Muslim
Endorsement in Global Perspective
By Tahir Ali
Though AMT-PAC’s
qualified endorsement of Sen. John Kerry on Oct
21, 2004 has received worldwide coverage –
more than 150 newspapers, radio and television stations
– and has been seen as a major strategic step
by the Muslim community, nonetheless, the dilettante
circles have been worrying about the qualified nature
of this endorsement. We can rephrase their concerns
in social-scientific terms: will the ‘qualification’
increase or decrease the effectiveness of the AMT
endorsement? This question can be answered by asking
three related questions: 1) what was the purpose
of ‘qualifying’ the endorsement? 2)
Has anyone else in the American mainstream used
the same approach? And 3) How has the AMT endorsement
been received by the mainstream press in the United
States and elsewhere in the world?
From AMT’s point
of view, an endorsement encapsulates a given stage
in negotiations, authenticates the level of agreement
between the two sides, provides a sense of direction
and purpose to the community, and documents community’s
participation and multifarious contributions. It
enables a community to express its collective will.
This expression of the collective will, says the
AMT Chair Dr. Agha Saeed, must be calibrated precisely
to match other side’s intentions and actions.
Now, the Washington
Post, one of America’s most influential newspapers,
has endorsed Sen. Kerry roughly on the same terms
and conditions as the AMT. In its endorsement titled
‘Kerry for President’ issued on Oct
24, the Post uses the same two-pronged approach
as the AMT: criticism of the Bush administration,
and qualified endorsement of the Kerry campaign.
Thus wrote the editors
of the Washington Post about President Bush:
“These failings
have a common source in Mr. Bush’s cocksureness,
his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a
narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the
unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous
traits in any president but especially in a wartime
leader. They are matched by his failure to admit
his errors or to hold senior officials accountable
for theirs.”
Similarly, the New
York Times, which endorsed Sen. Kerry on Oct 17,
chastised President Bush in their endorsement editorial:
“American citizens
were detained for long periods without access to
lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded
up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department’s
own inspector general found were often ‘unduly
harsh’ conditions.”
Actually, the New
York Times went much further in chastising the Bush
administration, as cited below:
“Mr. Ashcroft
appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational
arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent,
harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers
of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to
do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice
Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism
prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust
and patience the American people freely gave in
2001.”
Let’s compare
the above comments with the AMT statement about
the Bush administration:
“Unfortunately,
the Bush administration has been insensitive to
the civil liberties and human rights of American
Muslims, Arab-Americans and South Asians. Today,
American Muslims are being treated like second-class
citizens.
“American Muslims
are also disappointed with a number of domestic
and foreign policies instituted by the Bush administration
since the 9/11terror attacks.”
It is self-evident
that the AMT’s critical remarks are as mainstream
as those of the Washington Post and the New York
Times but much milder. Even more instructive, however,
is criticism and the reservations that the Washington
Post has expressed in endorsing the Senator from
Massachusetts. Look at the following statement in
the Washington Post’s endorsement editorial:
“Mr. Kerry,
like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement
and health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism.”
Having made the above
statements, the editors of the Washington Post go
on to observe:
“As with Mr.
Bush, some of Mr. Kerry’s strengths strike
us as potential weaknesses. The senator is far more
likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range of opinions
before making a decision -- but is he decisive enough?
Finally, look at their
concluding paragraph:
We do not view a vote
for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks
on the other side are well known, and the strengths
Mr. Kerry brings are considerable.
Qualifying one’s
endorsement is a sign of carefulness and precision.
Now compare the above quotes with the relevant sections
of the AMT endorsement and you will see the same
due diligence in the AMT statement:
“We acknowledge
the considerable outreach to our community by Sen.
Kerry’s campaign, particularly by his campaign
co-chair Sen. Edward Kennedy. We also appreciate
the ongoing dialogue with Muslim leaders about problems
posed by the USA PATRIOT Act.
“While the Kerry
campaign has critiqued a number of Bush administration
polices, it has so far failed to explicitly affirm
support for due process, equal justice and other
constitutional norms. We are also disappointed that
his campaign has shied away from expressing unambiguous
support for principles enshrined in the US Constitution
that prohibit use of ex post facto laws, secret
proceedings and secret evidence….
“Mindful of
disagreements with Sen. Kerry on some domestic and
international issues, including the war in Iraq,
we are willing to work with him to help restore
due process and equal justice in accordance with
the US Constitution.”
The competence and
political sagacity expressed through the AMT endorsement
speaks for itself. No wonder, in its Oct 22 issue,
the New York Times, had billed the AMT endorsement
as ‘Muslims Give Kerry Qualified Endorsement’
highlighting both the representative character of
AMT as the central organ of American Muslims as
well as the skillfulness of its approach.
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
