by Katherine Mangu-Ward DANIEL PIPES, a prominent scholar of Islam and Middle East politics, is giving the administration heartburn, but he'll have a seat on the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace before the Senate gets back after Labor Day.
After the White House announced Pipes's nomination to the Institute of Peace, it was surprised to find that, in addition to the expected full-throated opposition from Democrats (most notably Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, and Chris Dodd), several Republicans threatened to flake out on the confirmation vote. This prompted the administration's decision to install Pipes during the August recess in order to circumvent the Senate.
Pipes's refusal to back away from radical positions has earned him a respectable cast of enemies. First among them is the Council on American Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group which has expressed support for terrorists. Kennedy, Harkin, Dodd, and others (not a bad list of enemies in their own right) have signed on to CAIR's efforts to block the appointment.
Fortunately, Pipes enjoys strong support from Karl Rove, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice--he even got the nod from Colin Powell. He is undoubtedly "controversial," as opponents of his appointment claim, and even administration officials acknowledge that "he goes overboard occasionally."
But the White House will stick with Pipes, even though the appointment process has been difficult. Muslim advocates and lefty Democrats have done their share to make trouble, but Pipes isn't going out of his way to make the process easier--or to guarantee the administration's continued support.
"When it comes to the Saudi-American relationship, the White House should be called the 'White Tent'," wrote Pipes in the Winter 2002/2003 issue of the National Interest.
Two weeks ago, Pipes wrote in the Jerusalem Post: "Two of [CAIR's] former employees, Bassem Khafagi and Ismail Royer, have recently been arrested on charges related to terrorism . . . Despite this ugly record, the U.S. government widely accepts CAIR as representing Islam. Nationally, the White House invites it to functions."
In fact, Pipes regularly impugns the White House's guest lists. In November 2002 he wrote: "The White House would not consider inviting Baghdad's apologists to festive functions. But it welcomed many of militant Islam's sympathizers at a Ramadan dinner hosted by the president earlier this month."
So why would the White House go to all this trouble for someone who hasn't been particularly friendly?
Pipes has often hinted, suggested, and even said outright that the Bush administration is overly beholden to Muslims and the interest groups that claim to represent them. His appointment to the U.S. Institute of Peace over serious opposition from those very groups, and in the face of his refusal to moderate his message, speaks volumes about just how little pandering the administration is planning on in the near future. by Lee Harris For many weeks now, I have pondered the significance of the controversy over President Bush's nomination of Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Institute of Peace, but I have been puzzled over what I could write about it that had not already been said by men much more eloquent than I, including Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, and the editors of The New Republic. What, in view of Dr. Pipes's many more able defenders, could I possibly have to add that might be of interest or value to anyone else? Then, while I was turning this question over in my mind, I thought about the town I live in, and its not very distant past, and all at once I realized what it was that I could say about the Pipes controversy that is different, and -- let us hope -- not entirely irrelevant. About eighty years ago and only a few miles from my home, the Ku Klux Klan was reborn in an explosion of fiery crosses on top of the massive granite outcropping known as Stone Mountain. The men who attended this celebration were convinced that they represented what was finest in southern culture, and that their newly resurrected organization would be dedicated to preserving the heritage of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant values that had been so integral in the creation of the United States. What is more, the hooded men on top of Stone Mountain were by no means alone in thinking of themselves in this way, since at the time there were many other Americans who would have agreed with this flattering self-assessment, fellow travelers of the KKK and their apologists all across the United States, as well as many of the leading politicians of that not terribly distant epoch, including, of course, distinguished Senators. Were they right? Did the men on top of Stone Mountain truly stand for what they claimed? Did they indeed speak for all white southerners? This was a difficult question to determine at the time, because any white southerner who happened to speak out openly against the KKK would almost certainly face some form of retaliation from the Klan itself, administered in varying degrees of severity. The Klan, after all, wore those hoods and sheets for a reason -- in