In the Minds of the Far Right

Among the various supporters of the Bush administration's "War on Terror", there can be found proponents of virtually every ideological leaning, from the "liberal" Christopher Hitchens to the many right-wing hardliners such as Victor Davis Hanson and Charles Krauthammer. The mainstream media and cable news networks tend to give substantial speaking time to representatives of these numerous Bush-supporting "factions", however the talking heads that make their way into the mainstream bring with them a certain degree of diplomacy and tact that is not found with many writers in the blogosphere.

From this disparity, the question arises whether the more blunt and provacative rhetoric found on right-wing blogs is a more extreme version of Bush's brand of conservatism, or whether it is simply a more honest exposition of the same ideas. Considering that the ideas themselves seem to be almost identical -- with the only difference between the mainstream and the fringe being the uncompromising presentation found in much of the blogosphere -- it appears that the conservative mainstream and fringes share many of the same guiding principles.

The most widespread and controversial of these principles together form a sort of ad hoc ideology which is, if not entirely consistent, at least sufficient for expressing the worldview and goals of many on the right. These core ideas are as follows:

• Violent extremist Islam (sometimes called "Islamofascism") poses a serious existential threat to Western traditions of culture, democracy and liberty -- a threat on par with the Nazi fascism and Soviet communism of the past.
• These Islamic extremists are committed to the destruction and/or conquest of Western civilization, and possess the means to succeed if they are not strongly opposed.
• The ideology and actions of "the Left" work against the interests of Western civilization and serve to enable Islamic extremists in their attempts to subvert Western traditions.
• Muslims -- whether living in Western countries or elsewhere -- are to some extent complicit in the actions of Islamic extremists, and should be treated with suspicion, much as Japanese Americans were treated during World War II. (The degree to which Muslims are seen as complicit varies between different elements on the right.)

These ideas, together with the firmly established traditions of militarism and exceptionalism, lead many to view the current conflict as a clearly defined, Manichean "Clash of Civilizations", to use the term used by Samuel P. Huntington. In this epic struggle -- the stakes of which are nothing less than the continued existence of Western civilization -- it often becomes necessary to empower government (specifically the Executive branch) in order to counter the numerous threats from outside the country as well as within.

The first idea forms the justification for expansion of government power, by framing the conflict in terms of exceedingly serious existential threats of the past. Further, the second idea identifies an enemy that is not only sufficiently powerful to threaten the American way of life, but is also completely irrational and uncompromising.

The third and fourth ideas establish a more immediate threat, within the boundaries of Western civilization, which justifies the suspension of any number of traditionally held rights and the domestic empowerment of the Executive. More specifically, the third idea delegitimizes any political opposition to Bush's policies by casting it as opposition to democracy and liberty, or even worse, as active support of irrational, bloodthirsty forces that threaten to annihilate Western civilization. Similarly, the fourth idea introduces an element of uncertainty and fear by identifying the beliefs and actions of an extremist minority with a much larger group. By emphasizing the difficulty of differentiating "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims" -- and by implying some degree of complicity shared by all Muslims -- wider, more indiscriminate violations of liberties and more extreme policies can be justified.

While most of these ideas arise from a seed of truth, the way in which they are expanded and generalized provides a basis for mass-scale government involvement and escalation. In keeping with the right-wing emphasis on military strength and order, it is natural for a perceived threat to be countered with the growth of government power. From this premise, it is obvious that the greater the threat, the greater the expansion of government power will be. If war is the health of the state, it is very much in the interests of the state to maximize perceptions of danger and uncertainty, in order to maximize the benefits it can derive from a threat.

None of this, however, depends on any sort of conspiracy or conscious deceptive effort on the part of government officials. The nature of our government and military are such that escalation and exaggeration are not only beneficial but almost unavoidable. In a political context, overstatement of a threat often serves to consolidate support and reinforce national identity, while understatements risk being contradicted by future serious developments. When the exact nature and extent of a threat is not immediately evident (as is surely the case with violent Islamic extremism) it is virtually always better to overestimate the threat and act accordingly, since any underestimation would likely result in catastrophe (i.e. another terrorist attack due to inadequate protection). In addition, large-scale responses to even the most uncertain of threats are politically valuable as they generally present leaders as strong and in control. Thus it is natural -- though often harmful -- for governments to maximize the seriousness of threats in their rhetoric and responses.

The ideology that arises out of this process, as we saw above, reinforces originally unfounded assumptions and, in many cases, becomes self-fulfilling. For example, the conflict of Iraq, which was falsely framed as part of the War on Terror (Iraq in fact had nothing to do with al Qaeda), has become central to that conflict as Islamic extremists exploit anti-American sentiments that have arisen as a result of that war. Similarly, as numerous elements within American and European society continue to unjustly target peaceful Muslims (with rhetoric, legislation, and cultural pressures), it is inevitable that the resulting injustice and alienation will expand the ranks of extremists.

As we have seen, these fundamental conceptions of the nature of the "War on Terror" pose a danger to liberty and democracy that could surpass the danger of terrorism itself. In contrast to many wars of the past, in which definite goals and enemies were evident, this 21st century war is one that will be fought more with ideas than with guns or tanks. Since there is no way to effectively identify all or even most of our enemies in this conflict, let alone exterminate them, it is paramount that we commit our resources not to escalation but to adaptation. The American militarism and dominance of the 20th century are things of the past. Unless Americans quickly come to this realization, it may be our reaction to the terrorist threat, rather than the threat itself, that brings about the end of our way of life.