A Summit of Leaders Who Refuse to Level With U.S. Citizens

Today on NRO

MARY EBERSTADT: What today's feminist raging gets right. Jailhouse Feminism.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Obama and European leaders are repeating the mistakes of their 1930s predecessors. Our Dangerous Historical Moment.

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: Marie Harf's particular breed of wrongness illuminates why we are losing the War on Terror. We Are Marie Harf.

DAVID FRENCH: The Left's weapon of choice may be dividing the country, but it's not winning converts. How Political Correctness Improved My Life.

PHOTO ESSAY: Battle of Iwo Jima.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

February 19, 2015

Check out the new NationalReview.com. The long-awaited, long-discussed, long-in-the-works redesign is complete.

A Summit of Leaders Who Refuse to Level With U.S. Citizens

Obama, speaking Wednesday at the White House Summit on countering violent extremism: "We've got to discredit these ideologies. We have to tackle them head on. And we can't shy away from these discussions. And too often, folks are, understandably, sensitive about addressing some of these root issues, but we have to talk about them, honestly and clearly."

Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking Tuesday: "'Radical Islam,' 'Islamic extremism,' you know, I'm not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that . . . What we have to do is defined not by the terms that we use, but by the facts on the ground. So I don't worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be. I think that people need to actually think about that and think about really, are we having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be?"

Holder's point is that the terminology is moot and unimportant . . . and yet for some reason, the White House refuses to use certain terminology.

Chuck Todd, Wednesday afternoon: "I was just looking at the fact sheet that the White House just put out, to go in conjunction with the president's statement. I can already predict exactly what some of the criticism is going to be of the president. You don't see the word Islam, Islamic, or radical Islam anywhere in the fact sheet. They use extremists, they're very careful not to associate it with one religion. Frankly, I'm told there is actually debate inside the White House about should they be avoiding the phrase radical Islam or not? Do you say it to force other countries and leaders to tackle this because it's happening in their religion and faith?"

I heard a better version of Holder's argument from a D.C. mainstream media reporter who asked (I'm paraphrasing) what would change if Obama spent the next month using the term "Islamist extremism" and "radical Islam" in every speech. Would it kill a single Islamic State member? Would it change the dynamics of the fight against the Islamic State in any significant way? Isn't the real problem the policies, strategies, and tactics used against the Islamic State and al-Qaeda and not the terms the president is using?

It's a fair point, but the question of language and clarity is still relevant.

Why does it matter so much to some of us that the administration describe the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Charlie Hebdo shooter, the Denmark synagogue shooter, the Paris kosher-grocery-store shooter, and other perpetrators as "Islamists" or "Islamic radicals" instead of just "violent extremists"?

Because the generic term is less accurate, and less honest, and this administration has a serious problem when it comes to leveling with the American people.

The Obama administration -- like many administrations before it -- has amassed an ignoble history of insisting everything is fine when it isn't, or that a problem isn't as bad as it seems right before it blows up. Obama dismissed the Islamic State as "the JV team." Obama touted Yemen as a "success story" for his counterterrorism policies six months before the government collapsed under assault from Iranian-backed extremists.

Obama at a DNC event: "I promise you, things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago." He said this the day U.K. prime minister David Cameron declared that his country faced "the greatest and deepest terror threat in its history."

The president speaks about the invasion and occupation of Crimea as if it had been properly resolved: "Our ability to mobilize international opinion rapidly has changed the balance and the equation in Ukraine."

They're always insisting that everything is going fine.

(This happens in the domestic realm as well: They go out and tout Healthcare.gov when it's not working. The private sector is "doing fine." People who already have health insurance "don't have to worry." Increases in the unemployment rate are, similarly, just "bumps in the road.")

In the past few years, we've watched the governments of Libya and Yemen collapse, and Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan half-collapse. Terrorist attacks have shot up the Canadian parliament, Paris magazine offices, and Danish synagogues. The Islamic State keeps inventing new, more horrific, and theatrical images to show the world: crucifixions, pilots burned alive, Christians beheaded en masse.

Things aren't going our way. We're not doing fine. We want the government to stop lying to us about people who want to kill us.

So start by acknowledging the obvious. The perpetrators of these atrocities claim to act in the name of Islam, and they seek to implement, by force, a system of rule where everything must be Islamic. If the term "Islamist" is sufficiently accurate and fair for the New York Times and the Washington Post, why is it not good enough for the Obama administration?

Holder wants us to stop worrying about the name of the threat and focus upon stopping it. But it is exponentially harder to stop a threat when you refuse to see it clearly or describe it accurately.

Speaking of True Names . . .

Have you ever met someone, known them for a while, and then learned that they actually have another name? I've had that happen with surprising frequency.

The concept of the 'True Name' comes up with fascinating regularity in pop culture -- often in a supernatural, fantasy, or science fiction genre, but not exclusively.

