Playing the Muslim Card: DPW, Soft Racism, and The Left

Ever since James Wolcott decided to quote (and link) The Preamble, in which I condemned those pseudo-Conservatives who have hijacked a noble political movement to serve their own racist - and by that I mean anti-Arab and anti-Muslim – ends, I’ve been getting a certain measure of applause from certain quarters on the Left.

I am not impressed.

I know that sounds dismissive, and in the final analysis I suppose that’s exactly what I’m being. But the impulse for that is simple: I can see little difference between Republicans and Democrats, Progressives and Conservatives, the Right and the Left when it comes to discriminating against and demonizing those who are non-white, non-Judeo-Christian and non-Western.

For all the loud exhortations for tolerance and equality, the bottom-line is that when domestic political power is at stake, the axis of Democrats, Progressives and the Left has been more than willing to Play the Muslim Card in the Dubai Ports World “controversy”... and play it shamelessly. For example:

“Democrats have been at the forefront of efforts to tighten port security for just about this entire decade. Republicans have stood in the way. And we now see the logical conclusion to their indifference -- the selling of our ports to a nation with extensive ties to the very terrorists who are trying to destroy us.” – Markos Moulitsas (KOS).

“Isn't offshoring port management and security sort of like offshoring the shore?” – Josh Marshall.

“Normally I’m made a little bit uncomfortable by issues which have a crypto-racist tinge to them – they’re Arabs so they’re bad! – but this seems to be a genuine issue. Why the hell would we let a UAE owned company handle domestic port operations?” – Duncan Black (Atrios).

“There's something strange, to say the least, about the Bush Administration's plan to sell off control of our ports to a Dubai company.” – T. Christopher Kelly (TChris)

Given these sorts of sentiments, just how progressive are the Progressives?

And just how reality-based is the Reality-Based Community?

Two questions worth considering, I’d wager, given that three of the above four quotes could have easily been attributed to Ann Coulter without demur from a single reality-based Progressive. To his credit, Duncan Black acknowledges the obvious; that the Left’s reaction to the sale of Peninsular and Orient to Dubai Ports World has been, in some material part, defined by the sort ignorance, stereotyping and discrimination that is routinely decried when put forth by über-racists of the Right such as Coulter, Charles Johnson and Michelle Malkin. But that doesn’t stop him from pushing the issue for partisan political gain, does it?

In fact, when it comes to Arabs and Dubai Ports World, I can divine no meaningful difference between the commentary of the vast majority of Democratic partisans, Progressives and Leftists and that of people such as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. The commentary, without exception, from every major and minor D/P/L internet commentator and web site has been woefully ignorant of the basic facts – of the industry, company, ports, port security, maritime security or national security – surrounding this issue. Other than the fact that Arabs - Muslim Arabs - cannot be trusted, that is. That's the one fact they all have at hand.

And one would think that if Progressives really were progressive, and if the Reality-Based Community really was reality-based, a large number of people identifying themselves as either (or both) would be wondering aloud about what such a convergence of opinion with the likes of Coulter, Johnson and Malkin might be saying about themselves...

But that just wouldn’t do, would it?

Not now. The issue is a ‘winner’ for Democrats and Progressives, isn’t it? Democrats and the Left has the chance to embarrass the Bush Administration and paint themselves as the ones who “really care” about national security. All that need be done is step on every Arab on the planet. Never mind that not a soul from Markos Moulitsas to Matt Yglesias has the faintest idea of the national security issues at stake in this “controversy”, or that they neither understand the industry nor the companies involved... The idea of passing up the chance to score a few political points is anathema to all, above all else. The ends justify the means. Right? This isn’t really about port security or national security... or Arabs, for that matter; it’s about winning.

So in the end, just how does the Democratic/Progressive/Leftist axis decrying the Bush Administration’s “selling” of “ports” and “port security” to “our enemies” – Muslim Arabs – differ from that coming from those they claim to loathe? Is the soft racism of walking over the bodies of innocent Muslims and Arabs to attack the Republican/Conservative/Rightist axis somehow less repugnant that the more overt racism of simply proclaiming all Muslims and Arabs to be our enemies?

Or is this simply a matter of my drawing a "false moral equivalence"?

Comments

[Jim]

Good points all, Dennis. Perhaps you and others have already noted the following, so sorry if this is a repeat observation: Why would the Dems actually want the Dubai deal killed which would alienate both their beloved internationals and US business, when they can milk reaction to it to their great benefit?

With a few vocal conservatives giving them cover, the Dems have successfully "demanded" another review of the deal, during which they'll knit their eyebrows, look very serious, and force a useless proviso or two into the agreement to "fix" some security concerns, and also during which they can open their campaign coffers to insider and outside interests who will "contribute" toward getting the Dems to ratchet down their anti-Arab rhetoric and supposed opposition to the Dubai deal, and after which they can bloody the Repubs during the '06 campaign with how inept and soft they were on port security issues ("hey- even a lot of conservatives were duly alarmed") and praise their party and Hillary/Bill for saving the day for Americans and our ME allies.

