The public is a lot better than our leaders

With the barbarity of ISIL, the horror of Rotherham, the nightmare of Boko Haram and other outrages around the world, political leaders are, for obvious reasons, in overdrive to deny that there is anything inherently evil about Islam. This is akin to the efforts to portray the Fort Hood massacre by Hasan as workplace violence and having nothing to do with Hasan's avowed and published intentions in the name of Islam.

Politicians for practical and expedient reasons want to dissociate all the violence and barbarism from a particular religion because they fear that the public might take up pitchforks and commit outrages of their own. But these No True Scotsman arguments are patently absurd (as well argued in If ISIS Is Not Islamic, then the Inquisition Was Not Catholic by Jerry. A. Coyne), demeaning of the public intelligence, and insulting.

It is indisputably the case that much if not most of the horrors around the world are being generated in association with practitioners of the Muslim faith. Most people know this.

It is also indisputably the case that most of the practitioners of the Muslim faith have nothing to do with these horrors. Most people also know this.

I think politicians and the clerisy are demonstrating a dreadful misreading and misunderstanding of the public. You look at hate crime statistics and there simply is not evidence of public intolerance of Muslims in the US. Some years ago, I think on the first anniversary of 9/11, one of the news programs made the assumption that the public was now significantly intolerant of Muslims. They decided to demonstrate this by having a couple of actors of Middle Eastern appearance, the woman in a burqa, perambulate around a NASCAR event in North Carolina, hoping to elicit jeers and taunts. As it eventuated, while they attracted some stares, nothing untoward happened.

All the evidence points to a public who are both tolerant and knowledgeable enough to distinguish between individuals and stereotypes. But somehow politicians don't see that.

Politicians appear to be making the calculation that the public is too ignorant and can't be trusted not to be made aware of the facts and therefore the facts have to be hidden or misrepresented. There are many things wrong with this approach, not least of which is how much of a pre-internet mindset it betrays. I also think this reveals a perhaps unconscious trade-off decision that politicians are taking too lightly and miscalculating.

You can say

ISIL is not Islamic.

all you want but that doesn't make it true. Everyone can see that ISIL self-identifies as Muslim, are recognized in the region as Muslim, and are fighting and dying for what they understand Islam to be. Joe public understands that and I suspect that Joe Public is puzzled why the president can not also understand what is as plain as day.

The unrecognized trade-off is this.

I can lie about the facts in the hope that I can reduce the association of Islam with violence but if I do so, I then reduce the public trust in our leaders and political leaders.

I think we are at much greater risk of damage from discredited leaders and distrust in the political system than we are at risk of the public misbehaving over the horrors committed in the name of Islam.

At this particular juncture, the public is a lot better than our leaders.