Islamic Fundamentalism - a tricky issue

Perhaps even the trickiest issue.

When it comes to education, health care, the environment, and other such traditionally Democratic-dominated areas, I know exactly where the party stands. They speak to those issues with knowledge and conviction, and the polls say most Americans trust them much more than the GOP.

But the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism (real or imagined) is a much tougher issue, and one that probably isn't going away anytime soon. Americans are constantly reminded of 9-11 by both unavoidable images of the WTC in pop culture and politicians that exploit it to cause fear and worry. It is going to be on the nation's plate of issues for some time to come, IMO.

While Democrats have been polling far better these days in security matters, I believe some of that is a false boost from the absolute boondoggle Bush & Co. has made of the "war on terror." Their inept prosecution of the Iraq War, the ridiculous "bring 'em on" mentality, and other such inane moves that have helped Democrats, but only artificially - Dems must gain some command of the issue in order to gain the nation's trust on matters of public security, and can't depend on Republican blunders to win the day for them. The public is fickle, and might cling on to some surprise news of progress in Iraq (however unlikely) or the capture of Osama Bin Laden (you never know) by forgiving the GOP and abandoning Democrats - whose elected officials seem to have kept too quiet on Iraq and its obvious disconnect from the "war on terror" for the most part, content to let the Republicans live or die on them. This isn't good enough. Hell, Iraq wasn't all that Islamic, and Dems should be pointing that out instead of allowing the two to remain connected in the public consciousness.

Democrats need to come together as a party, IMO, and decide on a few things:

1. Is Islamic fundamentalism a distinct threat worthy of attention, or is it overblown and fading naturally?

2. If it is a threat worth fighting, what are the key methods for addressing Islamic militancy without pissing off the entire Middle East and making the problem worse?

3. If it's no more a threat than Christian or any other type of fundamentalism, how can the Joe Sixpack of a Christian majority nation be convinced that the kooks in his own religion pose as much of a threat to America as the kooks he sees as coming from overseas with bombs strapped to their chests?

I am worried that the Democrats do not have a cohesive messaage on what a whole bunch of Americans consider an issue ranked right up there with education and health care. In fact, one more big attack that can be blamed on Al Qaeda or some other Islamic group will shoot this issue right up to the top of the heap again, and leave those without the language for it at a supreme disadvantage.

Personally, I think there is a threat to the West from Islamic fundamentalism that is very real and dangerous, if not the world-changing thing it is purported to be by the Bush regime. When I read of the growing unrest in Europe over their muslim populations, and the rise of far-right whacko politicians (such as France's Le Pen) that have too much support to make anyone comfortable, it creeps me out for what might happen here. And another thing - I think it really was Al Qaeda that brought down the WTC and hit the Pentagon, and it pissed me off - as it did many Americans. Misplaced or not, that anger is real, tangible, and simmering in the electorate - ready to be returned naturally or artificially at a moment's notice. That represents a political danger for any party not ready to deal with it.

So finally on to the poll question, which begins to define the crux of the situation:

Is Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism it promotes globally a real and pressing issue that this nation's leaders must develop a strategy to deal with, or is it a phony or transistory diversion from more pressing matters, and one that will burn itself out in time?

I do not necessarily see that Islamic fundamentalism needs a seperate strategy, but we do need to develop/continue to work on developing/using an anti-extremist fundamentalist strategy.

It seems to me that the same strategy could be used against Islamic/Christian/KKK/anti-anything fundamentalists.


Edited to add: figure out what sort of power, control they are seeking and why. Figure out who any leaders are, try to work with them and the issues. I know that by definition extremeist fundamentalists are not exactly working with a full deck, but most have underlying issues that need to be dealt with also. Ensure people a decent healthy possibility of life, that helps. However, as I said, fundamentalisms go beyond that. Figure out how they have to be managed, how to be controlled, or rather guided. Seems to work for each and every group.

How could it be worded in a convincing platform if this issue continues to be one of significance, or even grows after another attack?

