Islamic World Choosing Segregation from West

When African Americans first started entering selective colleges in significant numbers after the civil rights revolution of the 1960s they found that they were ill-prepared for the challenge of life at the top and they were ashamed. They were ashamed because they were confronted, as Shelby Steele writes in The Content of Our Character, with overcoming in their own lives, right then and there, the centuries-old myth of racial inferiority. Were they good enough, could they make it in competition with the white kids? So they adopted the defensive strategy of keeping themselves apart, of segregating themselves in the cafeteria, of pressuring college administrations for minority dorms, and in general aggressive behavior.

And they held themselves back from full participation in the great American experiment.

Now we are seeing the same behavior in the Islamic Middle East, reported by Daniel Pipes. The cartoon war, he feels is going to hurt, not the west, but the Islamic world.

I predict it is helping bring on not a clash of civilizations but their mutual pulling apart. This separation, which has been building for years, has dreadful implications.

The sectors involved include trade, consumer items, financial investments, aid, and tourism. The problem is that, just like the African Americans held back by centuries of slavery and discrimination, the Islamic world needs not separation but full involvement in—indeed surrender to—the culture of the west with its magic brew of reason, capitalism, and democracy.

Disengagement will only worsen the Muslim predicament. Reduced contact with the world’s most modern, powerful, and advanced countries would likely cause Muslims to do even worse in those indexes and lapse deeper into a condition characterized by self-pity, jealousy, resentment, anger, and aggression.

Compare the Islamic attitude with the Chinese, reported by Michael Novak in his review of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason. For a century or more the Chinese have been cudgeling their brains about the rise of the west. What is it, they have asked themselves? Why has the west overtaken China, the most advanced country in the world, and put China to shame? The answer, they concluded, was Christianity.

At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.

So the Chinese are converting in their tens of millions to Christianity, as told by David Aikman in Jesus in Beijing.

If that is true then the Islamic world is in deeper trouble than we thought. And they have an additional problem. They lack the cultural confidence of the Chinese, the knowledge that China is the first and the best of all civilizations.

After Cheney Tantrum Is MSM Still Relevant?

Will the Bush Administration get away with stiff-arming the Mainstream Media over the Cheney shooting incident?

Obviously, the tactics after the hunting accident, in which Vice President Cheney shot lawyer Harry Whittington Saturday afternoon, were intended to keep the whole thing low key. But the Vice President and the White House miscalculated over one thing. They did not forsee that the MSM White House corps would go ballistic over the insult to their customary right to be the first to report on White House matters.

Or did they? Could they be that smart? Did they figure that the MSM would spend the next week in outrage, proving the adage that hell hath no fury like, let’s say, a prima donna scorned? No, surely not. They called the local Corpus Christi newspaper in order to slide the news of the accident into the public consciousness gently. Next thing they knew, the MSM went ballistic.

But when on Wednesday the vice president gave an exclusive interview to Fox News, the administration insulted the fading CNN, which thought that they should have got in on the action.

And the Democrats are in on the act too. They are outraged too. But then they are outraged about everything.

At least the Washington Post is staying on an even keel and reporting the news pretty straight. After all, the real takeaway is the vice president’s statement:

"Ultimately, I’m the guy who pulled the trigger and fired the round that hit Harry," Cheney said in a hastily arranged White House interview with Fox News Channel anchor Brit Hume. "And you can talk about all of the other conditions that existed at the time, but that’s the bottom line. And there’s no -- it was not Harry’s fault. You can’t blame anybody else. I’m the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend. And I say that is something I’ll never forget."

It’s something to think about. That the story is about Dick Cheney accidentally shooting his friend, not about the wounded feelings of insulted news media celebrities.

The question is: Can the Bushies get away with this? Can they ignore the wails and the ragings of the MSM?

If they can, it will be another sign that the world is changing, that a new world is aborning.

A Small Step for Dynamic Tax Analysis

President Bush has budgeted “an additional $513,000 for the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis to create a new division of dynamic analysis,” according to Bruce Bartlett. Ho hum.

Actually, this is a big deal. It goes to the heart of the supply-side theory of marginal tax rates that has been the intellectual foundation of the Reagan and the Bush tax cuts. And let us be clear about this.

The reason that the Reagan tax cuts of 1983 and the Bush tax cuts of 2003 have resulted in gangbuster growth is that both were focused upon broad tax rate cuts.

By contrast, Democrats still believe that the way to jumpstart the economy is with “targeted” tax cuts.

The Reagan tax cuts in 1983 lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and the tax bill of 1986 lowered the top rate from 50 percent to 28 percent. The result? The share of taxes paid by the rich went up.

The Bush tax cuts of 2003 cut the top rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent. The result? The economy took off like a rocket.

