THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VIII, Issue # 166, August 31, 2006
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
IS THE WEST RACIST TOWARD MUSLIMS & ARABS?
The U.S.A. Should Hold Arabs & Muslims to a Universal Standard
By Dr. Michael Rubin
WESTERN ATTITUDES TOWARD MUSLIMS & ARABS: IN THE U.S.A., HOW MUCH DISCRIMINATION IS THERE
AGAINST MUSLIMS & ARABS WHO MIGRATE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST TO AMERICA? HOW WELL DO MUSLIM &
ARAB IMMIGRANTS ASSIMILATE INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY? WHAT ARE THE ATTITUDES OF NATIONAL
POLICYMAKERS & FOREIGN POLICY ELITES IN THE U.S.A. & EUROPE, AS REGARDS THE ABILITY OF ISLAMIC MAJORITY
COUNTRIES TO ESTABLISH & MAINTAIN STABLE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACIES -- POLITICAL REGIMES WHICH ARE
CHARACTIZED BY THE RULE OF LAW, PRESERVATION OF LIBERTY UNDER LAW, EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, MAJORITY RULE WITH PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF
MINORITIES, & PEACEFUL & LEGAL TRANSFER OF GOVERNING AURHORITY THROUGH DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS?
FULL STORY:
Is the West racist toward Arabs and Muslims? In the United States of America, the answer is both no and yes. The United
States is about the best place any Muslim, Christian, or Jew can live. They can speak freely and worship freely. Despite the
rhetoric of some groups that claim to represent American Muslims, there is very little discrimination. According to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's hate crimes report, in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 1,374
religious hate crimes. Of these, 954 were anti-Jewish, 95 anti-Christian and 156 anti-Muslim. All of these are still too many,
but, in a country of almost 300 million people, such figures underscore the safety of American society and the tolerance of
the American public.
Whether Muslims are born in the United States or immigrate to the country, there is little impediment to their full
participation in society. Indeed, Muslims in the United States are more affluent than the average American. They enter the
best schools, build successful businesses or practices, and experience little if any glass ceiling.
Why, then, can the United States be considered racist toward Arabs and Muslims? Simply put, because Washington
policymakers and the foreign policy elite do not hold Arab and Muslim governments to the same standards to which they
hold countries like Denmark and Sweden. Why should U.S. or European policymakers react any differently to the Iranian
government's abuses against striking Vahed bus drivers than we would to striking Gdansk shipyard workers? Are Iranian
laborers any less deserving of justice than European workers? Are Tunisians any less deserving of free speech than
Frenchmen?
This hypocrisy is most often apparent in Western policy toward the Arab world. To summarize what eminent historian
Bernard Lewis said regarding the question of constitutional democracy in the Arab world, there are two points of view,
one of which holds:
"Arabs are incapable of democratic government.... Arabs
are different from us and we must be more, shall we say,
reasonable both in what we expect from them and in what
they may expect from us. Whatever we do, these countries
will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. The aim of foreign policy,
therefore, should be to make sure that they are friendly
tyrants."
This, he said, is the traditional "pro-Arab" view. In an Orwellian reversal of logic, those who demand that Arabs and other
Muslims be held to the same standards of human rights are often labeled anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.
Many pundits argue that the U.S. government cannot impose constitutional democracy upon the Middle East. True.
Constitutional democracy is not possible without civil society, political accountability, and the buy-in of local citizens.
This does not mean that constitutional democracy cannot take root. According to The Guardian, a paper seldom
accused of sympathy to U.S. foreign policy, more than one-in-six Iraqis fled their country during the rule of Saddam
Hussein. When they settled in the West, they experienced no cultural impediments to constitutional democracy. This
suggests that the problem in much of the Middle East is not democracy, but, rather, rule-of-law. That many professional
diplomats and elite commentators belittle even the concept of constitutional democracy taking root in the Arab world and
majority Muslim nations is a sign of the condescension and contempt with which so many treat Arabs. These officials
would let terrorists win by excusing their atrocities or, worse yet, forcing compromises upon those suffering from, but
resisting, terrorist violence.
Some put a scholarly patina on their condescension. They try to differentiate between Western democracy and Islamic
democracy, or universal human rights and Islamic human rights. They equivocate about the importance of religious
freedom. But qualification of such concepts as constitutionalism, democracy, justice, or human rights with an adjective
never expands rights; it only restricts them.
Within policymaking circles, fear of stigma becomes an excuse to hold Arabs, Iranians, and Muslims to a lower standard.
Too often, policymakers and academics argue that, to fund civil society, assist organized labor or speak out on behalf of
dissidents, could undercut reform. Most recently, many have condemned the allocation of $75 million to support
constitutional democracy and civil society in Iran. True, the Iranian government may still brand civil society activists
traitors. And many oppositionists are charlatans, eager to defraud Uncle Sam of a buck. But that is what quality control is
for. The U.S.A. should not judge what is in the best interests of dissidents or activists bold enough to ignore such stigma.
