American Muslims seem to be caught in a dialectic of reaction. In 2000, we voted, as a block, for Bush. We witnessed with horror, the consequences of that collective decision vis a vis the war on terror, violation of international law, the invasion of Iraq, covert operations and assassinations, support for tyrannical regimes, torture, etc. Then, as a reaction to our own collective idiocy, we swung to the other end of the political spectrum, this time voting collectively for Obama only to see, in many ways, a continuation of the same atrocious policies that Bush implemented albeit in a more nuanced and hip fashion. Now, the rebuttal would undoubtedly be something along the lines of: we’re not morally responsible for the outcome of our votes. But within this argument is a concession that voting is, for all purposes, truly ineffective. If we had no control over the outcomes of our vote, then why vote at all? Given the dire consequences of our actions resulting in the loss of millions of lives, it might be prudent to stop for a moment and investigate whether voting is worth it.
Voting has become something of an annual ritual reinforcing the dogma that we live in a democratic society. Philosophically (via Chomsky) and legally (via Sanford Levinson), one can make a decent argument that America is not a true democracy. Such an argument is not merely based on merely arguing over semantics, but on the argument that if one defines democracy in a particular way, America factually does not fit that description. Either one would have to alter the definition of a democracy or engage in a lengthy historical analysis justifying why anti-democratic filters exist within the U.S. political system.
A simple exercise which highlights the futility of voting will suffice. Let us suppose that the average American Muslim feels strongly about a single issue: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Let us suppose he wants to vote on this issue. However, when he comes to the ballot, voting on that issue is not a viable choice – not because the issue is not addressed – the issue is addressed, but because their is no actual choice. Both parties and both politicians will undoubtedly take a position in favor of Israel. The formal structure of power does not accommodate a true ability to choose in this situation. Now one might be able to vote for a third party, say the Green party, but the end result would be that one’s vote would be thrown away.
The counter argument, naturally, would be some sort of sentimental idealism – “Droplets of water when bought together form a mighty river” or some other sort of naive and unrealistic claim. The point is to take a moment and stop and ask: why isn’t real choice presented? Before we go on and on talking about how the situation is not ideal but it works and we have to keep trying like Thomas the Train, choo-chooing our way into social justice and democracy, let us stop and explore the reasons why true choice isn’t present on the ballot.
Let us ask, for example, why won’t either party or candidate go against Israel? The answer might be the Israel Lobby or connections with defense contractors who desire a permanent war economy or perhaps U.S. strategic thinkers wanting to beat up the Arabs in order to ensure control of the world’s energy sector, etc. The point here is that there are systems of coercion and power beyond what the average person is capable of influencing. It is here that the actual system of power reveals itself. It is not that we lack choice, but we lack meaningful choice and the tools to implement such a choice. Special interest groups whether driven by ideology or pecuniary interests are influencing the political system in ways that the average voter cannot.
Noam Chomsky points out that coercion within a seemingly democratic society cannot be based on the formal structures and institutions of power using force, rather, coercion must come via informal structures and institutions of power. Thus, there are political parties, corporations, lobbies, foundations, media, unions, think tanks, and other informal institutions of power that influence the entire political system. How does this system functionally operate?
A good example of how informal institutions affect the political system is a recent series of advertisements for and against slot machines at a major mall in Maryland. The argument against the slots is that it is destructive for families. The argument in favor of the slots is that it will be taxed and help create jobs, promote education, and various government services. Now, as a voter, if this is all I am told, then my vote will go a certain way. However, with a little investigation, I found out that the people making the commercials against the slots was Laurel Raceway which didn’t want the competition. The people who were defending the slots were the slots company. Now as a voter, am I really voting on family values v. government social services or am I voting in favor of a specific corporation’s interests? The same goes for the Palestine question – at the end of the day, one isn’t really voting for anything if no true choice is presented.
