I agree with you. Not only does this topic you raise deal with fundamentalist Islam and the resulting jihadi action, this actually hits at one of the core problems of "globalization," the fear of losing culture, from the co-mingling; it's what's gripping many in the world, and is perhaps as stressful as the Industrial Revolution. American history and culture (and that of other "new world" countries like Australia or Canada or several Latin American countries)has learned things that EU can use. (Not that it's not often been far more than a very bumpy ride going through the growing pains.) Pity that our credibility has been so hurt over the Bush years.

Do you know the meaning of the reference of the title and the first line in Emma Lazarus's poem on the Statue of Liberty? "The New Colossus:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame." The French sculptor, Bartholdi, he had a repetition of the Colossus theme in mind; was thinking of America as a continuation of of the superiority of western civilization, stretching back to the democracy of ancient Greece, brothers with the French revolution and enlightenment, yadda, yadda, you get the picture, one big and best western civilization galloping across the world and taking it all. Lazarus said no, this country is the antithesis of that, we rejected your aristocracy and class system and singular cultural preferences and many that make up our nation were running from that, don't you see? It really may have been the first "multi-culti" poem, certainly she was heavy on the meritocracy theme.

Cultures change, they're a living thing like languages. Fill your country with a huge influx of immigrants, and your culture will change, you can't stop that forever. If you don't accept or come up with some assimilation process, the violence will eventually break through, and you may end up losing part of your country instead. And things like state-approved imams and language protection boards are just not going to do the trick. Do it right, and both sides give a little. Melting pot.

I remember reading a good article on a Muslim-American immigrant association a couple of years back, I don't remember where. It was interviews with members, talking about how they had changed, in the context of how 9/11 affected them. One discussion in particular was most interesting. It was about how pre 9/11, many of them would talk at meetings of dreams of the United States one day becoming an Islamic republic, that sure, it might take 100 years, but if they worked hard enough in politics and proseltyzing, Allah willing, it could happen, and the Koran would rule. And all 3 or 4 of the participants in the interview agreed that they laugh at their old selves now, that now they see the genius of separation of church and state, that the principle is what allows for the kind of strict "theocratic" religious "communities" that they want, while living in tolerance with all kinds of other people. No revolution or civil war needed, already been done.

p.s. I also think protection of hate speech is a crucial factor. The hate speech laws in Europe are understandable given their history, but they are the wrong move. It drives things underground, they need to be out in the air for peer review as it were, and I mean as in peer pressure. I also think many on the left in the U.S. are too critical of F.B.I. watching, just watching groups producing hate speech, I think that's the key. Germans, for example, instead outlaw hate speech, and end up actually raiding mosques, breeching the separation of church and state. You have to let people hate publicly, so that law enforcement can know to watch for any planned action, and so that the majority culture can show disapproval. The thing that could hurt jihadism more than anything right now is if it wasn't "cool" and didn't empower humiliated youth by being "cool."

Precisely because of separation of church and state, a mosque or church does not have (and should not have) and special status, apart from respect it is given voluntarily. If something is illegal to say or do in a town square, it's just as illegal to say or do it in a mosque.

Denmark has not unwaveringly supported Israel. Neither has Britain. Yet Danes and Brits are just as unable as Americans to hitchhike in the Middle East today.

"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock

Not meaning to criticize you specifically, Juliette, but I cringe when I see someone ask, "Why haven't we been attacked since 9/11?" Try asking that question in, say, Madrid, or London. It betrays such a mindset of US-vs-the-World that, when one remembers the tremendous outpouring of solidarity from nearly the entire world after 9/11, makes me weep to think of the lost opportunity. The definition of "we" implicit in that question is so cramped and nationalistic and such a perfect exemplar of Bush administration thinking.

But let's take the question on its own apparent terms -- i.e., why hasn't the US been attacked since 9/11? I guess one could have asked the same question 4-1/2 years after the 1993 WTC bombing. Does anyone now think the correct conclusion was anything other than, these things take time, and those who would do us harm are in no hurry? While I am willing to accept that perhaps we have made certain Al-Qaeda operations more difficult, I for one do not believe that the mere passage of 4+ years since 9/11 is itself evidence of either increased deterrence on our part, or decreased will on our enemies' parts.

Great thought-provoking point, and actually, it gets me thinking about it much deeper, and how complicated the issue you raise might be; it gives me some perhaps outrageous thoughts, I'll just throw them out there. Sorry to those who think it's taking it too off-topic.

Take the issue of the Irish conflict for example: the violence was not brought here but the planning or support was! You have the IRA funding and even shipping of arms to them. Is it that even those with aims of violence for home countries so respect the idea of U.S. for offering a safe haven to operate out of that they don't sully its shores with the violence itself? Like "Raed," they see that even though politicians might be in power in the U.S. that are working against their cause, that the U.S. system still will allow for those pro-cause to live in tolerance with "the other"?

