Etzioni on Obama's Speech to the Muslim World
Since Amitai Etzioni disabled the comments on his post today, I will respond here.
I sincerely hope President Obama stays away from the topic Etzioni raises in his first paragraph. It is not the role of the President of the United States to offer any kind of general assessment of Islam, either the optimistic assessment (a), the pessimistic assessment (b) or the neutral assessment (c). Our president is not a theologian or a professor of comparative religion. He is also not empowered to speak for the United States as a whole on matters about which there is a broad diversity of opinion in this country. Making some sort of declaration about what the United States, as such, thinks of Islam would be presumptuous and beyond the legitimate purview of civil government.
Obama is also not legitimately entitled to identify the people of the United States corporately as "people of faith". Some of us are and some of us aren't.
The president is head of the executive branch of the US government, and thus speaks to the world in that role. What Obama can say is that America welcomes people of all religious traditions, and guarantees the free exercise of religion. He could also acknowledge that Jews, Christians and Muslims share a common body of tradition and geographical origins, and that since many - but by no means all - Americans are Jews, Christians or Muslims, there is some basis for common ground there. He can also convey, as Etzioni says, the US position that we are prepared to work with any people anywhere who eschew violence.
He might then try apologizing for a few things, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.
The idea of doing more to promote curltural exchanges is an excellent one. But I think this should go beyond translating a few books. Expanding study abroad opportunities for Muslims in the US and Americans at Muslim universities would be useful. That should include exchanges with American universities. Obama could also announce a program to dramatically increase the teaching of Middle Eastern and other Muslim world languages in the United States, and to grow programs of Middle Eastern studies. But he should show that he understands the difference between respectful culural exchanges and obnoxious, laissez faire cultural imperialism.
Obama must resist efforts by Saudi Arabi and Egypt to co-opt this entire trip and message. The "Muslim world" is not just the Sunni Muslim world, and it should be no part of US policy to play favorites among competing Muslim denominations or practices.
I sincerely hope President Obama stays away from the topic Etzioni raises in his first paragraph. It is not the role of the President of the United States to offer any kind of general assessment of Islam, either the optimistic assessment (a), the pessimistic assessment (b) or the neutral assessment (c). Our president is not a theologian or a professor of comparative religion. He is also not empowered to speak for the United States as a whole on matters about which there is a broad diversity of opinion in this country. Making some sort of declaration about what the United States, as such, thinks of Islam would be presumptuous and beyond the legitimate purview of civil government.
Obama is also not legitimately entitled to identify the people of the United States corporately as "people of faith". Some of us are and some of us aren't.
The president is head of the executive branch of the US government, and thus speaks to the world in that role. What Obama can say is that America welcomes people of all religious traditions, and guarantees the free exercise of religion. He could also acknowledge that Jews, Christians and Muslims share a common body of tradition and geographical origins, and that since many - but by no means all - Americans are Jews, Christians or Muslims, there is some basis for common ground there. He can also convey, as Etzioni says, the US position that we are prepared to work with any people anywhere who eschew violence.
He might then try apologizing for a few things, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.
The idea of doing more to promote curltural exchanges is an excellent one. But I think this should go beyond translating a few books. Expanding study abroad opportunities for Muslims in the US and Americans at Muslim universities would be useful. That should include exchanges with American universities. Obama could also announce a program to dramatically increase the teaching of Middle Eastern and other Muslim world languages in the United States, and to grow programs of Middle Eastern studies. But he should show that he understands the difference between respectful culural exchanges and obnoxious, laissez faire cultural imperialism.
Obama must resist efforts by Saudi Arabi and Egypt to co-opt this entire trip and message. The "Muslim world" is not just the Sunni Muslim world, and it should be no part of US policy to play favorites among competing Muslim denominations or practices.
Advertisement
Amitai Etzioni: I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue.
Another interpretation is that Etzioni values who says what over what they actually say.
Confession. I stopped reading most of Etzioni's posts a while back. He is too predictable. Scanning the title and lede are usually sufficient to discern where his communitarian inclination is leading. I have made exceptions when a post garners a reasonable number of comments.
Since he disabled comments to today's post, I likely would not have read it if you had not responded with a post of your own. Ironic.
June 1, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to buy Amitai for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth.
..........old southern expression
June 1, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one!
June 2, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Expanding study abroad opportunities for Muslims in the US and Americans at Muslim universities would be useful. "
That coming after the previous paragraph suggesting a respect for non-secular government struck me oddly. Why should the US be promoting/supporting a religion in particular? I hope you meant it other than as phrased, even if he's addressing a strictly Muslim audience (which of course he's not).
Cross-cultural understanding is generally a good.
June 1, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think I understand the point, eds. If cross-cultural understanding is good, why not promote it? It is not promoting a religion to promote cultural exchanges with the members of that religion.
June 1, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a religion in particular"
June 2, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Etzioni suggests Obama should say:
"We will walk with those who reject violence in statements (by violence we mean terrorism, invading and threatening other countries, acts of genocide as well as military build-ups and WMD proliferation)."
But one wonders how the President of the nation with the world's largest military and largest aresenal of WMDs--a nation still deeply mired in Iraq as a result of its most recent large-scale invasion--could say this without choking on his words? Or does Etzioni really mean to say that these rules apply only to Muslim nations? I hope he'll explain. But I'm not hopeful seeing he has closed comments, saying: "I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue." Which makes me wonder if he's ever heard of Publius?
June 1, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's undemocratic to cripple comments.
PS asks:does Etzioni really mean to say that these rules apply only to Muslim nations?
I don't think Etzioni meant to apply his inclusive rules to Israel although it does qualify for sanctions on many counts. Note that sovreign nations are to eschew "military build-ups" if they want to be our friends. However, US policy is that controlled access to our arsenal is a reward for good behavior.
He has another version of his advice to Obama on how to treat Muslims on his own site titled;
"Obama to Muslims: Unclench your fist"
http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/
There, Etzioni says:
"Furthermore, while forcing regime change should not be American’s mission, Obama can hardly continue to support authoritarian regimes (such as in Saudi Arabia). He can support peaceful, internal changes—led by the people of the nations whose regimes are at issue. In doing so, the Obama Administration best keep in mind that if political reforms start with free elections, these may well be won by anti-democratic groups. Moreover, the winners are likely to be supporters of terrorism and even proliferation of WMD. Hence, free elections are best preceded by other steps such as rewriting the constitution, freeing the press, and allowing moderate opposition parties to develop."
Here, he says:
"We hope he stresses that as people of faith we respect faith, and do not view secular beliefs and practices as the only enlightened basis for one's government and lifestyle. And that when it comes to building a democracy and expanding the reach of human rights, there are numerous pathways. Expanding the opportunities for competitive parties, increasing access to the media, building civil society, revising the constitution, as well as holding local and national elections are all avenues that can be used by those seeking to travel this road."
The first version is so much more detailed.
As for Obama's speech, the best hope is that the usual American hypocrisy will be minimal. That's what his intended audience is watching for.
June 2, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink