Of the two volumes in Tocqueville’s classic, I enjoy most reading and discussing Volume 2, which is more a critical examination of the promise and perils of democracy and its culture, less about the institutional arrangements and inventive practices of the Americans, which Tocqueville celebrated and which is the focus of Volume 1 of his masterpiece.  But this year, Volume 1 has become especially interesting to me.  I hope for the students also.

I have taught the course many times.  The way it develops always depends upon what’s going on in the world, who is in the class, and how they connect their lives with the challenges of Tocqueville.  We don’t read Tocqueville for his insights and predictions about the details of American life, judging what he got right, what he got wrong.  Rather, we try to figure out how his approach to the problems of democracy can help us critically understand our world and his, democracy in America back then and now.

Assigning the Constitution

This semester, indeed, for the past two weeks, the course has taken an interesting turn.  As we have been reading Tocqueville on the American system of government, political associations and freedom of the press, i.e. Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2, I felt the need to assign an additional shorter reading, The Constitution of the United States of America.  I did this not because I feared that the students hadn’t yet read this central document in the story of democracy in America and beyond (they had), but because I judged that it was time to re-read the text, to note what is in it and what is not, to critically appraise the use of the document as a confirmation of the partisan passions of today, and also to appraise what Tocqueville had to say about American political parties of his day and how his observations apply to our circumstances.

A few days after assigning the reading, Ron Chernow’s op-ed piece in The New York Times underscored my motivation for the assignment.  The Constitution is a complex political document, the product of serious political confrontations and compromise.  “The truth is that the disputatious founders — who were revolutionaries, not choir boys — seldom agreed about anything… Far from being a soft-spoken epoch of genteel sages, the founding period was noisy and clamorous, rife with vitriolic polemics and partisan backbiting. Instead of bequeathing to posterity a set of universally shared opinions, engraved in marble, the founders shaped a series of fiercely fought debates that reverberate down to the present day…Those lofty figures, along with the seminal document they brought forth, form a sacred part of our common heritage as Americans. They should be used for the richness and diversity of their arguments, not tampered with for partisan purposes.”

Thinking about Political Parties

Because the Constitution was a rich political document in its time, it does not decide the major political confrontations of our day.  Rather, it fuels them, as it did in the first years of the Republic in the tension between the primary advocate of an activist government then, Alexander Hamilton and along with him George Washington, and their primary opponent, Thomas Jefferson and later Andrew Jackson.  The competing readings of The Constitution served as the basis of the American party system (much to the regret of the Founders, opposed as they were to factions).

As my class and I moved on in our discussion of Volume 1, we considered the nature of the American party system.  Was it primarily about petty politics, as Tocqueville thought, in contrast to the big issues of European parties?  Or are there fundamental principles embedded within American partisan contests?  Obviously this is a matter of judgment of the observer. Tocqueville thought that Americans agreed on fundamental principles and argued only about details, that the days of great politics in America were over.  While my students generally agree with him, I don’t.

Considering the Constitution carefully and identifying what it has opened up, it is clear to me that major debates have raged about it since.  The relationship between the government and economic life is not settled by the document but raised.  The role of federal and local authorities is not decided, nor at first was the question of the relationship between freedom and slavery.  Such issues have led to competing legal opinions and decisions, but it seems to me, even more significantly, it has led to big politics, including civil war, major social movements and fundamental changes in the relationship between culture and power, in political culture.  Such issues have animated the actions of political parties in America, including right now.

It may seem that politicians are in it for themselves and that advancement in life is based upon not what you know, but who you know.  It may seem that American political practices are petty and cynical. Indeed, they are.  Tocqueville thought that major issues of governing fundamentals were settled in America and therefore it was the conflict of narrow political interest that would be the basis of American political conflict.  Some would advocate a more active role for government because it was in their immediate interests and others would advocate for minimal government, also based on interest.

But then as now there are those who see the political contest as a matter of fundamental principles, and they debate it accordingly.  There are those, such as Barack Obama and before him Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, indeed all the Democratic Presidents since FDR, who as a matter of principle see the democratic government’s positive role in the pursuit of the common good, and there are those who think the common good is best achieved by the invisible hand of the market.  This was the position of Reagan and his revolutionaries, and with post Reagan Republicans, at least in their rhetoric.

And now it is the position of The Tea Party, but they are on steroids.  The present day Tea Party Patriots seem to forget that there is an important distinction to be made between protesting the actions of a tyrannical government, and protesting and criticizing a democratic elected government that follows all the rules and procedures of the Constitution which they purport to revere.  There are competing principles and judgments, and not just competing interests.

What worries me most about the Tea Party and the Republicans and Independents that support it, aside from the craziness, is that they pretend that the debate was settled two centuries ago, in favor of minimal government and the invisible hand.  What worries me about my students’ appraisal of American politics, which I think they share not only with Tocqueville, but with the majority of their fellow citizens, young and old, is that they don’t appreciate what is at stake in the big political debate.