The point is here not to promote apathy or revolutionary approaches to politics, but to simply describe how a system actually functions in order to develop reasonable and effective alternatives. If electoral politics isn’t the way to go for effective change, perhaps there are other options. However, in order for us to get to that, we have to first face the illusion of choice and expose farce for what it is. Let us move beyond touchy-feely slogans, false dichotomies, and holding hands and singing kumbaya. Let us first admit that we don’t actually know what is going on and how things work and sit down, roll up our sleeves, and start dissecting systems and process. Let us call for a moratorium on voting and study it in detail and find it if it truly the most effective means for achieving specific political objectives and if it is not, what other option are out there.
Allahcentric 
jonolan
November 3, 2010
It seems to me, after reading your post, that the problem is that Muslims’ wishes run counter to those of Americans, largely irrespective of Party affiliation. You can vote for whoever you wish; they’re unlikely to betray America in order to placate you though.
Perhaps Muslims should consider finding some other country, preferably one in the Muslim World, to live in. It’s not like any of you fit in here in America, are seemingly happy here, or really belong here in the first place.
Khuram
November 3, 2010
Jonolan,
I’m curious which interests you are referring to. The point I was making in the post is that the U.S. political system is dominated primarily by informal institutions and structures of power and that American Muslims need to study those system as well … just like other ethnic, religious, or ideologically motivated groups. What concerns do you feel that Muslims have that run counter to those of Americans?
Ali Qazi
November 3, 2010
Most American muslims are educated and work good jobs buy properties and invest their money in the market.
How else do you “fit in” in a capitalist country?
jonolan
November 3, 2010
Mostly, it’s those interests relating to Islam, such as the US’ support of Israel’s self-defense against the Muslim terrorists in Palestine which you took great pains to mention repeatedly.
Of course it goes further and deeper than that.
Frankly, Islam – as the din it was meant to be – isn’t compatible with American society and you’re never going to comfortable or truly welcome here if you follow its tenets.
Khuram
November 3, 2010
Jonolan,
Firstly, my use of the Israel-Palestine issue was an example of a hypothetical situation to illustrate how the U.S. political system doesn’t offer real choice. I could’ve used a different example, say healthcare or gun rights or anything else, but I picked an example that would resonate with American Muslims who feel strongly about the oppression of Palestinians. The description stands irrespective if the sample was Palestine and it would still stand even if one weren’t a Muslim. Can you show me a statement I made above that is inaccurate in describing the U.S. political system?
Secondly, I think you should get your facts straight. The U.S. strategic relationship with Israel precedes the rise of Islamic terrorism. The U.S. supported Israel against the Arab states in its wars against Arab states – those states being driven not by Islamist ideology but by secular nationalism. So your assessment is ahistorical and anachronist. The primary purpose of this relationship was to keep Soviet influence outside of the Middle East in order to keep access to the flow of energy resources throughout the world. That is why the U.S. developed its strategic relationship with Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That is why the U.S. continues to send those three states funding and arms in spite of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Thirdly, I don’t think you’ve made a strong case showing how the interests of Israel align with the U.S. simply because they are fighting enemies who use similar tactics. The terrorists Israel is fighting with aren’t directly linked with the terrorists the U.S. is fighting. In fact, al-Qaeda has strongly criticized HAMAS due to its engaging in electoral politics and not supporting the war against the West that al-Qaeda is engaging in.
So again, I don’t think your analysis is factual or even relevant to the post above and it doesn’t actually rebut any of the points I made. Since you couldn’t refute the claims, you made ad hominem illogical attacks arguing that Muslims should leave the country. It seems that your response is based on a knee-jerk reaction and inability to make a cogent argument.
jonolan
November 3, 2010
No, you really couldn’t use healthcare or gun rights or “anything else” instead because those things (at least the two qualified ones) have alternative goals and approaches based up different large groups of American’s beliefs as reflected by the politicians they elect.
That is largely not the case when one deals with issues of specific import to Muslims as opposed to issues that are of importance to Americans in general.