Arab, Iranian, and other Muslim civil society activists are perfectly capable of deciding what is in their best interest; the
U.S. State Department should not presuppose to do it for them.
The United States may still be a multicultural haven of equality. It is too bad, then, that U.S. policymakers still embrace a
doctrine of condescension and inequality when it comes to demanding the same human rights standards for Arabs and
Muslims and behavior from their governments that they do for European, Latin American, and many Asian nations.
Is the West racist toward Arabs and Muslims? In the United States of America, the answer is both no and yes. The United
States is about the best place any Muslim, Christian, or Jew can live. They can speak freely and worship freely. Despite the
rhetoric of some groups that claim to represent American Muslims, there is very little discrimination. According to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's hate crimes report, in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 1,374
religious hate crimes. Of these, 954 were anti-Jewish, 95 anti-Christian and 156 anti-Muslim. All of these are still too many,
but, in a country of almost 300 million people, such figures underscore the safety of American society and the tolerance of
the American public.
Whether Muslims are born in the United States or immigrate to the country, there is little impediment to their full
participation in society. Indeed, Muslims in the United States are more affluent than the average American. They enter the
best schools, build successful businesses or practices, and experience little if any glass ceiling.
Why, then, can the United States be considered racist toward Arabs and Muslims? Simply put, because Washington
policymakers and the foreign policy elite do not hold Arab and Muslim governments to the same standards to which they
hold countries like Denmark and Sweden. Why should U.S. or European policymakers react any differently to the Iranian
government's abuses against striking Vahed bus drivers than we would to striking Gdansk shipyard workers? Are Iranian
laborers any less deserving of justice than European workers? Are Tunisians any less deserving of free speech than
Frenchmen?
This hypocrisy is most often apparent in Western policy toward the Arab world. To summarize what eminent historian
Bernard Lewis said regarding the question of constitutional democracy in the Arab world, there are two points of view,
one of which holds:
"Arabs are incapable of democratic government.... Arabs
are different from us and we must be more, shall we say,
reasonable both in what we expect from them and in what
they may expect from us. Whatever we do, these countries
will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. The aim of foreign policy,
therefore, should be to make sure that they are friendly
tyrants."
This, he said, is the traditional "pro-Arab" view. In an Orwellian reversal of logic, those who demand that Arabs and other
Muslims be held to the same standards of human rights are often labeled anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.
Many pundits argue that the U.S. government cannot impose constitutional democracy upon the Middle East. True.
Constitutional democracy is not possible without civil society, political accountability, and the buy-in of local citizens.
This does not mean that constitutional democracy cannot take root. According to The Guardian, a paper seldom
accused of sympathy to U.S. foreign policy, more than one-in-six Iraqis fled their country during the rule of Saddam
Hussein. When they settled in the West, they experienced no cultural impediments to constitutional democracy. This
suggests that the problem in much of the Middle East is not democracy, but, rather, rule-of-law. That many professional
diplomats and elite commentators belittle even the concept of constitutional democracy taking root in the Arab world and
majority Muslim nations is a sign of the condescension and contempt with which so many treat Arabs. These officials
would let terrorists win by excusing their atrocities or, worse yet, forcing compromises upon those suffering from, but
resisting, terrorist violence.
Some put a scholarly patina on their condescension. They try to differentiate between Western democracy and Islamic
democracy, or universal human rights and Islamic human rights. They equivocate about the importance of religious
freedom. But qualification of such concepts as constitutionalism, democracy, justice, or human rights with an adjective
never expands rights; it only restricts them.
Within policymaking circles, fear of stigma becomes an excuse to hold Arabs, Iranians, and Muslims to a lower standard.
Too often, policymakers and academics argue that, to fund civil society, assist organized labor or speak out on behalf of
dissidents, could undercut reform. Most recently, many have condemned the allocation of $75 million to support
constitutional democracy and civil society in Iran. True, the Iranian government may still brand civil society activists
traitors. And many oppositionists are charlatans, eager to defraud Uncle Sam of a buck. But that is what quality control is
for. The U.S.A. should not judge what is in the best interests of dissidents or activists bold enough to ignore such stigma.
Arab, Iranian, and other Muslim civil society activists are perfectly capable of deciding what is in their best interest; the
U.S. State Department should not presuppose to do it for them.
The United States may still be a multicultural haven of equality. It is too bad, then, that U.S. policymakers still embrace a
doctrine of condescension and inequality when it comes to demanding the same human rights standards for Arabs and
Muslims and behavior from their governments that they do for European, Latin American, and many Asian nations.
Is the West racist toward Arabs and Muslims? In the United States of America, the answer is both no and yes. The United
States is about the best place any Muslim, Christian, or Jew can live. They can speak freely and worship freely. Despite the
rhetoric of some groups that claim to represent American Muslims, there is very little discrimination. According to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's hate crimes report, in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 1,374
religious hate crimes. Of these, 954 were anti-Jewish, 95 anti-Christian and 156 anti-Muslim. All of these are still too many,
but, in a country of almost 300 million people, such figures underscore the safety of American society and the tolerance of
the American public.