On India, I am sure that many can come up with examples that run contrary to the point you say Zakaria has made, that there is still some pretty gruesome Hindu v. Muslim violence. But I would still tend to agree with the general point. Overall, the violence there to me seems like growing pains we experienced (and still do! Example: Tim McVeigh, angered by Waco et. al.), their government is still very young and overall, especially for the huge population, the "live and let live" thing is working. This despite the deep, deep nature of the caste system in the culture! Perhaps I fall for Western propaganda, but more and more I am seeing articles about Untouchables and similar making inroads vis-a-vis meritocracy, using the political system; pretty amazing things have happened there in only a few decades. The contrast with Muslim v. Hindu in India vs. how much more "jihadi" driven sectarian violence in Pakistan seems to be, and how the populations as a whole react is instructive, too, I think....it can be argued quite well that India perhaps had democratic meritocracy before it could handle it, especially for such a poverty-striken colossus of humanity, but the tolerance scorecard is basically looking pretty good in such a short time.

I must admit am ignorant of those who have made this argument in the recent past

When does "recent" begin and what did they argue before it began?

(I was under the impression that "liberals" in general had just dropped the issue.)

Dropped it where...and why?

Can you think of any examples you can point me to that I could look up?

Google "liberals+melting pot" for starters. A whole slew of articles will lead you on.

tgitlin's rating of your comment has raised it even more

Since my highest previous rating was 1 I wouldn't make too much of it. He probably suffered a lapse in concentration.

If you can't think of any, is it that you are referencing the liberalism that promotes things like Spanish speakers not having to learn English, is that it? The "it's not right to make people assimilate" crowd?

They're part of it certainly.

But I trace the genesis of the idea to the failure of the civil rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. If legal equality doesn't result in actual equality of wealth, education, achievement, etc. then the problem must be that white Americans are inherently racists and the melting pot is a lie when applied to other races and non-european cultures. That's how the reasoning went.

Beyond that modern-day liberals all inequality suspect.

When does "recent" begin and what did they argue before it began?

By using the word "recent" I was referring to your use of "not long ago." Your framing, not mine.

I guess I am interested in a more sophisticated look at the topic than you.

First, I see sarcasm in your response. You are mistaken if you mean to catch me as a classic liberal foe to argue with. If you read my history of commenting here, you will find I am no great supporter of classic liberalism of the "white man = evil imperialist" veriety nor of political correctness. (I dropped that after my first semester in college decades , quite disallusioned with former heroes.) Personally, I would love it if the majority of participants here looked at that whole topic as not even worth talking about, just mho.

On to the topic at hand. I think it's important not to confuse "melting pot" and "tolerance" issues in the U.S. with the complications resulting from the great influx of one single culture the past few decades, the Latino one. Because the Latino culture is aided by the illegal immigration which results in a defacto preference to all other immigrant groups, we have gotten into some of the same assimilation problems that Europe has with Arabs and Muslims.

Yeah, duh, of course, you'll get no argument from me, English should be the national language and Latinos should be subject to the same assimilation process other immigrant groups went through. But there are so many of them that they have power to fight back and get laws enacted that give them special preferences. It's a fact that we've had to deal with, things like government forms in Spanish. Practicalities of the situation virtually force one's hand to do such things. (Any objection when private companies, like banks, put several languages on their ATM's? If not, why get all in knots when the government does the same? It's reality, dealing with the situation you have.)

But this whole thing, because of the vast Latino presence, deflects from what one want to present or be as a nation, as far as what we are talking about here. Do you really want to crack down on people like Hasidim and Amish and others similar to the Branch Davidian compound group and force them to be "more American?" As long as they follow the rules and don't impinge on others' rights, isn't it more "American" (i.e., Puritans and Quakers living side by side) to let them have keep own cultures and assimilate/melt over generations? Go overboard on the anti-Spanish thing just because there happens to be so many of them within a short time and you may find yourself getting into "non-freedom" territory, very anti-American stuff in my mind. The basis of the problem that upsets you is a preference for one cultural group in immigration, this time via geographic luck unimpeded. The same thing happened with the Irish famine. There was a huge number of Irish all coming in at one time, and that resulted in the melting pot/ assimilation applecart being upset, lots of resentment and hatred on all fronts. Balance of immigration, culturally and all other ways, including class-wise, is more fitting with the American ideal.

Off-topic suggestion for you: if sophisticated, civil conversation is what you're looking for, try proceeding in your commentary without the preconception that everyone at TPMCafe is the simplistic "liberal enemy" wishing to push liberal talking points. You might be surprised at the response. Seems to me that you have a problem with a self-fulfilling prophecy type thing: you bait as if you know what people here think, and the ones that bite are the ones that actually see themselves in your denigration. What you are doing is drawing out those you dislike and who dislike you. This:

Since my highest previous rating was 1