Europe's "Soft" Intellectuals

I've read a few entries by Leon de Winter, whose blog I mentioned in the last post.  What he writes reminds me strongly of the arguments of a good friend of mine whom I visited recently, who is likewise a European intellectual.  This friend of mine, along with de Winter, are harshly critical of the mainstream of the European intellectual elite for being soft on terrorism.  These folks have nothing in common with American conservatives, and may not particularly fancy George W. Bush.  They do, however, believe that Islamist terrorism poses a vital and direct threat to the West's interests, perhaps requiring military force and stronger limits on immigration. 

Thus they have offered support to the Bush Administration, even though their political views might be very different from the average American Administration supporter.  In the English-speaking world, you could also put Christopher Hitchens, Norm Geras, and Andrew Sullivan in the camp of "unexpected" and perhaps hesitant Bush-supporters.  The first two are former leftists, the last a gay moderate English conservative.  All supported Bush -- albeit sometimes with tones of faute de mieux.

These writers frequently condemn European intellectuals for not grasping the threat of Islamist terrorism.  The quote from de Winter in the last post is a good example of this.  Europe's intellectuals, so it goes, are so terrified of offending others or imposing their own cultural assumptions that they won't clearly name and condemn the evil of suicide bombing.  They are also too timid and filled with self-hatred to proclaim the Western liberal democratic way of life as clearly superior to the model that various Islamists would impose on us if they had the chance.  These intellectuals should be coming to the defense of the Western way of life now that it's come under attack, not picking it apart because it fails one or the other of their Utopian tests of perfect fairness.  The words of praise Michel Foucault had for Ayatollah Khomeini are often cited as an example of (in the words of the linked article) "the illusions of intellectuals." 

But does it really matter what intellectuals think?  The characteristic error of any intellectual is overestimating his own influence.  As for me, I don't really care whether German or French intellectuals correctly perceive the threat of Islamist violence.  I care whether immigration agencies, police, and lawmakers correctly perceive the threat.  The evidence tends to show that these agencies take the threat very seriously and have been able to book notable successes recently.  Just yesterday, a Duesseldorf court sentenced (German) three Islamic radicals to long prison terms (by German standards) .  The French security services are legendary for their no-nonsense, ruthlessly illusion-free methods of combating the potential for Islamic terrorism on French soil.  They even cooperately closely with the Americans.  There are still serious problems of coordination and information-sharing, but I get no sense that these agencies underestimate the threat.

As long as the folks who have real power stay up at night worrying about the potential for Islamist terrorism in Europe, I will sleep well at night, no matter what the intellectuals argue about.

Comments

[RICKY MILLER]

The problem it seems to me, is that both intellectuals and policymakers seem to be ignoring the trojan horse factor that the lax immigration rules of previous decades have created throughout Western Europe. It is important in the present tense to be proactive about preventing terrorism but what about the future? Are the growing islamic populations of Europe any less a threat to civilization if the majority are peaceful now but once a demographic majority in say 2100 the debate turns to what level of sharia would be appropriate for the states of formerly secular and progressive Europe? I mean, many things may happen at that point, we don't know-but just the fear about this issue is painful for me. Allowing the two million Turkish residents of Germany who are not yet citizens to remain represents a huge gamble for the very values of a future Europe, and not in some far different future but as early as 2070. That is a huge gamble for a culture with thousands of years of history and who despite the flaws have created an exceptional and free system of government with stable and educated societies.

The argument at this point would be that the third and fourth generations of this community will be transformed and more European than Muslim, what I hopefully label as more soccer and stable than sharia and jihad. But even so that is still a huge gamble and the current demographic situation leads one to wonder who eventually will be absorbing whom. I know this: despite the legacy of Ataturk and the secular Turkish movement in Turkey the Turkish electorate there seems to be a much stronger islamic version of George W. Bush's christian theocrats here in the United States. Without the military who knows what Turkish democracy would be like but I'll wager much more sharia than secular and fair.

My point is that I've lost the ability to believe that islam is compatible with modern life, let alone democracy and freedom. This conclusion did not need the Danish cartoon evidence, or the confrontation on the beaches in Australia, the riots across France, or Beslan or 9/11. My belief that islam is an intellectual disease incompatible with humanity's future and certainly incompatible with Europe came when the Taliban destroyed two UNESCO protected Buddhist statues despite appeals from nearly all quarters around the world. If policymakers do not get serious about the demographic trojan horse now than it will be too late to resolve without violence, surrender or a demographic baby race leading to overpopulation and resource difficulties.

[Stephanie Sellier]

@ Marian Wirth: You really think of Günther Grass as a "heavy weight intellectual"...? Well, his body might be "heavy weight", but the quality of his political thinking - no way.

And I guess you're being unfair on German intellectuals. Josef Joffe or Richard Herzinger e.g. are excellent.

[Marian Wirth]

Andrew,

I couldn't agree more. In order to create his weekly tempest in the teapot, de Winter usually quotes Dutch newspapers or dead French philosophers. Problem with Germany is: We simply don't have heavy weight intellectuals anymore, let alone heavy weight intellectuals opposing the "war on terror". Apart from Günter Grass. And the latter is as influential in German politics as Susan Neiman is in regard to the Bush administration.

If I want to see "muslim-loving peaceniks" bashed, I turn to Mark Steyn or Christopher Hitchens. If I want some valid points to chew on, I turn to Paul Berman, Michael Ignatieff or Victor Davis Hanson. Leon de Winter's rants are plainly dispensable.

[Stephanie Sellier]

Dear Mr. Hammel,

please have a look:
http://www.against-al-quds-day.org

Yeah, it's just a bunch of mostly German intellectuals, right, but anyway...

Kind regards
Stephanie Sellier