Let's say for a minute that those people arrested in Canada really were planning on doing something, and doing it in a large American city. If such an attack happened in the days leading up to an election, which party would currently benefit? I'm hard pressed to believe it would be Democrats, regardless of the shit stew Bush has put us in.

I believe too many national Democrats are holding their breath and hoping this terrorism thing blows over. That just isn't going to be good eneough for a party that wants to regain power and be seen as strong leaders.

Islamic fundamentalism (and Christian fundamentalism and economic fundamentalism, etc.) is a serious problem. It is nowhere NEAR as big a problem as the neocon fundies have tried to make it, even with them throwing gasoline on the fire for five years.

...and don't see where my wording is unfortunate. I will say that it might only take another big attack for many Americans to revert to a 9-12 mindset and believe that it's a bigger issue than you do. Voting Americans.

I think fundamentalism of all kinds is a problem

but that neocon fundies have used Islamic fundamentalism as a goad to create and exploit and atmosphere of irrational fear

it's real, but exploited

I tried to put in there some varying degrees, the topmost one being that it is a real problem in need of addressing.

is just so confusing.

Yep, it's an international problem that any party in power needs to address. Actually, I see it partly a result or symptom of other economic problems: poverty, overpopulation, xenophobia, militarization of foreign policy on the part of many nations. There are two major causes of these problems: Clinton's penis and the liberal media. No wait, that's not it. There are lots of causes to these problems and a comprehensive foriegn policy needs to deal with all of them. But in the short term a responsible government needs to learn how to discourage rising anger on the Arab street and reinforce the message that attacking America will inevitably backfire.

Those involved--who did not die on 9/11--should have been tracked down & stopped. We had full international support at the time. The "motive" didn't really matter. But that sort of investigation might have gotten uncomfortable for the Bush Regime. The old question: Criminal Negligence or LIHOP?

Instead, Bush decided to invade Afghanistan. The Taliban had offered to give up Osama, but they wanted real proof he was behind 9/11. The proof was not offered. The people of Afghanistan are not measurably better off than before & our forces will remain in Afghanistan because of its strategic location.

Then Bush used the same excuse to invade Iraq. Well, the WMD's were the real excuse--but "since 9/11" was the constant refrain. Now Saddam's gone, Iraqis keep dying & Americans keep dying. Our forces will also remain there--to guard the oil.

Of course, terrorism can be a problem--whatever the motive. Clinton was concerned about it, but Bush wasn't. The Democrats had a better plan back then; let's see it updated.

Ending imperialism would be a good way to discourage the spread of terrorism. I believe there are reasonable people in every country; threats of war just encourage the extremists. The "unrest" in Europe cannot solely be blamed on the Muslims--racism & xenophobia do exist.

B*sh and Rumsfeld originally wanted to go straight for Iraq. It was mainly Colin Powell, Richard Clarke and Tony Blair who persuaded them to deal with al-Qaeda first. Even then it was a half-hearted effort.

Are elected Democrats ready to handle news like this from the "war on terror," or have they left the whole shebang up to Republicans?

If Osama is killed or captured before November, it could radically alter Democrats expected gains in the mid-terms. I can't believe the party isn't preparing for that potential eventuality by adopting a distinguishable policy on Islamic fundamentalism. This issue is not going away.

Surely--they will?

We need an anti-terrorist policy; Clinton had a pretty good one. Also, a long-term foreign policy that gives fewer people a motive to become terrorists. Why single out "Islamic fundamentalism"? In fact, even in the US, many Fundamentalists are not political; they just want to practice their religion.

...because that's the way the issue has been framed. If it's to be framed another way, then elected officials need to get that message out instead, and in a way that one doesn't have to be sophisticated to grasp it.

As it is now I don't really know what the party thinks beyond the valid criticism of this incompetent adminstration, and neither do the voters - if the "war on terror" comes to the forefront again the way it did after 9-11, that will be a tremendous disadvantage.