David Brooks
“Islamists…lack the mental equipment to govern,” New York Times columnist David Brooks writes today (7/5/13). “Incompetence is built into the intellectual DNA of radical Islam.”
Now, Brooks has been known to cite eugenicist Steve Sailer on “white fertility rates” (12/7/04; Extra!, 4/05). But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that rather than making a racist argument, he’s simply appearing to be racist as a metaphor (as when he wrote recently that interracial marriage was producing a “nation of mutts”—6/27/13).
So he’s saying, then, that Islamists govern as if they were biologically inferior. And his evidence for this?
It has become clear—in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Gaza and elsewhere—that radical Islamists are incapable of running a modern government…. We’ve seen that in Algeria, Iran, Palestine and Egypt: real-world, practical ineptitude that leads to the implosion of the governing apparatus.
Now, citing Egypt here is a logical cheat: You can’t really argue, “Of course it’s no surprise that Islamists governed poorly in Egypt—look what happened in Egypt!”
Likewise, it’s hardly fair to cite the example of Palestine, a country under foreign military control, half of which is governed by an unelected (and un-Islamist) government, and the other half subjected to a crippling economic blockade. (Though Hamas actually has a reputation for being very good at delivering social services—L.A. Times, 3/2/06.)
The right people? The wrong people? David Brooks will decide. (cc photo: Darkroom Productions)
Algeria is a very strange example to cite of how Islamist governments are always bad, since Algeria has never had an Islamist government. The army canceled elections in 1992 when it looked like the Islamic Salvation Front was going to win, leading to a bloody civil war.
So Brooks is really citing Turkey and Iran as his evidence that Islamist parties always and everywhere are bad news, and therefore the Egyptian coup was justified. But how much are even these two examples worth, really? In a piece strongly critical of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s increasingly centralized rule, the Economist (6/8/13) also had plenty to say about his administration’s successes:
In the past ten years, GDP per person has risen by 43 percent in real terms, exports have increased nearly tenfold and foreign direct investment has leaped. Turkey is now the world’s 17th biggest economy.
Turkey’s robust banks are the envy of their beleaguered Western peers. Although income inequality is worryingly wide, wealth that was once concentrated in the hands of the Istanbul-based elite has spread to the Anatolian hinterland, leading to the rise of a new class of pious and innovative entrepreneurs who are powering growth. Hundreds of new hospitals, roads and schools have dramatically improved the lives of the poor.
That doesn’t really sound like government by the congenitally incompetent, does it?
Iran’s Islamist government has been the focus of a Two-Minute Hate that’s been going on now for 34 years, so it’s harder to find a kind word for it. But Iran’s Human Development Index in 1980, a year after the mullahs took over, was 0.443, well below the world average of 0.561; today it’s 0.742, well above the average of 0.641 and comparable to a developed nation’s stats.
But Brooks doesn’t really know anything about Turkey or Iran, any more than he knows about Applebee’s. He’s just trying to make the point, consistent with his conservative ideology, that democracy is all right so long as the wrong sort of people don’t get elected:
Promoting elections is generally a good thing even when they produce victories for democratic forces we disagree with. But elections are not a good thing when they lead to the elevation of people whose substantive beliefs fall outside the democratic orbit. It’s necessary to investigate the core of a party’s beliefs, not just accept anybody who happens to emerge from a democratic process.
Brooks also comments on U.S. policy options:
In reality, the U.S. has no ability to influence political events in Egypt in any important way. The only real leverage point is at the level of ideas.
Not mentioned: the $1.3 billion in military aid that Washington sends to Egypt. Because why would you want to mention that?
You were hoping for informed, nuanced commentary on the politics of a Middle Eastern society? David Brooks lacks the mental equipment.
Great commentary about Turkey, Mr. Naureckas. I would add that many of the current problems as well as the current solutions in Turkey have to do with Ataturk.
To his credit, Ataturk modernized the Turkish education system by importing excellent French academics like Georges Dumezil, the intellectual godfather of Michel Foucault. The legacy of such academics’ use of French methods and materials serves Turkey well to this day.
Ataturk copied German military methods as well.
However, he persisted in denying the Armenian genocide. He thought he needed to deny the Turkish slaughter of Armenians to preserve the territorial integrity of Turkey. We now know, of course, how wrong that was.
Similarly, Ataturk did not want the Kurds to have their place as a people in Turkey. He thought that Kurds should be treated like Turks. His way to treat Kurds like Turks turned into unspeakable horror.
None of this has anything to do with DNA or with Islam, radical or otherwise. It has to do with Real Politik. And nothing more.
