Several vocal Conservatives have taken issue with how President Obama refers to the terrorist group known as ISIS. They would rather Obama include Islam or Muslim somewhere in there, like "Islamic Terrorists." The point they are trying to make is somewhere along the lines of, they are driven by their religion Islam to carry out these terrorist acts, so we should not ignore that aspect of it.
On the other hand, this reasoning ignores some basic realities of the situation itself.
If Conservatives like Ted Cruz and Rudy Giuliani really want Obama to be specific about the type of terrorists we are facing in ISIS, what he should really call them is Conservative Terrorists, because that is what they are.
Here is the Wikipedia definition of Conservatism.
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
Thanks to a really thoughtful piece that came out of
the Atlantic recently, Americans like me, who do not come from Muslim or Middle Eastern backgrounds, finally got a real informative piece on what ISIS is and what their objectives are.
All Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad’s earliest conquests were not tidy affairs, and that the laws of war passed down in the Koran and in the narrations of the Prophet’s rule were calibrated to fit a turbulent and violent time. In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”
Is ISIS promoting a traditional social institution in the context of the culture and civilization? Where they are in Iraq and Syria, that is most definitely the case.
Does ISIS oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were?" Based on their usage of social media to advance their cause, I would say the former is still debatable, but the latter is fairly clear. They seek a return to the chaotic and bloody times of Muhammad.
Here is a another definition of conservatism:
Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change. Some Conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time.
Let's not mischaracterize what ISIS is doing. Yes, their tactics are barbaric, as are their laws and rationales. But, at the end of the day, it is still an example of a social order. Not one we think we would like to live in, but also not unheard of in the history of the world. ISIS is not the absence of social order: it is attempting to create a rather historic one.
What does it mean to have a society? Simply put, it is a system that dictates how human beings interact with one another.
While their social order is based purely on the religion of their upbringing, while the social order here, we would say is founded more on principles of morality and ethics, at the end of the day, it is still a set of laws that they say people should abide by, a set of laws that describe punishments for violating these social orders. We cannot deny that ISIS has the specific goal of a very historical social order in mind, even if we do not agree with its validity in a modern society.
Now, Republicans like Giuliani and Ted Cruz, they want to focus on how the basis of this social order is purely based in Islam. And that is true and that would seem to be a contradiction to say otherwise.
But to attribute their terrorism purely to religion, without considerations of ancient history, recent history, local demographics and geography, as well as genealogy and even global politics, should be regarded for what it is: absurd.
Now, let's take a look at another example: In a large region of the United States, for a long time, say, for about 150 years or so, there was a group that behaved rather atrociously. We are talking violence, mass killings, slavery, and mutilation of a whole group of people. They committed all sorts of crimes against other humans, and while many in the community may not have explicitly condoned those atrocities, many more still participated in those atrocities. Much of it was even institutionalized.
Now, judged by the lens of the 21st century, many of these people would surely be labeled terrorists. But would we call them "Christian" terrorists? Certainly, many of these people used Christian teachings to justify their atrocious behavior. And we know that these atrocities also went hand-in-hand with conversion to Christianity.
But at the end of the day, their Christian identity is not what lead to their terroristic behavior. So to call the propagators of American slavery "Christian terrorists" is no more reasonable than to call organizations like ISIS "Islamic terrorists." As much as they or anyone may claim their actions are rooted in their religion, their actions are just as much in contradiction to a lot of what other parts of their scripture and other clergy in their religion teach.
Keep in mind, the terrorist organizations known as ISIS and Al Qaeda, their aspirations pit them directly against other Islamic governments. So to distinguish them by their religion doesn't really help in identifying friend from foe. Calling them Islamic terrorists would be just as relevant to call them Arabic terrorists, Middle Eastern terrorists, fundamentalist terrorists, or even bearded terrorists.
The truth of the matter is, the direct effect of these organizations is to undermine regional governments, and re-install more arcane social orders. There is nothing inherently Islamic in that. But it is very much like what many Conservative ideologies aim to do.
How many times are we inundated with Conservatives talking about a return to "the good old days," code for the times when minorities, women, and LGBT groups were more easily oppressed? While the overt extremism may be absent, at the end of the day, what ISIS is attempting to do is far more characteristic of Conservatives than the vast majority of Islam.
At the end of the day, I don't want us to forget that most of us Progressive who come to this site are far more like Conservatives like Cruz and Giuliani than we are like the barbaric extremists like ISIS. And those Conservatives are far more like us than they are like ISIS as well. But if we forget about the tactics each use, and look only at the end objective, what the two are attempting to do are far more closely aligned than what any religion purportedly wants to do.
So President Obama, if you really do love America, call ISIS what they really are:
Conservative.