fact, for two reasons. First, they wore them to make identification of individual Klan members impossible by those whom the Klan chose to intimidate, black or white, thereby permitting Klan members to perform criminal acts with complete impunity. Second, to transform a collection of moderately respectable men into a gang of ruthless thugs collectively capable of committing acts that, as individuals, they would not have countenanced. In short, the hood and the sheet were talismans for magically changing run of the mill dentists, commonplace salesmen, and ordinary farmers into terrorists. And yet, despite the intimidation and despite the terror, some white southerners did speak out against the KKK. Not many, but enough to raise the question: Who truly spoke for southern culture? The Klan and their apologists? Or those who denounced them both? Now what, you ask, does all of this have to do with Dr. Daniel Pipes, and the current controversy about President Bush's nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace? To answer this question, substitute Arab culture for southern culture, Islam for Protestantism, and Islamic terrorists for the KKK; and then ask yourself: Who today is the true defender of Muslim culture and the ethos of Islam -- those who commit terrorist outrages, and their apologists? Or those who, like Dr. Pipes, denounce the actions of such ruthless thugs, and who point steadily to those aspects of the Islamic tradition that are life-affirming, moderate, and humane? Merely to ask such a question is to reject the paradigm of culture that has come to dominate so much contemporary academic and pseudo-liberal thinking, namely the naןve multiculturalist's simplistic concept of a culture as a single monolithic entity, homogeneous and immutable. Instead, it presupposes a far more sophisticated concept of culture as a locus of conflicting values, from the perspective of which Islamic culture, like southern culture, is a living, changing organism, riddled with deep divisions and fraught with dialectic tensions, punctuated with lacerating periods of internal conflict in which two different interpretations of one and the same culture have struggled for dominance, with one side often intent on destroying every trace of its opponent. Precisely such a struggle for cultural dominance was fought out in the American south during the course of the twentieth century; and precisely such a struggle for cultural dominance is being fought out today in the Islamic world. Indeed, Islamic culture, in this respect, is no different from southern culture, and indeed, like every culture known to us. It has its better angels, but it has its demons as well; and the eternal question is, as always, Which shall be allowed to triumph? Daniel Pipes's mission has been to restate this universal truth in terms of the contemporary struggle between the better angels of Islam, on the one hand, and the demons of ruthlessness represented by al-Qaeda and Hamas, on the other -- organizations that, like the KKK, falsely claim to represent an entire culture, but which are in fact only pathological and self-serving distortions of a fragment of this culture. Today there are no crosses burned on Stone Mountain, and it is inconceivable that any will ever burn there again, so that, in retrospect, it is tempting to conclude that the KKK did not truly stand for southern culture, after all. But this facile conclusion is only possible because there were in our past a handful of men and women who fought heroically against the KKK's pretensions to represent southern culture -- men, like the great newspaper editor, Ralph McGill, who insisted on seeing the KKK as a kind of cultural pathogen whose spread and success could only end by destroying whatever was most valuable and worthy in the culture of the American South. If one day our children, or our children's children, can look back at this epoch in history, and facilely conclude that al-Qaeda and Hamas did not "really" stand for Islamic culture, it will be thanks to yet another handful of courageous men, both in the West and in the Muslim world itself, who, like Dr. Pipes, have insisted that Islamic culture could not be reduced to the pretensions of terrorist gangs and their apologists. But if, tragically, such a day should never come, it will be in no small part because of those men and women who today are attacking Daniel Pipes and his work, as well as those politicians -- like Senators Kennedy, Harkin, and Dodd -- who permit hysteria and slander to guide where reason and judgment should rule. Copyright danielpipes.org
Support Campus Watch
See Judiasm versus Deism and Gnosticism
Back to
Visitors since
Pipes Doesn't Pander
Weekly Standard
August 22, 2003
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1217
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/043ggnhm.aspConfronting Terrorist Gangs and Their Apologists
Tech Central Station
August 22, 2003
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1218
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-082203A
Islam
Article list for this section.
Killing Children
George Bush Defends Saudi Terrorism
Palestine Myth Debunked
Arlene Peck on Arabs
Muslim Immigration Must be Halted 
March 2002