Making the choice to reject fear-mongering
Americans are not immune to the human temptation to embrace ‘us-versus-them’ narratives, but the US has tools in place that its leaders can use to try to manage these fears and choose a better path
The debate over Islamophobia in the United States reached a new peak on Monday when Donald Trump, who leads polls among Republicans for the presidential nomination, called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. With pride, he compared his proposal to the internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, which many Americans view as a shameful period in US history.
Trump has caught national and global attention for his populist style that intentionally stirs up fears of foreigners, especially Mexican immigrants and Muslims. Among other things, Trump has revived previously debunked claims that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the 9/11 attacks, promoted the idea that all Muslims in the US should be “tracked”, and accused the families of the California shooters of knowing they were a threat, despite the families’ public condemnation of the attack. His success in polls has led other Republican candidates to publicly veer further towards suspicion of Muslims, though most have avoided his more blatant language. Several candidates condemned his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US, with candidate Jeb Bush referring to Trump’s ideas as “unhinged”.
It is hard to find language strong enough to condemn Trump’s fear-mongering. If ever actually carried out, many of his ideas would destroy the free society that Americans hold dear and cause misery and injustice to many innocent people. Trump also is a gift to Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), as he feeds their narrative of an inevitable conflict between Islam and the West, stirring up fear while failing to provide any plausible plan for combating Daesh. However, Trump will probably lose the nomination, and his worst ideas are extremely unlikely to ever turn into national policy. His greatest danger may be that his attention-grabbing rhetoric covers a more subtle, arguably more dangerous trend among segments of the population in which anti-Muslim views are increasingly seen as natural and acceptable.
While uninformed comments about Islam are not uncommon, discriminatory and incendiary statements about Islam or Muslims previously did not play a major role in US politics at the national level. Both former president George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama have regularly stated that terrorists do not represent the vast majority of Muslims.
Unfortunately, the November 13 attacks in Paris and the November 25 shootings in California, in which a radicalised Muslim couple killed 14 people at a holiday party, are now mixing with heightened anti-Islamic language on the American national stage, largely due to the current presidential campaign, which reflects hardening divisions within American politics. Social media amplifies the effect. Some Republicans have abandoned former Republican president Bush’s insistence on distinguishing between terrorists and the vast majority of Muslims. Among other examples, Marco Rubio, another top contender for the Republican nomination, is much more careful with his language, but has repeatedly embraced the loaded term “clash of civilisations”, saying that the US is in a clash of civilisations with radical Islam.
The trend to cast all Muslims as potential terrorists is not unchallenged. In a national address on December 6, Obama clearly spoke against it: “It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently.” While European countries have struggled to integrate Muslims, the US mostly has been spared these challenges, due to its history of integration, its respect for religion and the demographics of its Muslim-American population.
Reluctant language
While Rubio still distinguishes between “radical Islam” and the broader faith, he and some other leading Republican politicians, commentators on Fox News, and others are increasingly making the disturbing argument that, because it is impossible to fully “vet” Muslims to know who is a potential threat, it is necessary to start by suspecting all Muslims. Proponents of this viewpoint often couch their rhetoric in reluctant language — saying that it is unfortunate, often noting that they have Muslim friends, but sadly concluding that there is no choice in order to ensure that Americans are safe. This is a very dangerous rhetoric — perhaps more so than brasher statements — because it sounds pragmatic on the surface. Not only does this subvert a core principle of the US justice system — that people are considered innocent until proven guilty — but history demonstrates that this type of thinking can start a dark path toward discrimination and eventually repression of minorities. Furthermore, it feeds into Daesh’s narrative that Islam is naturally and inevitably at war with the West and that Muslims in the US will never be accepted as equals.
The trend to cast all Muslims as potential terrorists is not unchallenged. In a national address on December 6, Obama clearly spoke against it: “It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently.” The New York Times and many other media outlets have published opinion pieces calling on Americans to embrace Muslim Americans as fellow citizens and neighbours. Law enforcement officials have noted the important role that Muslim-Americans have played in helping to stop the attacks. On internet and social media, there are horrific things said about Muslims, but also many people who defend them.
Throughout America, attitudes towards Muslims are mixed. Islamophobia is not widespread, but it is prevalent among certain groups and in certain locations. Shortly after the shootings in San Bernadino, California, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that “51 per cent of Americans view Muslims living in the United States the same as any other community, while 14.6 per cent are generally fearful”. This and other polls have found that views on Muslims vary significantly based on whether someone identifies as a Democrat or a Republican, with Republicans much more likely to hold negative views.
Americans are not immune to the human temptation to embrace “us-versus-them” narratives, but the US has tools in place that its leaders can use to try to manage these fears and choose a better path. With a long tradition of incorporating a wide variety of immigrants, a pluralistic democracy, a deeply embedded belief in the freedom of religion, the US is far better equipped than almost any other country in the world to manage concerns about religious, ethnic or ideological differences among its population. People of all sorts of faiths and nationalities have successfully sought shelter and opportunity in the US. Furthermore, while European countries have struggled to integrate Muslims, the US mostly has been spared these challenges, due to its history of integration, its respect for religion and the demographics of its Muslim-American population. (Muslim Americans have a higher level of education and socio-economic status than Muslims in Europe.) The election of a man named Barack Hussain Obama (a name that sounds “Muslim” to many Americans) as President is a particularly strong symbol of many Americans’ ability to look beyond stereotypes.
Despite these advantages, at times, the US has given into fears of “the other”. It has long struggled with the legacy of slavery; despite much progress, there are still tensions between blacks and whites in some places and stubborn remnants of structural injustice. American history also includes some shameful periods of discrimination against minorities, including widespread anti-Catholic prejudice for much of the country’s earlier history, the internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War and turning away desperate Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis.
Americans have the tools and cultural values to ensure that fear does not turn into prejudice and hatred, but this requires a proactive choice. Throughout human history, strong, moral leadership is key to helping societies reject the baser parts of human instinct and choose a more enlightened approach. But poor leadership that taps into humans’ darker sides in order to promote its own power can lead to oppression and violence. Americans must choose leaders who understand the value of reaching out to Muslims rather than those who see personal benefit in stirring up fear and hatred.
Trump’s proclamations
It is easy to take concerns about Islamophobia too far and some commentators are too quick to label statements expressing concern about religious extremism as Islamophobic. Despite Trump’s proclamations, the US is not about to require Muslims to carry religious identity cards or to create internment camps. It is also easy to be too complacent, assuming that anti-Muslim vitriol will die down after elections or that concerns about Islamophobia are just about political correctness. The real, more subtle risk is that discrimination against and vilification of Muslims becomes embedded in American culture. That would undermine American values, unjustly hurt Muslim individuals and communities, fuel radicalisation, bolster Daesh’s narrative and make it harder for law enforcement to work with Muslims. It would be one of the best ways to lose the battle against violence and extremism.
American leaders and citizens face a key moment — an opportunity to tell both fear-mongering politicians and terrorists that they cannot divide Americans, cannot force Americans to abandon their values out of fear. The US can be an example of embracing unity and rejecting hatred, but its people must choose to do so.