If you would like some excellent scholarship on Turkey, you could do much worse than to consult the works of historical sociologist K. Barkey and sociologist Ari Adut. Their work is excellent. They each happen to be from Turkey. And they each studied sociology at the University of Chicago.
For David Brooks and his ilk, Iran’s achievements is providing health and education to its citizens, as reflected in the HDI, are themselves evidence of government by mental incompetents.
Perhaps if David Brook’s relatives had intermarried more he wouldn’t be so ugly and stupid.
Like the analysis, except that Islamists are not a race. This is not eugenics. But having lived in countries under Islamist regimes for the past five years I can say that there are some common traits among the regimes like corruption and ineptitude and nepotism. Not too different from western regimes in these areas. You also note the growth of economies like Turkey. These quotes are about the numbers. They do not reflect an I prove,ent in quality of life for Turks. Turks are having a very difficult job getting by and this has helped to fuel the protests there. The problem is neoliberal policy and countries like Turkey are a wet dream for neoliberals who make billions and take the profits out of the country. The arguments in this article don’t add up to what is really at stake. And do not forget that the Islamists take away freedoms to conform to theocratic principles every chance they get. This is not racist. There is no one race under Islam. These are the shortcomings of anti-democratic fundamentalist regimes sabotaging the rights of the people by utilizing casino and crony capitalism to do so. All this, and I never cared for this Brooks character……
A very weak attempt by Jim Naureckas to misrepresent. Read Brooks’ entire column and it’s pretty obvious that he was criticizing radical Islam and not the Egyptians or Muslims themselves. He said nothing about them being “biologically inferior” or “congenitally incompetent.” He was talking about the DNA of a radical belief system that controls their lives. This article is an overt attempt to shoot the messenger because the author does not like the message. Naureckas is using every trick in the trade – bringing up eugenics, a “nation of mutts” – to deflect attention away from that message.
Perhaps you wish to be civil and measured, I have no such intentions: this man is a racist bigot. He probably endorses every crime committed by apartheid Israel and probably was a supporter of Afrikan South Africa. Only in the USA and Israel would this man be taken seriously. Just picture the reaction if instead of Islamist he had said Jewish.
Dude is clearly an ass and a bigot but NEWS FLASH people; Islam is NOT a race. It is a religion and religion, like all ideologies, tends to make people stupid with confirmation bias.
ledward has it right; there’s nothing of “eugenics” in what Brooks wrote. Brooks is an idiot, but acting as though there’s anything racist about what he said just illustrates a failure of understanding.
True, Islam (nor Islamists) are not a race as I’m sure Jim knows. However in mainstream U.S. discourse it is widely considered that Islam’s adherents (and therefore Islamists as well, although most people probably don’t know the difference between the two) are all a variety of dark skinned people, and much of anti-islam thought and action does boil down to racism. David Brooks is an example of this.
Former President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood appeared to be guilty of massive overreach in Egypt. Winning an election does not mean you can do anything you want. That misconception seems as rampant in Egypt as in America. Sadly, there is greater tolerance for the overreach in America. For example, gerrymandering at the state level for the purpose of electing far right candidates would not be similarly tolerated in Egypt.
“…and much of anti-islam thought and action does boil down to racism.”
That’s a popular trope on the left (where everything that can conceivably be attributed to racism most certainly will be), but the fact is that “much of anti-Islam thought and action” boils down to the fact that there are so many raving mad Islamic fundamentalists in the world willing to kill those who so much as offend their religious sensibilities (among other horrific atrocities, like their treatment of women, gays, etc).
Whether or not that validates Brooks’ point is definitely open to argument, but to attribute what he says to “racism” when it doesn’t even involve a race, not to mention spinning straw men about “biologically inferior” or “congenitally incompetent”, is just a knee jerk misreading of his point (such as it is).
“In reality, the U.S. has no ability to influence political events in Egypt in any important way.”?
This statement gives some indication that Brooks’ reality may not be the same reality the rest of us live in. Beyond all that military/financial assistance, one day after Brooks’ piece appeared the Times reported on the behind the scenes U.S. political influence in Egypt. His view that the U.S. is a not a power player is pure fantasy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/world/middleeast/morsi-spurned-deals-to-the-end-seeing-the-military-as-tamed.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=all
Yes Islam is not a race but you are born into your religion same way you are born into your nationality and ethnic group. What if someone was unfairly stereotyping americans and spreading fear about american people? While your nationality is not a race, I doubt you considered renouncing your citizenship.
Racism, xenophobia and hatered drive much of the rhetoric against Islam and Muslims. If someone was describing anti-semitism as racism, I doubt there would be so many people ining up to point out that Jewishnes is not a race.
Islamic clerics can’t run a government?Hmmmmm.Well I suppose it is like Mussolini and Hitler…They sure made the trains run on time right?Built good roads.Employment went up.Yeah we are looking at the right facts to prove our case alright.
Brooks makes clear he’s talking about “radical Islamists”–not even every Muslim, much less every Arab–no less than *four times* in his article (e.g. “incompetence is built into the intellectual DNA of radical Islam” and “radical Islamists are incapable of running a modern government”).
If someone wants to ignore that and pretend he’s making a blanket statement about anything other than a religious ideology, that’s certainly their prerogative, but it just makes it clear that they’re more interested in stroking their pet grievance than addressing the actual points he’s raising.
It just goes to show when you have someone with a specific religious/ethnic background who is automatically granted citizenship of another foreign country and has divided interest in pledged allegance to that foreign country, they loose all semblence and believabilty of impartiality. They don’t deserve to be commentators in front of multiple media cameras as they fail to be first citizens of this country and instead act as if biased spokespersons of another foreign country.
Brooks’s latest bias seems to be a pre-emptive attack on why this egyptian coup is yet another self induced failure just like the denial of the palestinian free and fair election and yet smothered by thier illegal occupying agressor. One thing remains the same, that occupier clearly preferred both coups for their own self interest.
Jacki NOW im disappointed in you.Renouncing your citizenship?For what?In protest against what?If you dont like where you are- go find a place in the country.Woods will look the same in Russia or the uS or in Canada.Remember John Lennon gave up his MBA over Englands involvement in the ‘Biofra thing’?No? Thats because it was frivolous then, and is stupid now.I have traveled and lived in Europe ,and like anywhere else there is much to love and much to hate.On balance this country is as good or as bad as any European destinations.Depends on where you are.You should listen to the Australian leaders speech before Congress where she talks of the greatness of America.Such a shame that it takes another leader to say the words our leader could never say.And you are a product of this mass delusion.In a free society you use you time and freedom to address every wrong IN a free society.You say you never attended Harvard.Im surprised.You are perfect material.Your views were a dime a dozen in those halls.We need people to work for change.Not abandon ship for the soul reason of being able to crow about supposed injustice.
Jackie as my Scottish Grandmother would say….”What are you on about”?Your bouncing this way and that.Its like talking to a friend during happy hour(if you know what I mean).So brass tax…..Where do you want to move?
michel e: No, I don’t know what you mean about talking to a friend during happy hour. I am like Mitt Romney in that regard. Also Harry Reid. I don’t drink. Not that I am Mormon. I just don’t drink. I hope that your grandmother looked good in a kilt. Why on earth would I want to let you know where I would move? You are the last person in hell that I would want to see there.
Well jackie I am scottish…but Irish also.And why you would imagine me a bad neighbor Im not sure(last person you would want to see there)Im sure if you moved in next door to me that we would have a great deal of political disagreements.Would that stop us from being friends?Absolutely not.James Carvil and his wife are such a fantastic example of putting politics in their rightful place.To many Liberals tend to deem it blood sport.Agree with them or get attacked.I have two sisters who are strongly liberal.And dear friends who are as well.I think if you knew me you would see I do the best I can to be a good person.I give tons more to charity than Obama ever has for in stance.So dont be so quick to judge.As for you statement quoting Shaw.Im not sure how I feel about it.I think a happy man is in control of his destiny.Does that mean controlling ones world?In a small measure—- I think it may.As far as adapting to ones world ,and therefore being deemed reasonable…..Sounds a little like “lets go along to get along”.Sounds like a road to tyranny in the greater sense.But you may be coming from a different place.Oh did grandmother look good in a kilt?She did.She road to represent scotland on a beautiful white horse in the queens celebration.Amazing pics.Unlike that English family who we shall leave nameless(ha ha)she was a real stunner.A true beauty even to these eyes- jaded by to many victoria secret mags that clog my mailbox.As was my Grandfather… who won her heart.She has been gone a long time now.He preceding her.Jackie I would love to know what rankles you so in this amazing country you and I share as our birth right.Why so angry>
Jacki You said you were renouncing your citizenship….Does that not mean you are an American now even if not born here?Just call me another confused American.
Great article. Anyway, can anyone take David Brooks seriously? One thing I have to say, this is more complicated situation that it seems, because is mixed with religion. I mean it is true the Muslims try for all ways to impose their religion, to others. Christians here in Egypt have suffered a lot because of that. An example, here in Cairo when Ramadan comes all the stores are closed during the day, is very inconvenient for me. And also the stores of the Christians, I ask them, Why? Why you close too?, make it harder when I need to buy something. They told me “If we don’t close the Muslims come and break all our windows and destroy our stores, it happened before, so have to keep closed too”. And this is just an example of many situations. Long list.
ウェディングドレス レンタル 格安