But guess what? The government’s official estimate of the effects of these tax rate cuts, the so-called “scoring” of tax changes, make no allowance for the idea that people might change their behavior when tax rates are cut.

That’s what the $513,000 is all about. To advance the adoption of “dynamic” economic analysis in forecasting tax revenues.

The first attempt to cut tax rates occurred in 1978 when the Steiger Amendment cut the top capital gains rate to 25 percent.
Writes Bartlett:

After Congress cut the capital-gains tax in 1978, the Treasury Department studied the effect and concluded the tax cut had indeed raised federal revenue. There was also a huge jump in venture capital financing that many economists credit for starting the high-tech revolution of the last 25 years.

Tax experts eventually determined that there was a reflow effect of about 35 percent. That is, if you reduced a tax rate and crudely assumed that the revenue would be reduced by the same amount, you would be wrong. The loss in revenue would be 35 percent less than you estimated. Equally, if you raised taxes, the increased take would be about 35 percent less than you expected.

The new office of dynamic analysis will be tasked with getting more accurate revenue estimates after tax rate changes. That can’t happen soon enough.

Hugh Hewitt Demolishes Jonathan Chait

On Monday, talk show host Hugh Hewitt (perm) did another of his in-depth interviews of an MSM chappie, this time Jonathan Chait, who had run a piece in the LA Times denying that Hillary Clinton was angry. (He’s probably right. She isn’t angry; she just sounds angry.)

But Hewitt did another forensic interview job, as he did with Joel Stein recently. At the end of the interview, Chait sounded like a insufferably pompous MSM liberal. Which is what he is.

Hugh Hewitt is emerging as one of the best interviewers in the United States. And you can see why. He is a lawyer, and when he interviews he sounds just like a lawyer examining an unfriendly witness. First he sets his witness up, and then he sets about exposing him as uncooperative and evasive. Not the sort of witness that a jury of American voters would want to believe.

Hewitt understands, instinctively, that there are certain things that an MSM liberal doesn’t want to admit. Number One is that the news media puts out a biased news product. Number Two is that Democrats are not noble and lofty, but angry and ruthless.

Think about it. The MSM talks a lot about “objective” news reporters. They have to. Given that the MSM folk are overwhelmingly liberal, they have to insist that they can put all that aside and deliver an unbiased product. If they admitted they had a problem, then they would have to do something about it. They might have to hire conservatives.

The rise of the new media has put them in a box. The new media is frankly partisan. Conservative pundits are frankly conservative, and liberal pundits are frankly liberal. But the news product of the MSM is slowly getting unmasked as partisan, especially as the advance of conservative speech in the media and the difficulties of the Democrats makes the liberal MSMers more and more protective of their liberal friends.

Thus when Jonathan Chait comes on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show he is trapped into defending the indefensible. He has to admit that the MSMers are all liberal, but insists that their news product is moderate. Hillary Clinton is not angry, but Bush Haters like himself are angry, well sort of. They are angry, but in a formal, rational way, because they rationally disapprove of the president’s policies.

MSMers have an image of themselves as being superior, rational, above the lower orders. But actually, of course, they are just as committed as any other participant in the political square.

Hugh Hewitt understands all this, and so, with his lawyerly wiles, knows how to examine his liberal interview subjects and mercilessly discredit them in the eyes of the jury.

What Do Muslims Really Think?

President Bush has implemented a policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But, even if his policy succeeds in its immediate aim, what will be the outcome? What will the Muslim peoples choose, and who will they choose to lead them?

Two articles bring an interesting answer to this question. Amir Taheri identifies the Islamists as descended from the Salafi movement, which he describes as a faux-religious movement, Neo-Islam, that is not religious but political and totalitarian. It was all started in the 19th century by

the Persian adventurer Jamaleddin Assadabadi, who disguised himself as an Afghan to hide his Shiite origin and set out to build a career in the mostly Sunni land of Egypt. Although a Freemason, Jamal (who dubbed himself Sayyed Gamal) concluded that the only way to win power among Muslims was by appealing to their religious sentiments. So he transformed himself into an Islamic scholar, grew an impressive beard and donned a huge black turban to underline his claim of being a descendant of the Prophet...

[His partner Mirza Malkam Khan] had a slogan of unrivaled cynicism: "Tell the Muslims something is in the Koran, and they will die for you."

Their direct political descendents are the Muslim Brotherhood, the “semi-literate mullah named Ruhallah Khomeini,” and the Afghan Taliban. To Taheri, this movement is first and foremost political, and uses religious imagery purely as a way to get support and grab power.