Whether Muslims are born in the United States or immigrate to the country, there is little impediment to their full
participation in society. Indeed, Muslims in the United States are more affluent than the average American. They enter the
best schools, build successful businesses or practices, and experience little if any glass ceiling.
Why, then, can the United States be considered racist toward Arabs and Muslims? Simply put, because Washington
policymakers and the foreign policy elite do not hold Arab and Muslim governments to the same standards to which they
hold countries like Denmark and Sweden. Why should U.S. or European policymakers react any differently to the Iranian
government's abuses against striking Vahed bus drivers than we would to striking Gdansk shipyard workers? Are Iranian
laborers any less deserving of justice than European workers? Are Tunisians any less deserving of free speech than
Frenchmen?
This hypocrisy is most often apparent in Western policy toward the Arab world. To summarize what eminent historian
Bernard Lewis said regarding the question of constitutional democracy in the Arab world, there are two points of view,
one of which holds:
"Arabs are incapable of democratic government.... Arabs
are different from us and we must be more, shall we say,
reasonable both in what we expect from them and in what
they may expect from us. Whatever we do, these countries
will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. The aim of foreign policy,
therefore, should be to make sure that they are friendly
tyrants."
This, he said, is the traditional "pro-Arab" view. In an Orwellian reversal of logic, those who demand that Arabs and other
Muslims be held to the same standards of human rights are often labeled anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.
Many pundits argue that the U.S. government cannot impose constitutional democracy upon the Middle East. True.
Constitutional democracy is not possible without civil society, political accountability, and the buy-in of local citizens.
This does not mean that constitutional democracy cannot take root. According to The Guardian, a paper seldom
accused of sympathy to U.S. foreign policy, more than one-in-six Iraqis fled their country during the rule of Saddam
Hussein. When they settled in the West, they experienced no cultural impediments to constitutional democracy. This
suggests that the problem in much of the Middle East is not democracy, but, rather, rule-of-law. That many professional
diplomats and elite commentators belittle even the concept of constitutional democracy taking root in the Arab world and
majority Muslim nations is a sign of the condescension and contempt with which so many treat Arabs. These officials
would let terrorists win by excusing their atrocities or, worse yet, forcing compromises upon those suffering from, but
resisting, terrorist violence.
Some put a scholarly patina on their condescension. They try to differentiate between Western democracy and Islamic
democracy, or universal human rights and Islamic human rights. They equivocate about the importance of religious
freedom. But qualification of such concepts as constitutionalism, democracy, justice, or human rights with an adjective
never expands rights; it only restricts them.
Within policymaking circles, fear of stigma becomes an excuse to hold Arabs, Iranians, and Muslims to a lower standard.
Too often, policymakers and academics argue that, to fund civil society, assist organized labor or speak out on behalf of
dissidents, could undercut reform. Most recently, many have condemned the allocation of $75 million to support
constitutional democracy and civil society in Iran. True, the Iranian government may still brand civil society activists
traitors. And many oppositionists are charlatans, eager to defraud Uncle Sam of a buck. But that is what quality control is
for. The U.S.A. should not judge what is in the best interests of dissidents or activists bold enough to ignore such stigma.
Arab, Iranian, and other Muslim civil society activists are perfectly capable of deciding what is in their best interest; the
U.S. State Department should not presuppose to do it for them.
The United States may still be a multicultural haven of equality. It is too bad, then, that U.S. policymakers still embrace a
doctrine of condescension and inequality when it comes to demanding the same human rights standards for Arabs and
Muslims and behavior from their governments that they do for European, Latin American, and many Asian nations.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Ethnic & Racial Politics in the U.S.A.
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY & OTHER POLITICAL REGIMES
Modern Constitutional Democracy:
Fundamental Character & Essential Ingredients
Constitutionalism: The First Essential Ingredient
of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Dictatorship: The Opposite of Constitutionalism
Representative Democracy: The Second Essential Ingredient
of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Direct Democracy & Representative Democracy
Political Culture & Modern Constitutional Democracy
Modern Constitutional Democracy:
Summary & Conclusion
Dr. Michael Rubin, a Ph.D. in History (Yale University) and a specialist in Middle Eastern politics, Islamic culture and Islamist
ideology, is Editor of the Middle East Quarterly and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. Dr Rubin is author of Into the Shadows: Radical Vigilantes in Khatami's Iran (Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, 2001) and is co-author, with Dr. Patrick Clawson, of Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2005). Dr. Rubin served as political advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad (2003-2004); staff
advisor on Iran and Iraq in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense (2002-2004); visiting lecturer in the Departments of
History and International Relations at Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2001-2002); visiting lecturer at the Universities of
Sulaymani, Salahuddin, and Duhok in Iraqi Kurdistan (2000-2001); Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy (1999-2000); and visiting lecturer in the Department of History at Yale University (1999-2000). He has been a fellow at
the Council of Foreign Relations, the Leonard Davis Institute at Hebrew University, and the Carnegie Council on Ethics and
International Affairs.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VIII, 2006
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues