Rating: 
Summary: Terrorism as anb Attack on the Liberal Order
Review: Paul Berman was a major figure in the "New Left" of the 1960s. Like a few other prominent leftists, he sees Islamic terrorism not as a blow against injustice or inequality but as an attack on the liberal order. In this book he delves deeply into the life and thought of the Islamic scholar Sayyid Qutb, whose writings have provided the intellectual foundation for a number of the radical Islamic movements. Berman advocates aggressive action by America and the Western nations, not based on the political "realism" favored by many on the right, but to foster a more liberal order in the Middle East. He criticizes the naivete of the left, which insists on seeing the conflict between radical Islam and the West through the prism of strong vs. weak, or oppressors vs. the oppressed
Rating: 
Summary: Eye-opening account that takes our enemies at their words
Review: "Faith is propagated by counting up deaths every day, by adding up massacres and charnel houses." So said an Algerian religious-political figure quoted by Paul Berman, whose effort here is to get people who believe in liberalism and liberal society to throw off the blinders of multicultural sensitivity and see and hear the real deeds and words and intentions of Islamic extremists as they call for our death and destruction. This small but powerfully reasoned book draws two inescapable conclusions: 1) That "Islamic fascism" is not just a metaphor drawn from European culture (as one might speak in reverse of a French jihad against American fast food), but the actual importation of mid-20th century European fascism, with all the same characteristics as Nazism, Stalinism, Franco's Spain and other such movements: intolerance of any other way of life within its borders, an obsession with purity (which requires ever more total enforcement), the notion of a Gotterdammerung-style clash between the pure and the infidels, and last but not least, a virulent anti-Semitism which in some cases, such as that of a Nazi racial theorist who wound up on Nasser's payroll, is quite literally imported from Europe. The implication, clearly, is that Islamic fascism has to be broken just like European fascisms were. 2) A willful blindness on the part of liberal society to recognize that our enemies really do say and think what they're saying and thinking. Both sides in politics still try to see rational motivations for what is in fact an irrational mass movement in love with death. The right, thanks to its business ties with the Saudis, is only slowly acknowledging how the terror really stems from those supposed friends and allies, since why would good business partners do such a thing? The left refuses to entertain the idea that events like 9-11 could have a maniacal religious motivation, since any blow against the US must, by definition, be part of the struggle of the oppressed against global capitalism, and therefore must be ultimately rational (and regrettable yet understandable, if not indeed downright admirable). (For a perfect example of how resistant the left is to criticism of the view that it's All About The U.S., read The Nation's review of this book, which spends most of its energy angrily attacking a couple of pages that skewer Noam Chomsky as the perfect exemplar of the Grand Unified Evil-America Theory of all history.) Whether it's an eye-opening (and far from unsympathetic) exegesis of the writings of the extremist author Sayyid Qutb, or a look at 1989, the year of democracy's supposed triumph, from the Islamic point of view (they saw it as their triumph over the infidel invading Soviets-- and were they entirely wrong?), Berman gives the facts underlying the news we read every day a new perspective. The good news is, liberal society did defeat fascism once, twice, multiple times. The bad news, the fight almost always started later than it should have, and long after someone like Berman had made it clear that a Mein Kampf-- and a Hitler-- really meant what he said.
Rating:
Summary: Three Cheers for Pugnacious Liberalism
Review: ... Even long before the end of the Cold War, intransigent liberalism which actually stood for non-negotiable moral and political values had died. Today there are few liberal equivalents of Rush Limbaugh, a notable exception being Camille Paglia and now, in his magnificent Book, Terror and Liberalism, Paul Berman. Berman is a no nonsense liberal who writes from a profound moral center. He cares about human dignity and clearly does not assume any less of a humanity for strangers and Others than he does for himself. He is the real leader of the revolution among a small cadre of liberals who would properly see the eradication of all thugs and criminals decked out in military fab and exploiting de facto sovereignty who claim to represent the will of the people; and further, hold our government accountable for their moral hypocrisy in supporting right wing dictatorships so long as they do not pose a threat to economic national self-interest, but castigate those on the left who are just as vicious in their human rights violations. If our government stands for democracy and freedom then we ought to demand that it behave in a morally consistent manner and adopt an ethical foundation to its foreign policy.
Terror and Liberalism is a book rich in historical detail and analysis, and, indirectly, a profound work in political morality. As a liberal I found myself frustrated when the Taliban came to power in 1996 because few of my fellow liberals seemed willing to condemn those primitive trolls for the cruel form of gender apartheid they inflicted on millions of Afghan women. Why aren't liberals marching in the streets to condemn the corrupt Saudi regime and its medieval conception of women or the barbaric practice of tearing out a woman's vulva and clitoris thereby denying her for her entire life, the ability to experience sexual pleasure...I am thoroughly delighted that Berman's book sets the moral case for why any free and democratic country not only has a moral responsibility to export liberal democratic virtues on behalf of its fellow citizens of the world, but to invade and topple with complete rectitude any illiberal country governed by despots whose gross disregard for the basic rights of their citizens fall below an acceptable moral decency threshold. Leaders of countries who violate sovereignty--which incidentally is not an absolute but that, ever since its initial inception after the Treaty of Westphalia, has always been subjected to constraints of justice--are in essence nihilists who must be subjected to the best of moral and political paternalism that liberalism has to offer.
Berman is brave enough to show that the agonistic hand ringing and "oh, let's continue talking," prevalent among spineless liberals are empty gestures which political thugs and savages take advantage of. I say three cheers for a liberal who is morally sensitive to the plight of our fellow world citizens who lack meaningful third party international coercive institutions to assume the default duty of protecting their rights when their leaders have failed to uphold them.
Berman is correct. We must continue exporting democratic liberal values, values that treat people as ends in themselves and that affirm the dignity of reason in all, values that give people some share in the making of laws that govern their destiny.
A real Moral Imperialism based on indispensable political values found in liberalism is the way to go. Those who don't want the same political luxuries for others that that they enjoy are bigots and mere social ballasts. Many of the backward so called nation/states of the world, politically speaking, exist in a state of savage adolescence. Berman's fine book demonstrates that the best of liberalism is a way of re-socializing those who have never had their moral and political sensibilities forged in its civilizing crucibles.Jason D. Hill
Rating:
Summary: Provocative and insightful arguments
Review: Ah, if only more liberals wrote like this. Berman emphasizes and elaborates on issues other lefties will not simply because it would mean identifying with American (liberal) society and principles, and that just simply wouldn't do for some (i.e. Noam Chomsky). Berman's analysis of totalitarian roots shines new light on just what the United States is dealing with in fanatical Islam, comparing elements of terrorism with the cults of death inherent in German nationalism, Spanis facism and Soviet communism. One of his central arguments is that the United States has too many influential intellectuals who simply refuse to believe terrorism is an irrational act and would rather excuse it as "understandable" and an act of freedom. He offers a persuasive argument that the world is not governed by logic and that a cult of death has more to do with nihilsm and fanatical, irrational belief than it does in anything else. He sights the French socialists prior to Hitler's occupation as the embodiment of such naivete. Also, he shows how U.S. economic hegemony and foreign policy are not central to the terrorists' rage. Rather, it is secular culture we live in, and the separation of church and state and the way we live without God overseeing everything in between--that's what makes us infidels. Indeed, the central anxiety of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyption Islamist philosopher who influenced Saudi Wahhabism, is the temptation that western, liberal ideas of government and culture will influence his and other Arabs thinking and pull them away from what they ultimately strive for. This book has changed my thinking drastically in some areas. I have tried to remain optimistic about Dubya over the past year, but Berman's no nonsense analysis of Bush and how he has carried out this war are so spot on they cannot be ignored. His Bush criticisms are new and fresh, and aren't blatantly ideological and partisan like every other Bush-basing book floating around on Barnes and Noble's New Non-Fiction shelf. Berman's point is that America does have a role in promoting liberal and democratic societies througout the Middle East. It's just that Bush does not have the intellectual background, nor the character, to frame the debate as it should be. Instead of selling the war based on fear, it should've been sold for humanitarian and moral reasons.
Rating:
Summary: Trenchant Analysis of Irrational Mass Movements
Review: Berman gives a lucid account of irrational mass movements, from the West and Middle East, and shows how these rancid ideas flow from one part of the globe to the other, with great fluid power because in part the ideas of hate and nihilism, in whatever guise, are born from the same psychology. In addition to his clear analysis of irrational mass movements, Berman shows how "rationalists," whether they be liberal or conservative thinkers, are in great error when they try to come up with some coherent theory or absolute explanation to answer the question: "Why do terrorists do what they do?" Berman shows that there is no rational answer, no victimization that can account for such evil acts of nihilistic theater and rage. He shows that this dark impulse is aroused by several unsavory factors, egotism, a lust for death, and a fear of freedom. A great companion to Terror and Liberalism is Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, which, written 50 years ago, provides a thorough analysis--often in sharply polished epigrams--of those "true believers" who follow irrational mass movements.
Rating: 
Summary: Complete Garbage
Review: Berman seems to consider Qutb, Tariq Ramadan and Bin Laden etc. to be part of the Islamist totalitarian movement(s). I am not sure he really gets the Islamists.
He immediately advocats retaliation by the US for credibility's sake. Now, I am not a pacifist (too pragmatic for that principl) but attacking because that would make us a credible opponent sounds too much like bullies in schools.
Overall, the book is bad. Ideas don't seem to be well-developed or are just plain bad. I think Berman is hindered by his lack of detailed knowledge of political Islam. Also, it would have helped if he had worked to make it a bigger and more intellectual book than the popular read it is. Berman tries to compare the Islamists with the totalitarian ideologues of the 20th century, i.e, the fascists and the communists. His contention is that there are lots of similarities between all these groups. For example, they all define both internal and external threats. This is fine as far as it goes but Berman does not go beyond a superficial level in his comparison. You have to take a lot of stuff on faith. How exactly is this similar to the fight against the communists? Berman never really does justice to this question. Plus he seems to know little about Islam and Muslims. Overall, a waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: Sophomoric
Review: Despite a fair summary of Qutb and a few critical comments about Sharon, Berman defends aggressive attacks on the "enemy". The book and thesis are essentially sophomoric simplification that seems to have impressed (from plaudits printed inside) numerous other unqualified readers who know the subject no better. It meets emotional needs for some but adds no depth of understanding.. The thesis is a defense of aggression based on little more that Pop Psychology about totalitarianism and "suicidal" violence - referring to Camus but lacking his broader understanding. Broad categories and labels are grotesquely inaccurate lumping Islamic Fundamentalists together and describing them as Fascist and Totalitarian. There is considerable diversity in the real world with some ready to participate in elections, and most who are not terrorists. Many are concerned almost exclusively with their own homelands. In the case of Iraq a secular, anti Fundamentalist, enemy of Al Qaeda was the US target. Consider too that there are proportionally probably more Christian Fundamentalists in the US than Muslim ones outside Saudi and Afghanistan. The history (including questionable conclusions describing the fall of France to the Nazis as solely from "liberal/socialist" lack of backbone) and psychology (sex, suicide, and totalitarianism are a syndrome) are not valid. They do, however, serve as propaganda demonizing Muslims in support of US and Israeli state counter terror. Again they provide a reason to avoid looking at the real issues and grievances resulting from those policies or the essential source of terror training and broad contacts from the CIA and ISI trained alumni of the Afghan-US war against the Soviets in Central Asia. (These are the folks whose leaders trained in the US and who were called, like the Contras, "the moral equivalent of our founding Fathers" by Reagan!) At least Berman's book it is not quite the insult to one's intelligence as explaining 9-11 by "they are jealous of our freedoms" but it is just as muddled thinking and equally motivated by propaganda rather than serious analysis - just this time for a book rather than a sound bite.
Rating:
Summary: Pugnacious Liberalism at Its Best!
Review: Even long before the end of the Cold War, intransigent liberalism which actually stood for non-negotiable moral and political values had died. Today there are few liberal equivalents of Rush Limbaugh, a notable exception being Camille Paglia and now, in his magnificent Book, Liberalism and Terror, Paul Berman. Berman is a no nonsense liberal who writes from a profound moral center. He cares about human dignity and clearly does not assume any less of a humanity for strangers and Others than he does for himself. He is the real leader of the revolution among a small cadre of liberals who would properly see the eradication of all thugs and criminals decked out in military fab and exploiting de facto sovereignty who claim to represent the will of the people; and further, hold our government accountable for their moral hypocrisy in supporting right wing dictatorships so long as they do not pose a threat to economic national self-interest, but castigate those on the left who are just as vicious in their human rights violations. If our government stands for democracy and freedom then we ought to demand that it behave in a morally consistent manner and adopt an ethical foundation to its foreign policy.
