The
2004 US Presidential race is turning
out to be the most divisive and polarizing
in some generations.
While
attention is focused on how much Iraq
has divided America from its European
allies and from the Arab world, the
more significant rift may be unfolding
within. It can be borne out by the fact
that when Kerry talked about Vietnam,
he continued to trail the incumbent,
but when the focus was switched to Iraq,
the race swiftly became neck to neck.
The
United States has spread itself so thin
militarily that there are serious concerns
among the youth that it might revert
to and reinstate the unpopular draft
which had bedeviled the Johnson and
Nixon administrations on Vietnam during
much of the 60s and early 70s.
Shamefully,
in the first debate - the entire focus
of which was on foreign policy - neither
of the two candidates even mentioned
the word “Palestine” or
“Palestinians”. Bush, however,
did blurt out that US is fighting in
Iraq to secure Israel. Kerry, not to
be left behind, was equally, if not
more, sycophantic on Israel.
Then
there is the paradox of George Bush
continually raising the specter of another
terrorist attack in America, making
the Bush administration, in effect,
the propaganda instrument for the very
terrorism which the US ostensibly is
fighting to curb. Arguably, the unstated
electoral objective may be to frighten
the US public into voting for the devil
they know (Bush) than the angel that
don’t know (Kerry).
A
constantly scared US populace, fearing
another terrorist strike, sends the
message that the American public has
little faith in its own homeland security
apparatus or in the direction of the
Iraq conflict, which is feeding fear
instead of mollifying public insecurity.
Hovering
above it is another emotionally explosive
issue. The mothers of slain US soldiers
are not keeping quiet. One such mother
publicly heckled First Lady Laura Bush
and was quickly arrested for her impertinence.
A
recent USA Today public opinion poll
depicted that only 45 percent of Americans
are content with Bush’s handling
of the Palestine-Israeli conflict -
which is a remarkable statistic, given
the one-sided coverage and support given
to the Israeli point of view in mainstream
America. This shows that, much to its
credit, the majority of the American
populace is not swallowing the officially
certified version spoon-fed by the Administration
on the Middle East.
This
can be juxtaposed with a recently released
survey done by CAIR on American attitudes
toward US Muslims which indicate the
deepening of distrust of Muslims along
with enhanced negativity about Islam
- a byproduct, undoubtedly, of the venom
being spewed by the policymaking and
opinion-molding elite in government,
media, academia, and Hollywood.
All
of the above suggests that America is
in a state of tumult and national disagreement
over the direction in which the country
is heading. Intertwined with this are
leadership questions centering on ability,
integrity, and personality.
In
its blistering editorial of October
10, a leading newspaper, The Philadelphia
Inquirer, had this to say about President
Bush: “The first is the record
of George W. Bush. His response to the
stunning blows of 9/11 has gone fatefully
awry. He has left Americans less safe
that they could be and America less
admired than it should be. Bush’s
two main tools seem to be bombs and
bombast. Bush’s reckless missteps
in Iraq have cost a painful toll in
lives, credibility, alliances, Islamic
anger and lost opportunities.”
On
a positive note, in these crisis-ridden
times, there is an acute hunger among
average Americans to know more about
Muslim concerns and about Islam. The
larger question is whether the American
Muslim community is able, ready, and
willing to reach out and participate
in this conversation