OK, so that's a mouthful(!), but it's all win/win for the Crats, if they play it right, especially since they'll never be tagged as the race-baiting, fear-mongering, hypocritical and self-serving opportunists they're acting like on this issue, thanks to Old Media and New, to include certain showcased PJ pundits like Malkin.

[Michael Robinson]

You're absolutely right, Dennis.

After having been beaten like a rented mule with the "soft on terrorism" cudgel for four and half solid years, and now surprised to find the cudgel miraculously in their own hands, the Democrats and Progressives are unable to resist the temptation to beat back with it.

Which is sad, because (as you rightly observe) in so doing they've abandoned the high ground and become exactly what they obstensibly abhor.

That said, though, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter how true you are to your principles if you can't get elected, does it?

[Peter vE]

The Democratic pols are using the only stick they can see. The chain of events which lead to DPW having the capital to make large purchases in the US and the West seem to be beyond their vision.

They could make a cogent argument tying feckless budgetary imbalances, massive current account deficits and threats to our economic and physical security together. No one in the Democratic Party seems willing to make the intellectual effort to develop the larger argument. In consequence, screaming about the ragheads ( to use a Coulterism ) threat to our security is about the only tactic they can come up with.

[Ben Regenspan]

I have also been very disappointed in the reaction, but there is definitely a range of opinion on the subject in the lefty blogosphere, even if some of the biggest bloggers seem to be in agreement. A few noteworthy posts:

Kevin Drum:

..."Giving Bush the benefit of the doubt is not a sound policy as a general matter." That's an excellent point. And causing Bush some political pain is a worthy goal.

But there are limits, and encouraging the xenophobic jingoism that's driving this controversy is a little too much for me. Unless there are serious substantive reasons to oppose this deal, I'm not willing to jump on the bandwagon solely because it's an opportunity for some righteous Bush bashing.

Faiz at Think Progress:

In contrast to many bloggers, I believe the bipartisan cry that our national security has been outsourced to the United Arab Emirates is misguided. The fact that the argument is gaining steam underscores the reality that politicians can still successfully politicize 9/11 by using the manipulative politics of fear.

Democracy Arsenal:

...The sale of six US ports to an Arab company has both Republicans and Democrats doing cartwheels while hyperventilating while watching their 06 poll numbers.

This is not a wise nor a measured response. In contrast, it is lazy and opportunistic and does nothing to address the overriding challenge of achieving port security. Instead of educating the public about needed policy reforms, such posturing scares Americans and brings out the worse kind of isolationism.

[neil]

Or is this simply a matter of my drawing a "false moral equivalence"?

Yes, Dennis, I think it is. I think it can be safely said that _you_ are "playing the Muslim card" now. Any liberal who disagrees with the ports deal is not worth having his opinions listened to because he's just a bigot.

Of course, while Democrats were talking about port security in 2004, before there was any possible race angle, nobody listened, because they were too riveted by Bush explaining that you can't differentiate between Osama and Saddam. Which surely didn't play on anybody's racist inclinations...

Democrats have never shown opposition to Arab individuals holding sensitive national security positions, to Arab-run companies doing business in the U.S., to open dialogue with the Muslim world, so this 'racism' card really comes out of left field. Just because they are compelled by conscience to the position that certain loonies are compelled to by bigotry does not mean that they are bigots, any more than not wanting a particular Hispanic/Black/Catholic to be a judge means they are against Hispanics/Blacks/Catholics.

[neil]

Also, I really dig on the double standard here. The first time in six years that Michelle Malkin is closer to the Democratic side than the Bush side, and it proves that the Democrats are selling out their principles to bigots. Which says what, exactly, about the six years Malkin spent approving of everything Bush did?

[Andrew O]

Let's put aside the political posturing and get back to reality.
The issue of port security's a total misnomer. I work in the Port of Liverpool, UK which is supposedly fully compliant with the recently introduced ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) Code as are all US ports but the sufficiently detirmined will overcome any such measures regardless of who owns the company and also bear in mind that the people who enforce the security will be the American people along with the Federal Maritime Commission in conjunction with US customs officials.

The deal between P&O and DPW has also been subject to bids by PSA (Port of Singapore Authority) but there doesn't seem to be much discussion about that - perhaps because they're not in the Middle East.

Maybe i'm stating the obvious but if the rest of the world didn't need to buy so much oil from the Middle East to fuel ourselves they wouldn't have the money to enable them to buy P&O. If you subscribe to free markets and capitalism you've got to expect foreign investment.

The issue for the Bush administration is whether they are prepared to allow foreign investment or not.

[Eric Blair]

I'd really like Neil to show where anybody, except the low level bureaucrats, were talking about port security in terms of ownership of the loading/unloading concessions prior to this.

This was purely partisan, whether the objection was left or right, or simply rank ignorance, which I'll accuse Neil of, just because, well, its true.

[neil]

So wait, Eric, the point is not to show whether stevedoring operations actually affect port security, but whether high-level politicians have talked about them as if they do? Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me.

[Cameron]

I think this deal has already gone the way of the dodo, 45-day waiting period or whatever. No matter what conditions DPW is willing to agree to, there will always be some new, terribly important rule they will have to adhere to: "Well, yes, you've agreed to hire only Americans who are personal relatives of Porter Goss, but you must see how important it is that your entire board of directors strip naked, paint their asses green, and push a peanut up the steps of the Statue of Liberty with their noses. How else could we really, really trust you?"
Most likely the UAE will have to suck it up and walk away from this deal, as they rely on our military to keep Iran at bay. Then again, they might just think the Chinese or Indians or French or Turks could fill the bill, and ask us not-too-politely to leave.

[elemental]

I agree with your column here but I take issue with "I’ve been getting a certain measure of applause from certain quarters on the Left." that is true - you're getting it from people like me, Richard Silverstein, Dawud, etc. but not from the majority of mainstream Democrats who are using this issue as a political football.

In fact, the reason you are getting so much credit is that liberals like Richard and myself are dismayed that our fellow liberals have stooped so low and both of us have commented and written about this on our own blogs. Richard has addressed it on his Kos diary as well.

You're right - the left/Dems have been thouroughly hypocritical on this issue and you've called them on it, but they're not the people applauding you. There are a lot of us on the left who are more than happy to call out 'our own' on this issue for the louses they are being. Randi Rhodes hasn't made a cogent point in a week and I really, really hope yellow journalist, Lou Dobbs' head explodes.

[Grover Gardner]

Since Wolcott's column steered me this way a few weeks ago, I have to say I've really enjoyed your lucid posts.

Even if the Dems' grandstanding on this issue is not ethnically motivated, it can hardly be anything other than an appeal to such thinking. In their effort to get back at Bush, they've tarred themselves with their own brush. If they wanted to score political points, all they had to do was stand back and let the Republican leadership tie itself in knots over the issue, then intervene with a calm, factual presentation of the situation.

[counter-coulter]

GG, I believe that the Dems saw this as an opportunity to, as someone else here noted, beat the Bush Admin. with a club of their own making.

It should come as no surprise that this administration has done nothing else if not create a fear of all things Arab and now it has come home to roost. Lou Dobbs (and others) just became the catalyst by which this sentiment was brought to the surface. When you have a president telling you that he would move heaven and earth to protect his citizens from another 9/11, it should come as no surprise that people would became outraged at the idea of their country's ports being operated by Arabs.

As to Dennis' point, I would have to take issue with the idea of lumping the Dems / Progressives in the same group as the Repubs on this issue. This sentiment towards the Arab community is not of the Dems making and it would seem to me like another attempt of the Repubs trying to bring the Dems along for the ride.

[andrew]

The Democrats oppose Arab democracy. Why is their fearmongering here a surprise?

[elemental]

The Democrats oppose Arab democracy.

They do? That's news to me and probably anyone else who isn't a human talking point.

[counter-coulter]

The Democrats oppose Arab democracy.
- andrew

Ah yes, more of the "well...they opposed the war in Iraq, therefore they oppose democracy in the Middle East" bit of specious reasoning. And no real rebuttal nor acknowledgement of the Repubs role in all of this. How utterly surprising.

[Jim]

counter-coulter- "...this administration has done nothing else if not create a fear of all things Arab..."

And that's why the hateful Bushies, upon sacrifice of American life and treasury, supported the liberation of Asian-Muslim Afghanis and Arab-Iraqis, believing them worthy and capable of embracing democracy and prosperity. This administration and many others on the center-right have sought Muslims and Arabs as allies and have consistently held that we need them as political and business partners in areas other than just the oil bidness. While we supported Bush's interventions and nation-building efforts in Muslim-Arab totalitarian states, Progressives strenuously opposed them. While Bush and the majority of Republicans believe the Muslim world can progress if helped, or at least hope it will for everyone's sake, the Progressives don't seem to, on either count.

Talk about the soft racism of the Left, which rationalized much of their opposition to the interventions by insisting that since Muslim and Arab societies are not suited to democracy and western-style freedoms and responsibilities, 'twould be best to leave them to their dictators (brutes, kleptocrats and theocrats) unless and until they can throw them over without our help.

Anyway, why should Progressives support progress in the Arab and Muslim worlds, when the more dysfunctional Third Worlders aggrieved at us the better to keep knowing how Bad we really are?

[Terrye]

Neil:

Oh yeah the Dems were talking about port security, but what were they actually doing about it?

I remember when Clinton justified allowing a similar deal for the Chinese and if there was some worry about port security I do not recall it.

This is race baiting pure and simple.

[andrew]

"They do? That's news to me and probably anyone else who isn't a human talking point."

"Ah yes, more of the "well...they opposed the war in Iraq, therefore they oppose democracy in the Middle East" bit of specious reasoning. And no real rebuttal nor acknowledgement of the Repubs role in all of this. How utterly surprising."

There's no evidence to the contrary, which is why neither of you cited anything in rebuttal. I'm sure that there's a handful of Democrats that do, maybe 15-20%, but that a generous guess. And just because some on the Right are acting childish over this one issue doesn't excuse the insanity of the Left.

[counter-coulter]

Jim, And that's why the hateful Bushies, upon sacrifice of American life and treasury, supported the liberation of Asian-Muslim Afghanis and Arab-Iraqis, ..."

Is it really now your contention that we invaded Afghanistan to "liberate" them? I would really like to see any speeches between 9/11/01 and 3/20/03 where Bush or anyone within his administration was making these claims of bringing democracy either to Afghanistan or Iraq.

...and have consistently held that we need them as political and business partners in areas other than just the oil bidness.

Well...that's true. I mean we do need them to help finance all of our debt. I would just add the priviso that it was certain Arabs.

While we supported Bush's interventions and nation-building efforts in Muslim-Arab totalitarian states, Progressives strenuously opposed them.

I believe there was a certain conservative candidate who would disagree with this philosophy: "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." - George Bush 11/11/2000

Oh, oh, wait...let me guess..."that's pre 9/11 thinking", right?

While Bush and the majority of Republicans believe the Muslim world can progress if helped, ...

I believe you have a typo in there, it should read: "if invaded"

Talk about the soft racism of the Left, which rationalized much of their opposition to the interventions by insisting that since Muslim and Arab societies are not suited to democracy and western-style freedoms and responsibilities, ...

You mean by doing trying to do things through diplomatic channels with a general understanding towards cultural differences rather than unilateral invasion? Yeah, I'd have to say that the prior would be a better approach.

None of this matters too much anymore though. If the Repubs want to cry "soft racism" to try to absolve themselves of their own mess then so be it. The fact of the matter is that this administration had no qualms about painting muslims with broad strokes in order to sell their plans and now it has come to backfire on them with this ports deal.

[Grover Gardner]

"GG, I believe that the Dems saw this as an opportunity to, as someone else here noted, beat the Bush Admin. with a club of their own making."

I agree. But I don't think it's played very well in that regard--and I'm a Dem myself. As for race-baiting, well, it's a cute talking point but I don't buy it. I don't see ANY difference between John Warner and the Dems on this. But the Dems handled it badly. They could have come across as the reasonable side, but in their haste to score points against Bush they left themselves open to the sort of nonsense evident in some of the comments above.

[counter-coulter]

Oh yeah the Dems were talking about port security, but what were they actually doing about it?
- Terrye

So lemme see if I've got this right. The Repubs control all three branches of government, but this port security issue is the Dems fault? Those that have no power or influence over homeland security, the budget, etc. are the ones to blame? Ok, just wanted to be sure I understood the "logic" there.

[counter-coulter]

But the Dems handled it badly. They could have come across as the reasonable side, but in their haste to score points against Bush they left themselves open to the sort of nonsense evident in some of the comments above.
- Grover Gardner

If you think about it, is there any other way the Dems could have handled it other than badly? ;-)

I agree with quite a few posters on here that they didn't do themselves any favors by taking the position that they did. They would have been better off just giving the Repubs all the rope they wanted.

[andrew]

"The fact of the matter is that this administration had no qualms about painting muslims with broad strokes in order to sell their plans and now it has come to backfire on them with this ports deal."

Who in the Bush Administration has painted muslims with broad strokes?

[Jim]

counter-Coulter,

I seem to remember Bush and officials mentioning liberation and seeding democracy over and over and over before the interventions. And, yes, both the unseating of hostile regimes and nation-building with an eye toward democratic governance for the invaded countries was all about beginning to meet our American, western and even moderate Muslim security needs in failed and extremist regions where a better way was desperately needed before worse jihadist attacks provoked a less constructive and far nastier escalation.

And, you're right, we invaded!!, after myriad warnings for thug dictators to comply with our demands or step down, because Bush and his fellow Nazi imperialists just can't wrap their silly fascist minds around the wonders that still more diplomacy, realpolitik, bribes, kick-backs, cultural exchange programs, candlelight vigils, and yada-yada at the UN can do for fixing world problems and eliminating the growing terrorist and WMD threat. Yes, that's it.