Views » September 21, 2006

The Neocons Lexicon

Republican term “Islamofacism” conflates the war on terro as a battle between the Enlightenment and Theocracy.

By Salim Muwakkil

The Republicans’ deployment of the term “Islamofascism” to define the enemy in the Bush administration’s war on terror is clearly an attempt to improve their prospects in the midterm elections. By conflating contemporary terrorist threats with fearsome historical enemies, the GOP seeks to divert attention from the increasingly unpopular occupation of Iraq.

But the adoption of this term also reveals the Bush administration’s ideological disarray and the Republicans’ political desperation.

Many pundits trace the neologism to historian Malise Ruthven, who used it in a September 1990 article in the London Independent. But Ruthven used it to describe authoritarian Muslim states like Morocco, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Stephen Schwartz, the neocon author of Two Faces of Islam, insists that he is the first Westerner to use the term in the contemporary context.

But the term gained its greatest currency in the lexicon of pro-war progressives Christopher Hitchens, Paul Berman and Ron Rosenbaum, to name three. They argued that the totalitarian aspirations of theocratic groups like al-Qaeda threatened the libertarian freedoms that are the legacy of the Enlightenment.

These polemicists were less concerned (at least, originally) with the geo-strategic issues that preoccupied the administration’s neocon warmongers, so their arguments had some resonance on the secular left. After all, how could progressives oppose the theocratic agenda of the religious right within the United States and not reject similar developments elsewhere?

In Hitchens’ last column for The Nation, he wrote “the theocratic and absolutist side in this war hopes to win it by exporting it here, which in turn means that we have no expectation of staying out of the war, and no right to be neutral in it.”

By framing the war on terror as a struggle between the liberal soldiers of the Enlightenment and the dark forces of theocracy, these progressives gave cover to warmongers with rationales much less lofty. In fact, one of the major ironies is that their support has aligned them with right wing religious groups with their own theocratic agendas.

Until recently, the Bush administration and its corps of supplicants failed to utilize the arguments of these pro-war progressives because of their anti-religious logic. Their hostility to religion, theoretically, should cause them to reject the president’s notion of an America divinely guided to democratize the world.

But progressive supporters of the Iraq invasion apparently are willing to tolerate Bush’s Messianic conceits. Even though the president describes the invasion and occupation of Iraq in increasingly Manichean terms with theological overtones, the secularist Hitchens remains an undaunted supporter.

Bush strategists likely reasoned they could co-opt the term “Islamofascist” for their own purposes since the pundits who popularized the term seem unconcerned with consistent political principle. What’s more, the word helps the GOP frame its only remaining argument to convince the U.S. public that the war in Iraq makes sense. Our fire-breathing enemies may live in different countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, this line of argument runs, but they are all one: Islamofascists.

Many commentators have weighed in on the damage done to historical understanding by falsely linking the state fascism of Germany, Italy and Spain to the theocratic prescripts of some radical Islamic movements. Several Muslim groups also have criticized the use of the neologism as a gratuitous insult to their religion. Why is there Islamofascism and no Germano-, Italo-, or Hispanic fascism, they ask?

Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the AP that Bush’s use of the term “contributes to a rising level of hostility to Islam and the American-Muslim community.”

Many also find hypocrisy in hearing a term containing “fascist” being uttered by officials from an administration that ignores international law to invade a sovereign nation, tortures prisoners of war at secret sites and imprisons people without trial or evidence.

Certainly, there are troubling tendencies among the radical Muslims who increasingly see the United States as the enemy. Caught in colonialism’s lingering legacy, they have gripes similar to the “communist” and “nationalist” dissidents before them. In those days, United States ignored their concerns and subverted their secular leadership. “Godless communism” was the enemy, so we encouraged piety.

Americans now are living with the results of that failed policy, having apparently learned little. Deploying focus group-tested words for political advantage, the Bush administration is seeding fields of antagonists yet to come.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  hmmm, let’s see. The 9/11 terrorists were Islamic, fighting in the name of Islam. Ditto for the Madrid and London bombers.

  Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

  hmmm, Islamofascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under an Islamic dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

  That the Bush Adminstration would use such a term to describe a war on terror that is self-described as furthering the goals of Islamic fundamentatlism, well, that is just an outrage!

  Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 22, 2006 at 5:08 PM

  Al Qaeda is a non-state entity. Thus, according to Jay’s definition, it would not count as Islamofascist, since this requires a “system of government.”

  The problem with the term is not only that it is based on a misleading historical analogy (since fascism was a historical phenomenon of the early to mid-twentieth century), but also that it obscures the complexity of the Middle East. If the US has done anything in Iraq, it has likely sparked a lengthy and bloody conflict between Sunnis and Shiites for regional dominance. But by dividing the world into Manichean categories, the discourse of Islamofascism prevents actual understanding of the region.

  Posted by Howie_Marshall on Sep 22, 2006 at 5:40 PM

  Well, maybe according to Howie’s interpretation of Jay’s definition. Yet even a Board of Governors of a non-profit organization is a “system of government”, so the point is moot.

  Also, I was unaware that anywhere in a definition of fascism (or in any other -ism) there exists an implicit understanding that the term is temporally dependent.

  What Constant of the Universe has changed that makes fascism impossible in today’s world?

  Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 22, 2006 at 5:49 PM

  I would suggest to Jay that he perhaps peruse Robert Paxton’s recent book on Fascism, Stanley Payne’s History of Fascism, and Ian Kershaw’s work on Fascism to see that there is NO generally accepted definition of classical systems of fascism. Indeed, there are scholarly debates concerning whether such a general and universal definition of fascism is possible or whether there can only be a nominal definition based upon family resemblances between regimes. Furthermore, due to the wide diversity of positions and ideologies (not to mention attitudes towards the acquition of state-power and the modern nation-state) within what is here, in the US, called “political Islamism” (the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Khomenism,Wahabism, etc.), it might be thought that the use of the term “Islamofascism” is really a very slippery, nearly useless, concept. Useful in rhetorical terms, perhaps, but for analytic purposes, entirely useless.

  After reading these books, I would then suggest reading Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language”.

  It was bad analysis on the part of radicals in the 60’s to indiscriminately call every institution or individual “fascist”, it is equally bad on the part of neoconservatives now. And really, it is time to start seeing that all political action cannot be reduced to analogy with Munich 1938. Neoconservatives really need to read more history.

  Posted by Orwell on Sep 22, 2006 at 7:35 PM

  I would suggest to Orwell that he attempt to explain, in his own words, why the aforementioned definition is not valid.

  I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. Ralph Waldo Emerson

  Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 22, 2006 at 7:48 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 256 posts.

Also featured Where the Seats Are
Tracking the CIA Torture Flights
Dueling Democrats

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Salim Muwakkil

• The ‘Post-Racial’ President
  Barack Obama navigates a world where color still matters. Posted on August 24, 2009
• Government-Assisted Terrorists
  On May 20, federal and New York City authorities arrested four men on… morePosted on June 16, 2009
• The Irony of Obama’s Boycott
  America's first black president refused to attend a U.N. conference on racism.Posted on April 30, 2009
• African-Americans Back Burris
  The African-American community's unified efforts to retain Roland Burris as the lone black… morePosted on March 26, 2009
• Will Holder Hold Cops Accountable?
  Eric Holder, the first African-American attorney general, takes over a Department of Justice… morePosted on February 26, 2009