Liberalism and Terror is a both a book rich in historical detail and analysis and indirectly a profound work in political morality. As a liberal I found myself frustrated when the Taliban came to power in 1996 because few of my fellow liberals seemed willing to condemn those primitive trolls for the cruel form of gender apartheid they inflicted on millions of Afghan women. Why aren't liberals marching in the streets to condemn the corrupt Saudi regime and its medieval conception of women or the barbaric practice of tearing out a woman's vulva and clitoris thereby preventing forever to a lifetime of lack of sexual pleasure. In my book Becoming a Cosmopolitan, I argued long before September 11 for a complete annihilation of the Taliban.
I am thoroughly delighted that Berman's book sets the moral case for why any free and democratic country not only has a moral responsibility to export liberal democratic virtues on behalf of its fellow citizens of the world, but to invade and topple with complete rectitude any illiberal country governed by despots whose gross disregard for the basic rights of their citizens fall below an acceptable moral decency threshold. Leaders of countries who violate sovereignty--which incidentally is not an absolute but that, ever since its initial inception after the Treaty of Westphalia, has always been subjected to constraints of justice--are in essence nihilists who must be subjected to the best of moral and political paternalism that liberalism has to offer.
Berman is brave enough to show that the agonistic hand ringing and "oh, let's continue talking," prevalent among spineless liberals are empty gestures which political thugs and savages take advantage of. I say three cheers for a liberal who is brave enough and morally sensitive to the plight of our fellow world citizens who lack meaningful third party international coercive institutions to assume the default duty of protecting their rights when their leaders have failed to uphold them.
Barman's right. We must continue exporting democratic liberal values, values that treat people as ends in themselves and that affirm the dignity of reason in all, values that give people some share in the making of laws that govern their destiny.
A real Moral Imperialism based on indispensable political values found in liberalism is the way to go. Those who don't want the same political luxuries for others that that they enjoy are bigots and mere social ballasts. Most of the backwards so called nation/states of the world, politically speaking, exist in a state of savage adolescence. Berman's fine book demonstrates that the best of liberalism is a way of re-socializing those who have never had their moral and political sensibilities forged in its civilizing crucibles.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: Excellent book, suggesting that many extremists among us live in worlds of all my way or nothing. A suggestion of how to view the political orders from the just past century as well as an awareness for this coming century. What I also found constructive is the idea that extremeism can be most any political operation that seems to have it's own vision that excludes and names 'others' as being wrong.
Fortunately those political operations he gives examples for are a mix of cultures. Certainly he engages the Middle East topic also. For example, he talks about the true Muslim religion supporting peace, respect and brotherly love and strongly notes that *only* the fundamentalist factions advocate violence, martyrdom, destruction of all sources of temptation, and an extreme desperation for seventh century religion. If nothing else he sheds light on the existence on the Anti-understanding amongst us, and gives all of us a new way to view some topics we are just now learning to understand.
Rating:
Summary: A worthless, dishonest book from an apologist for Israel.
Review: Here's a typical example of why Berman's book is not just politically reactionary, but worthless: There's a nine-page put-down of Noam Chomsky, primarily for the latter's response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but also for other things Chomsky has said, on topics ranging from Cambodia to linguistics. And in these nine pages, there's not a single actual quote from Chomsky! (By the way, since Berman's book not only contains no footnotes but no index either, I'll tell you that the anti-Chomsky screed starts on page 144.)
Most of Berman's other attacks on leftists also contain either no quotes or short quotes (usually not even full sentences) without citations that would allow the reader to locate the context of the quote.
Berman does extensively quote certain Islamist writers (though again without citations). This makes me think that he knows that Islamist ideas (or at least the ones he quotes) will, unlike leftist ideas, not appeal to those he is trying to win over to his position, which is essentially support of Western capitalism in general and Israel in particular.
Those who are looking for a balanced refutation of both Islamism and its Western imperialist pseudo-opposition would be much better served by starting with Tariq Ali's "The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity" (ISBN 185984457X).
|
