Is there a threat? How seriously should it be taken? How would a wise and good U.S. government deal with it? It goes without saying that America's right wing cannot be trusted to answer these questions well. But there are reasons to wonder whether the left can either.

::::::::

In raising this question --how should we judge the threat from radical Islam?-- I would also like to articulate some of my concerns about the state of thought about that question in America today.

That the right is unprepared to respond to that question from a place of wisdom and truth almost goes without saying. Today's Americans on the political right are a group whose leaders have been telling them that this threat is so huge that, though the United States could fight World War II and engage in the protracted and potentially annihilating struggle of the cold war without ditching the Constitution or legitimating torture, we must now sacrifice all that and more --and remain in constant fear-- to meet the present danger.

The right is plagued by lies and fear-mongering from the leadership, and what seems like a virtual trance state among the followers.

But the fact that the right has gone off the wall on this question does not mean that the left is necessarily clear of vision. Actually, given the way cultural systems work, quite the contrary: the excesses on one side generally suggest --and can also create-- corresponding but opposite errors on the other side. The first casualties of polarization in the body politic are truth and good judgment.

And, as I pose this question to a group of people who are (for the most part) united in their abhorrence of the destructive regime now ruling the United States, this problem of mirror-image distortions is the source of my concern,.

A central part of how I look at the entire moral crisis in America today --a crisis of which the rise of Bushite fascism is the most urgent part, but not the whole thing-- is in terms of the idea of this idea of "polarization."

If Goodness is inextricably connected with Wholeness (which is what I believe --see www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=79), then the creation of division-- such as the polarization within a culture in the areas of ideas and beliefs--is also central to the dynamic of evil.

And that splitting apart of the larger, whole truth into ever-more-widely-divergent partisan half-truths is precisely what we have seen in America over the past several decades. This, I believe, is one of the main forces at work in our society that has opened the door to the takeover of America by these evil forces.

This polarization is manifest in how different groups think about the situation in the world today.

On the right, idea of the "Axis of evil" has become an excuse for an American descent into evil.

On the left, meanwhile --where, as an impassioned opponent of this terrible regime, I mostly hang out-- one can do a great deal of reading without encountering much concern about the forces arising in recent years in the Islamic world, and the threat they may imply for the Western world.

As is generally the case when beliefs polarize, neither side --in my view-- has a very good handle on the truth, made up as it is of various components that must be well-integrated for us to achieve true understanding and to be able to act wisely.

So when I ask, "Is there a threat from radical Islam?" in the circles among which my words will circulate, I expect that a great many people will come forward to declare, simply, No. Or to reduce the threat to terms that are but another way of criticizing the West in general and America in particular.

Polarization distorts understanding when people are so invested in rejecting the views of the other side of the divided cultural system that they will ignore logic and evidence in order to grant their enemies nothing.

One might think in this way, for example: "Bush is evil, so therefore his enemies are not," a statement with whose premise I would agree, but whose conclusion is a non-sequitur. It IS possible that both Bush and his enemies are a menace to what we are called upon to protect. (It does seem that, for whatever reason, the problem of fascistic thinking has become wisespread in today's world.

Sometimes both sides in a conflict are evil and dangerous. (Consider that bloody conflict between Stalin's armies and Hitler's in World War II. That Hitler was evil did not change the fact that so was Stalin, and vice versa.)

Or one might think, because Bush is wrong about most everything, he must also be wrong about Islamic radicalism, or jihadism, posing an important threat. Another non sequitur.

And compounding our problem with polarized ways of thinking, there is the polarization that has occurred around the matter of patriotism and pride in one's country, and tradition, and civilization.

The fascistic/nationalistic/ethnocentrist way in which the right has asserted its pride and self-congratulation is surely full of distortion. But then, on the other side, there are many who have become reflexively critical and even rejecting of their own civilization. And, even if were agreed that there is some sort of "clash of civilization's" going on, such people might deny that there's anything seriously amiss with the other side of that clash, or that there's anything on our side of the clash that is worth protecting.

But surely there is compelling evidence --from the oppressions of the Taliban in Afghanistan to the cult of death surrounding the jihadist practice of terrorism-- that the forces assaulting the West from the Islamic world represent values from which we are called to protect ourselves.

Would it not be a serious mistake --even though our Western civilization has its defects, and although it is part of our responsibility to examine and try to correct those defects-- not just to criticize our society and its heritage and outright reject it? In this dismal history of civilized societies, have not Western liberal societies in the past two or three centuries provided their members a freer and more decent life than has been seen before, or elsewhere? Has not Western civilization --despite its defects-- made an important contribution to human development?

And then there are the matters of factual distortion. Although the left's disconnect from reality does not seem nearly so massive as that on the right, with its refusal to see the obvious truth about the nature and conduct of the forces that have taken it over, some on the left do seem inclined to deny some pieces of the picture that do not fit readily into the ideological picture.

Some seem to go from their belief that 9/11 was an inside job --a belief that I do not dismiss, but also don't know enough to join in-- to conclude that therefore Islamic terrorism is no threat. But whatever happened on 9/11 does not sweep away the reality of the large-scale killings by Islamic terrorists in Bali in 2002 or in Madrid in 2004.

We should know: There is a threat out there. But, even if that is conceded, that would not not tell us how large --when seen in proper perspective-- that threat is.

Nor is the existence of such a threat to be explained away, as some seem to think it convenient, as a reaction to the Bushite regime. Remember the embassies in Africa in the 1990s?

Nor as a result of economic privation. The leading terrorists seem largely to be from the more privileged classes?

Nor of globalization. The societies producing most of the terrorists are among the least integrated into the world economy. And so forth.

It seems there are genuine disturbances in some parts of the Islamic world that are not ONLY the result of Western crimes and misdemeanors.

So those are some of my concerns and cautions in inviting a conversation about these questions.

How much of a threat is there from the jihadists? How seriously should it be taken?

And if the United States had a government that was wise and good, how would it act to address that threat?

Authors Bio:
Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District. His new book -- written to have an impact on the central political battle of our time -- is WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST. His previous books include The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution, for which he was awarded the Erik H. Erikson prize by the International Society for Political Psychology.