An Argument for a New Liberalism

Peter Beinart has a long article in The New Republic arguing the liberals should take a more hard-line stance towards Muslim terrorisms. Kevin Drum and other bloggers have discussed this article, which I didn’t find to be at all persuasive.

Beinart views the struggle against terrorism as the highest priority, comparable to the fight against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. However, as horrible as 9/11 was, many other factors have killed a lot more Americans than terrorism has. Why should terrorism be viewed as more important than, say, providing health care to all Americans? Here’s Beinart’s perspective:

But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

As Legal Fiction points out, liberals are serious about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, but disagree with the hardliners about the best means of doing so. Liberals have always been angry about the way women have been treated in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and other parts of the Muslim world. They wanted to reduce aid to Israel, pull US troops out of Saudi Arabia, and stop the sanctions against Iraq, in part to reduce the anti-Western attitudes than fan fundamentalism.

The main weakness of Beinart’s argument is that he conflates terrorism with the war against Iraq. He totally ignores the fact that, prior to the US invasion, Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda or anti-American terrorism. And he fails to comprehend the liberal argument that a US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq increases anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and makes al Qaeda stronger.

Besides, Beinart spends paragraphs criticizing Michael Moore and MoveOn, but doesn’t make a single negative remark about George Bush. You can’t help wondering why any liberal would take his advice seriously.