Max Weber, author of "Politics as Vocation"

It sometimes feels like Barack Obama has studied Max Weber’s classic, “Politics as a Vocation,” a bit too carefully.   In his lecture, given in the aftermath of the tragedy of World War I, Weber made a strong distinction between an ethics of responsibility and an ethics of ultimate ends  – between an ethics that is based in getting practical things done politically, serving one’s constituency’s interests and understandings, and an ethics of principled politics, true to one’s core values.

Such a distinction leads Obama to clearly distinguish between an ethics of responsible governance and an ethics of imaginative and eloquent political campaigning, including attractive depictions of ultimate ends.  Obama’s reticence to use the poetry of campaigning, while he is engaged in the prose of governing, has meant that he hasn’t attacked those who have viciously attacked him.  It is only now in campaign mode that he is responding.  There are pressing questions:  has his been a responsible approach? And has his position made Obama’s (and his supporters) ends more distant?

Thus,  Brian Beutler, in a post on Talking Points Memo, applauded President Obama in his speech on the economy of September 8 in Cleveland for his direct attack on John Boehner, criticizing him “by name no less than eight times,” but laments “Complicating matters for Democrats is that, well, few Americans know who “Mr. Boehner” is. That might not be the case if Obama had given speeches like this starting a year ago. But there are still several weeks to go until election day.”

And Bob Herbert, in his op-ed. piece on Tuesday, was very pleased but also bewildered,  “ Mr. Obama linked the nation’s desperate need for jobs to the sorry state of the national infrastructure in a tone that conveyed both passion and empathy, and left me wondering, ‘Where has this guy been for the past year and a half?’”

The Method to his Madness?

Yet, it should be understood that there is a method, or at least a significant strategic decision, to the President’s madness.  He knew that he might need at least a few of his opponents support to pass his legislative agenda, and he also hoped that he could forge a broad coalition in support of necessary social, political and economic change, a hope that has been frustrated with Republicans calculating that complete opposition to all proposed reforms was the road out of their political darkness.  In his campaign, he is now willing to call them on this.

But even now, while attacking, Obama  stands by his centrist principle of bringing all people of good will together drawing upon multiple perspectives and principles to forge a commonly agreed upon approach.  He advanced in his September 8 speech one important variation on the Labor Day theme.

“This country is emerging from an incredibly difficult period in its history -– an era of irresponsibility that stretched from Wall Street to Washington, and had a devastating effect on a lot of people.  We have started turning the corner on that era.  But part of moving forward is returning to the time-honored values that built this country:  hard work and self-reliance; responsibility for ourselves, but also responsibility for one another.  It’s about moving from an attitude that said “What’s in it for me?” to one that asks, “What’s best for America?  What’s best for all our workers?  What’s best for all of our businesses? What’s best for all of our children?”  (Applause.)

These values are not Democratic or Republican.  They are not conservative or liberal values.  They are American values.  As Democrats, we take pride in what our party has accomplished over the last century:  Social Security and the minimum wage; the GI Bill and Medicare; civil rights and worker’s rights and women’s rights.  (Applause.)  But we also recognize that throughout our history, there has been a noble Republican vision as well, of what this country can be.  It was the vision of Abraham Lincoln, who set up the first land grant colleges and launched the transcontinental railroad; the vision of Teddy Roosevelt, who used the power of government to break up monopolies; the vision of Dwight Eisenhower, who helped build the Interstate Highway System.  And, yes, the vision of Ronald Reagan, who despite his aversion to government, was willing to help save Social Security for future generations — working with Democrats.  (Applause.)

These were serious leaders for serious times.  They were great politicians, but they didn’t spend all their time playing games or scoring points.  They didn’t always prey on people’s fears and anxieties.”

Dilemma and Promise

Obama has as an ultimate end of moving the center to the left, of turning the political debate from big government versus limited government, to good government versus bad government, as I explored in my last post.  To do this, he seeks to include Republicans and the Republican tradition.  Thus, he must praise them, and not just attempt to bury them, as many of his critics on the left, including me in my less deliberate moments, would like.  This is the dilemma, but also the great promise, of his political position.

President Obama’s “Address to the Nation on the End of Combat Operations in Iraq,” was consistent with his first public speech expressing his opposition to the war. He stood by the same principles, as he was fulfilling his responsibility as head of state, President for the entire nation and not only those who support him and his partisan position.  To paraphrase one of his standard lines, he was not speaking as President of the Blue States or the Red States, but as President of the United States of America.  The night of the address and in the days that followed, this most basic quality of his speech was overlooked.  Instead, there were misleading interpretations, from Obama’s critics and his supporters, revealing a fundamental problem in our public life.