As to the US’ support of Israel – Leaving aside that the past is the past and reasons for alliances change over time, it really doesn’t matter. Supporting Israel is something that Americans by and large want and even hose who don’t won’t base their votes on it. It’s a solely Muslim and Jewish issue, with the Jews obviously being on the opposite side from the Muslims for the most part.
Face it, on purely “Islamocentric” issues you have no recourse because nobody else will support you with any vigor, which is why I suggested finding some other place to settle unless you’re willing to live within the bounds of- and following the tenets of American society.
Khuram
November 3, 2010
Jonolan,
Firstly, again, the Palestine issue was just an example, but since you’ve attempted to portray it inaccurately, allow me the opportunity to rebut your flawed analysis. Regarding the claim that criticizing Israel makes one ipso facto anti-American, there are two parties that specifically seek to limit the military relationships between Israel and the U.S. such as the Green party and the Libertarian party. The greatest critics of Israel have been Jews – Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and Ilan Pappe. There are organizations such as J-Street that seek to counter lobbying for pro-Israel groups and organizations such as Tikkun. Does that make the Green Party, Norman Finkelstein and J-Street “anti-American”? Absolutely not. If it was purely an “Islamocentric” issue as you claim, then how do you account for athiests, Jews, and Christians critiquing the US-Israel strategic partnership? You can’t account for it because your analysis isn’t based on fact but on mere opinion.
Secondly, regarding the claim that ‘the past doesn’t matter’ – a convenient tactic once the contradiction in your argument was exposed – it does matter because it rebuts the very essence of your narrative as America being a strategic partner of Israel. America’s relationship with Israel began in the Cold War and continuous – without a break – right into the post 9/11 era. The amount of aid Israel received after the Cold War didn’t decrease. If your assertions are
valid, then history would support them, but it doesn’t and therefore your analysis is flawed.
Thirdly, regarding choices – most of the electorate have consistently shown their dissatisfaction with various instruments of government (Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court). What is interesting is that these same polls show dissatisfaction with both parties. If the two-party system that the electoral college sets up and has significant ramifications on the hierarchy of power at the state and local level were truly effective, then so many people would not be dissatisfied with their own party. It is the absence of true choice that facilitates this.
You haven’t rebutted a single point I’ve made regarding my description of the U.S. political system and have resorted to paltry appeals to patriotism and mopey references to treason rooted on stereotypes of Muslims. Feel free to present a cogent, fact based argument.
jonolan
November 3, 2010
Frankly, reading your ongoing screed, I doubt that there’s any point in I or any American in attempting to speak with you, but I’m known for my stubbornness, ergo…
One – You read an awful lot into my comments that I never said or implied, at least to a rational mind, i.e. one not clouded by victimology and exilic beliefs such as a Muslim. I did not say that criticizing Israel, per se, made one anti-American – though there’s a great deal of congruency between the two thing. I said, though not in plain words, that it made one un-American as proven by both real political parties refusing to end our aid to Israel’s survival.
Two – as for Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and Ilan Pappe, they ARE less than American and for less than any American, but that is more because of their hatred for American values than for their criticism of Israel – though Finkelstein stretches that point with his dhimmitude.
Three – you keep arguing this is term of political expediency. Americans do not support Israel because it’s expedient, though our government at one time did. We support Israel because it’s seen as the right thing to do morally. Think about that and think about the ramifications for Muslims for being on the very wrong side of that equation.
You and your kind kind stand firmly against what Americans believe is right, righteous, and morally necessary. That’s not a good to place be if history is any judge.
But we’re just going to continue to communicate. Go ahead and delete or respond for the sake of getting the last word. I’m done here, having written you off as another lost cause.
See you on the battlefield, which will likely be your neighborhood if things go as badly as I expect.
Khuram
November 3, 2010
Jonolan,
Don’t let the door hit you in the butt as you walk out. But before you leave, I’d be curious what you mean by “American” as it seems that your definition simply refers to the dominant state system.