Suppose President Bush achieves regime change in Iran. What would the Iranian people do? Jason Lee Steorts conducts an interview with Iranian dissident Amir Abbas Fakhravar, author of the “anti-regime book This Place Is Not a Ditch,” to find out. The key question is whether sanctions or military action would strengthen the Iranian regime. Says Fakhravar:

Please don’t ever say that the people of Iran are going to have resentment or anger in their hearts toward America or Western countries for doing this. [On] Saturday [February 4]... the people here found out that Iran was going before the [U.N.] Security Council, and there was celebration all over Tehran. I heard from my own family, the families of my friends, that it was one of the busiest days of the year for the pastry shops — that people were buying pastries and cookies and candies in the streets of Tehran and going to each other to celebrate.

Well, he’s a dissident. He would say that. What about support from the US government?

I cannot mention who, but I’m definitely communicating with some people in the U.S. government and have established contacts with people in the Bush administration.

So the War on Terror, the war against the Islamists, the contest for the future, continues.

A Moderate Muslim Speaks. And How

Have you been waiting for a moderate Muslim to speak out on the Cartoon Wars? Look no further. She has spoken and she is, appropriately, the daughter of a “martyr.”

Writer Nonie Darwish is daughter of a man who was

sent by Egypt’s President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, to head the Egyptian military intelligence in Gaza and the Sinai where he founded the Palestinian Fedayeen, or "armed resistance". They made cross-border attacks into Israel, killing 400 Israelis and wounding more than 900 others.

In the London Daily Telegraph she writes that her father was killed in Fedayeen operations and “was hailed by Nasser as a national hero and was considered a shaheed, or martyr.”

In school in Gaza, I learned hate, vengeance and retaliation. Peace was never an option, as it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. At school we sang songs with verses calling Jews "dogs" (in Arab culture, dogs are considered unclean)...
Sadly, the way I was raised was not unique. Hundreds of millions of other Muslims also have been raised with the same hatred of the West and Israel as a way to distract from the failings of their leaders. Things have not changed since I was a little girl in the 1950s.

But here is the kicker, the insight that explains the whole Cartoon War kerfuffle.

Indeed, with Denmark set to assume the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council, the flames of the cartoon controversy have been fanned by Iran and Syria. This is critical since the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to refer Iran to the Security Council and demand sanctions. At the same time, Syria is under scrutiny for its actions in Lebanon. Both Iran and Syria cynically want to embarrass the Danes to achieve their dangerous goals.

No kidding. Thanks, MSM, for the wall-to-wall coverage on this interesting concept.

Go ahead. Read the whole thing.

Can Compassionate Conservatism Win in Britain?

George W. Bush ran for president in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative.” Annoying to conservatives, his campaign was an attempt to tackle the reality that most people do not think of the welfare state as a bureaucratic government monopoly but as society’s compassionate attempt to help the less fortunate.

Now David Cameron, new leader of Britain’s Conservative Party, is trying the same approach. He is dealing with the reality that, however clumsy and bureaucratic and monopolistic Britain’s government health service and government schools may be, people still think of them as “their” schools and “their” National Health Service.

In a speech to the British think tank Demos Cameron has laid out his strategy in broad terms. He calls for the revival of “civil society” between the two extremes of government and the individual. And so he and his colleagues are working out policy

to establish clear borders of responsibility, by working out what is best done by the state, what is best done by civil society and what is best done by the individual.
But, in seeking that balance, we start with an instinctive desire to put more trust in civil society and in the individual, rather than in the bureaucratic apparatus of the state.

So he is clearly attempting to define the Labour Party as the party of clunking and insensitive bureaucratic apparatus.

In the London Spectator Matthew Parris is trying to think forward from Cameron’s speech to the actual battle for the hearts and minds of the British people. What will happen when the Labour Party starts to talk about “Tory cuts” in welfare state provision? Civil society is all very well when there is no alternative. In Ethiopia there is no welfare state. That means that civil society in the form of

family and village are all a needy Ethiopian has to turn to, and family and village know it.

That is why Brownites [supporters of Labour leader Gordon Brown] suspect that a Tory party which argues for a bigger role for civil society may secretly contemplate cutting state welfare. This is what Labour will argue. The Conservatives need an answer.

The answer probably is that conservatives need to make a new argument, an argument they have up to now been afraid to make, that state welfare is not compassionate and kind, but cruel and oppressive. We need to argue, and convince the voters throughout the Anglosphere, that the government welfare state is not a nice cuddly thing, but the proximate cause of all the wrongs of society, from angry young gangbangers to healthy middle-aged people drawing government disability benefits and to senior citizens cruelly dependent upon the state for their welfare in their old age.

Until we can make that argument, and persuade the political center of our argument (and let us be frank here, “political center” means non-political middle-class mothers), then the “cuts” argument will continue to work for the parties of the left.

Maybe David Cameron is the conservative who will figure out how to cut this Gordian Knot.