny them the more potent weapons they crave. And we must counter their preaching and recruitment by showing what a marginal part of Islam they are.
I strongly recommend this book.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Terrorism, especially that committed by Islamic fanatics, continues to be a threat to the world. For that reason instead of presenting my own thoughts today I’m presenting a book review. Though I recommend everybody read the book, I believe this review contains good information that everybody should know about this problem.
Knowing the Enemy, Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror by Mary Habeck. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2006. 177 pp plus notes, glossary and index.
Mary Habeck is an associate professor, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. I thought that I knew and more or less understood the motivations behind the attacks on embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the 9-11 attacks etc. However this book showed me that my previous understanding only scratched the surface.
Habeck is careful to distinguish between most of Islam and the small group of fanatics who carry out the terrorist activities. She shows that people like Osama bin Laden draw on out-of-mainstream understandings of Islam to create a version of the religion that sees violence against any who reject it as a positive good. Their ultimate objective is Shari'a rule of the entire world, beginning with Islamic lands. And their definition of an Islamic land is any land ever ruled by or paying tribute to an Islamic ruler. That includes Spain, the Balkans, even Russia.
In the minds of those fanatics the very existence of any system of government other than the caliphate is an assault on Islam. That is because it tempts people to not join the "true" religion and government. Therefore they hate every country on earth, even countries most would regard as Islamic. In their view true Islam requires a land ruled by the caliph strictly by Shari'a, God's rule. To them any other form of government is idolatry since it puts man's will before that of God. They regard democratic self-rule as a serious evil.
The ultimate objective of the jihadis is a worldwide caliphate in which Shari'a is the law of the land. That is their definition of freedom and nothing else will do. They believe that democracy, kings, and all other non-Islamic forms of government will eventually be replaced as people see how wonderful life is under the caliphate. They regard any western presence in Islamic land as an assault. Bin Laden even considered the US aid to Somalia in the early 1990's as an attack because it put representatives of an infidel government on Islamic land. This may be difficult for the western mind to understand, but understand it we must if we are to protect ourselves from the fanatics.
We must also understand that this viewpoint antedates the establishment of Israel and the oil states. It cannot be blamed on Israel, though that country is today regarded as the start of western colonization in Islamic lands.
There is a lot of what I would term groupthink and wishful thinking among the jihadis. For example, bin Laden believed that the 9-11 attacks would cause Muslims world-wide to rise up and join the "true" Islam and that the US would fold and leave Arabic and other Islamic lands. When his predictions did not materialize he had to change his tune but that has not changed the minds of the fanatics. They just ignore the fact that his predictions did not come true. They are not what we would consider reasonable people and will not be deterred by reason or even by battlefield losses.
The Islamist mindset is briefly summarized as, "Because history is dominated by the struggle between good and evil, jihadis assert that all Muslims are called by God to participate in the fight physically if possible, or at least by word or financially acting as God's sword on earth to deal with the evildoers and their wicked way of life." This becomes a duty even if such a fight makes no actual progress toward the caliphate. In their view, if a jihadi dies while killing or attempting to kill the enemy, he gets a reward beyond comprehension in this world.
With the jihadis having the described mindset, it is easy to see why they are such a danger. We cannot reason with them, nor can we gain by negotiations (except for brief periods while they re-arm). Any treaty they make they consider useful only to advance their cause. Furthermore, they believe they can break treaties pretty much whenever it suits their purpose to do so.
Habeck briefly suggests some things we can do to effectively fight the jihadis, though she is clear that a complete plan is beyond the scope of her book. She believes (and I agree) that we must deny them a land to rule as we did in Afghanistan. We must intercept their finances to deny them the more potent weapons they crave. And we must counter their preaching and recruitment by showing what a marginal part of Islam they are.
I strongly recommend this book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