Sometimes there's a turning point when a protagonist chooses a name: In The Matrix, the climax occurs when Keanu Reeves' character rejects being called "Mr. Anderson" by his foe and declares, "My name is Neo." In the original RoboCop, the final line is the protagonist saying his name is "Murphy," representing his human side (soul?) asserting itself over the artificial identity assigned to him after his near-death experience.

In some fairy tales and legends, to know someone's real name is to have a certain power over them: Rumpelstiltskin.

Sometimes there's a power in not having a name. Characters in the Harry Potter movies are afraid to mention Voldemort's name, and he's often referred to as "He Who Must Not Be Named." In Casino Royale, James Bond's first villain is Le Chiffre ("The Number"). (Note that the last line of that origin story is the protagonist finally delivering the long-awaited line, "The name's Bond. James Bond" -- accepting his True Name.) Most of the portrayals of The Joker in Batman comics and movies (besides the first one) insist his true identity is impossible to determine.

One of Clint Eastwood's most famous characters is "The Man with No Name."

In the real world, there are some powerfully symbolic renaming ceremonies and processes. Think of the Popes taking new names. In the sacrament of confirmation, some Catholics adopt a new name.

Or Cassius Clay changing his name to Muhammad Ali. Some writers use pen names. Spies use cover identities. Actors use stage names. People online use aliases.

Some liberals got particular pleasure out of calling the 2012 GOP nominee by his birth name, "Willard."

We may see more of that sort of thing this cycle, as again we have some contenders known by nicknames or other names that aren't their birth names: John Ellis Bush, Randal Howard Paul, Piyush Jindal.

A lot of the most famous names you know weren't the birth names of those famous figures.

Gerald Ford's birth name? Leslie Lynch King, Jr. Bill Clinton's? William Jefferson Blythe III.

Che Guevera? Ernesto Guevara Lynch.

Pele? Edson Arantes do Nascimento.

What If the Oscars Honored Movies that Audiences Actually Watched?

Quick thoughts in response to the comments under Wednesday's piece on American Sniper and the Oscars . . .

Imagine if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Scientists decided to nominate the six highest-grossing films of 2014 for Best Picture. That field would consist of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay -- Part One; Guardians of the Galaxy; American Sniper; Captain America: The Winter Soldier; The LEGO Movie, and The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. I haven't seen all of those, but I think most moviegoers and critics would agree that those are actually a pretty good bunch of movies, particularly when you account for what each one aimed to be, particularly Guardians of the Galaxy (epic space fantasy) and The Lego Movie (funny, fast-paced kids movie with a lot of heart).

Of course, those who vote for the nominees appear to detest epic space fantasies, kids movies, and superhero movies. (The lone exception I can recall is Heath Ledger's posthumous Oscar award for playing the Joker in The Dark Knight, an award undoubtedly influenced by his stunning death.) Every once in a while, the supporting actor winner comes from a popular film -- Tommy Lee Jones winning for The Fugitive, Marisa Tomei for My Cousin Vinny.

Even if you deem those movies too childish for serious film connoisseurs, this year's top 20 included Christopher Nolan's Interstellar, David Fincher's Gone Girl, and the tearjerker drama The Fault in Our Stars.

Imagine if this year's Best Picture nominees consisted of Mockingjay, Guardians of the Galaxy, American Sniper, The Lego Movie, Interstellar, Gone Girl, and The Fault in Our Stars. Casual moviegoers would actually have something to argue about, and viewership for the Oscars would be through the roof. Those who loved Birdman or The Grand Budapest Hotel or Boyhood would probably find this imaginary list an abomination, and the Academy is free to award . . . tributes to the acting profession featuring an actor poking fun at himself, precociously quirky historical fiction, and overwrought domestic dramas driven by a gimmick (IT TOOK TWELVE YEARS TO MAKE!).

But the Academy can't nominate a bunch of little-seen, heavy art-house dramas and then wonder why nobody's watching the Oscar ceremony.

ADDENDA: You know what the hardest part of adjusting to the redesign is? Remembering the password you picked out months ago.

www.NationalReview.com

Sail with National Review

Join your favorite writers for National Review's 2015 cruise to Alaska — a once in a lifetime opportunity for you and your family. Learn more here.

What National Review is reading — order your copy today!

Withering Slights: The Bent Pin Collection, 2007 to 2012
By Florence King and from National Review

Love National Review online? Save 75% off the newsstand price and subscribe to National Review magazine — print or digital versions available!

Looking for the perfect gift for that special conservative in your life? Give the gift of National Review or shop the NR store!

To manage your National Review e-mail preferences or unsubscribe, click here, or to read our privacy policy, click here.

This e-mail was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Search This Blog

Diogenes-Light

A Summit of Leaders Who Refuse to Level With U.S. Citizens

A Summit of Leaders Who Refuse to Level With U.S. Citizens

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥

FOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy & Democrats

Readworthy: This month’s best biographies & memoirs