The Partisan Interpretations

From his partisan opposition, the criticism was strong.  <<Obama should have declared victory,>> Senator John McCain and his interviewer Sean Hannity, agreed. (video) He should have given President Bush full credit for the victory.  He should have apologized for his opposition to the surge.     Lindsey Graham concurred and was particularly critical that Obama did not acknowledge the terrorists’ defeat and the need to extend our momentum in Afghanistan. (video) The emphasis on withdrawal instead of victory was the fundamental problem with the President’s speech.  “It’s not about when we leave in Afghanistan.  It’s about what we leave behind.”    Charles Krauthammer, in the instant analysis following the speech on Fox News, observed that the speech was “both flat and odd.”  Flat, because it did not celebrate the victory, but rather emphasized the withdrawal almost as a lamentation.  Odd, because of the way he linked his topics, from Iraq to Afghanistan to, most disturbing for Krauthammer, tacking on an “economic pep talk.”  There should have been a coherent speech about our missions abroad.  Instead there was a speech by a man who is only interested in his domestic agenda. (video)
And from his partisan supporters there was also serious criticism, mirroring the rage on the right.  <<Obama should have declared defeat,>> Frank Rich seemed to be saying in an interesting op-ed. piece yesterday.  Rich’s complaint was the exact opposite of Obama’s critics from the right. “What was so grievously missing from Obama’s address was any feeling for what has happened to our country during the seven-and-a-half-year war whose ‘end’ he was marking…‘Our unity at home was tested,’ he said, as if all those bygones were now bygones and all the toxins unleashed by this fiasco had miraculously evaporated once we drew down to 50,000 theoretically non-combat troops … Obama asked the country to turn the page on Iraq as if that were as easy as, say, voting for him in 2008. “  For Rich and many other critics of the war in Iraq, including me, there is a desire to properly learn from the disaster that the war in Iraq has been.  And he is quite critical of the speech because Obama did not directly confront this issue.

Deliberate Considerations

Yet, the critics from the left and the right overlook what the President was trying to do, indeed what he had to do.  He understood that this was a serious moment, requiring a serious and non-partisan address from the Oval Office, by the President, as the head of state.

A war, which required huge commitment and sacrifice, was drawing to an end.  The outcome of the conflict would be more determined by politics than by military action, and the primary responsibility for the outcome was passing from American to Iraqi hands, for better and for worse.  There has been no clear victory, but also there has been no clear defeat.  There are, rather, a series of serious political challenges in Iraq and in the United States.  President Obama was marking this situation, its gravity, while working from his judgment about the Iraq War, which dates back to his first anti-War speech.  He sought to speak to the whole nation, and to find a common ground. To recognize that the end of the combat mission left our country with profound challenges, the war in Afghanistan, a weakened economy and society.

When he spoke up against the impending “dumb war,” he reminded his anti-war audience that he was not against all wars, referring to the war in Afghanistan, and when he spoke up against the war he warned that it would weaken the American economy and society and would frustrate the pursuit of the American dream.  As the American combat mission ended, the President returned to these themes.  He sought to return all Americans, both war hawks and anti-war doves, to his early point – the need to face the challenges of the day, turning away from the divisions of yesterday.

Obviously, there was resistance to this message, resistance supported by the media and political environments.  There is a pressing need to work against these tendencies.  Obama tried.  In my next post, I will analyze his words against cynicism.

This week President Obama gave an important speech in the Oval office announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq.  In October 2002, before the war was declared, he distinguished himself as one of the few political leaders to express clear opposition to the Iraq war.   There is an important connection between his words and his actions, then, which I will consider in today’s post, and now, which I will consider in following posts.

The standard way to account for the connection is through cynical interpretation, explaining the texts of these speeches by referring to their context.  Much is lost in such cynical interpretation–here, the two speeches are Deliberately Considered.

The Context

On October 2, 2002, Obama was a relatively obscure politician, a State Senator considering a run for the United States Senate.  He had some significant movers and shakers in Chicago eyeing him, realizing his promise.  One of them, Bettylu Saltzman, who was organizing the anti-war demonstration, asked him to take part.  His political advisors calculated the costs and benefits, seeing a real problem if he sought to run in a state wide race.  As an African American, he might solidify his support among white liberals, fortifying the black – white coalition base of a potential run, but he may have appealed to them in any case, and he clearly would lose conservative Democratic support and the support of many independents, who at that time were overwhelmingly supporting the President and his impending war.  Nonetheless, since he actually did think that war would be a big mistake, Obama decided to give the speech, notable for its moderation in his opposition to the war:  “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war” was the recurring theme.  (See David Remnick, The Bridge).

The moderation of the speech served his immediate purposes and it later helped his candidacy in the Democratic Presidential Primaries.  On this point, David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political consultant, has bemoaned the fact that there was no decent video of the speech.   Obama opposed the war, but tried to demonstrate at the same time that he was not soft on fighting terrorism.  It was a strange speech to give to an anti-war gathering, since he emphasized his support of war.  It was a speech which distinguished just from unjust war, raising serious theoretical problems as it addresses serious practical concerns (which I will address in a later post on his Nobel Prize acceptance address).

The calculation was real.  Obama, like all politicians, is not pure.  Politicians can’t afford to proceed without considering whether they can bring the public along with them.  But in order to actually be effective leaders, they must also base their actions upon their principled commitments.  This is a crucial difference and in this, Obama distinguished himself.  His text reaches beyond its context, and in this way it has enduring significance.

The Text

In his anti war speech he declared:

“I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that…we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe…

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.”

The Deliberate Consideration

Obama was then a local politician, representing a liberal racially mixed district in the state legislature.  Later as a national politician, he was able to contrast his clear position from his primary opponents because of his early and consistent opposition to the war.  The speech addressed his immediate political calculations, no doubt.  But what is most striking is how his words capture his political commitments and policies now even more than the political calculations then.  He was underscoring his major concerns:  nuclear proliferation, peace in the Middle East, fighting for tolerance, energy independence, and social justice.  He predicted that the war would deflect national attention from these pressing issues, before the war began.  He has been struggling to work on the issues in the aftermath of a war that had the results that he publicly feared.  And the speech was continuous with, not at odds with, his present stance in the wars in Iraq, as the combat mission ends, and in Afghanistan, for better and for worse, as the war continues to pose fundamental problems.

Yesterday’s speech could have been given today.  And today’s speech could have been given yesterday, as I will explore tomorrow.

The day after Obama presented his Iftar remarks, in a statement made in passing to a reporter, he “clarified” his position. He was not specifically endorsing the project, he maintained, but was standing on principle and trying to emphasize what the stakes are. (link)

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

This statement was interpreted as a reversal of position by the center’s opponents and by those who are critical of Obama’s every move, but also by relatively objective media reports.  And some of those who had most passionately celebrated Obama’s remarks were dismayed by his apparent change of position.  They all paid attention to the first sentence of his second statement and not to the second two sentences, which, I think, were more central.  They paid attention to the apparent implications of the statement, but not to its meaning.

As the controversies about the center have raged, Obama’s fundamental position has been lost to the political noise. While the politics around the controversy always revolved around the question, for or against the “Ground Zero Mosque,” he at all points emphasized that free and diverse religious practices are an American right and definitive of American identity.
We have paid attention to the politics of the moment.

Will it hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans? Will Rick Lazio’s bid to be the Senator from New York sink or swim on this? Will this episode confirm the suspicions about Obama coming from the left and the right?  But we have not considered seriously the broader politics, beyond the obsessions of the here and now, beyond our national borders.  In his second statement, Obama wanted to emphasize his concern with such broader issues, as he has tried to distance himself from the immediate controversy.  The condensed nature of the passing comment led to confusion.  He was trying to thread a needle, but the sensibility of public discussion was too coarse for this to be successful.

For immediate political reasons he may have wished to stay away from the controversy.  He does not have public opinion behind him.  But given his long term commitments and his principled position, I think, he needs to return to the issue and clarify his position.

The issue is not whether there should be an Islamic community center on the “hallowed ground” of lower Manhattan.  The President must address further the emerging problem for our identity and security – how do we marginalize the growing xenophobia among Americans directed against Muslims, how do we retreat from a clash of civilizations, which many on the loony right are provoking.  Or else, we will have met the enemy and it will be us, to paraphrase Walter Kelly in his Pogo comic strip.

In his remarks at the Iftar Dinner at the State Dining Room of the White House, President Obama continued to discharge his responsibilities as Storyteller-in-Chief with distinction.

He clearly illuminated fundamental principles of the American polity. He highlighted their long history, and he applied the principles with their historical resonance to a pressing problem of the day.
Yet, the politics of the day, concerning the so called “Ground Zero Mosque,” confused matters, and his attempt to respond to the politics has added to the confusion.  I hope in the coming days and months he addresses the confusion.   But, in the meanwhile, we need to remember what the issues are apart from the silly interpretations of the 24/7 news machine.  His remarks should be deliberately considered.

Today, remembering the significance of the speech.  Tomorrow, a consideration of the confusion which followed. Obama welcomed his guests, including members of the diplomatic corps, his administration and Congress, and offered his best wishes to Muslims from around the world for the holy month of Ramadan.  He recalled the several years that the Iftar dinner has been held at the White House, as similar events have been hosted to celebrate Christmas, Passover and Diwali.  He observed how these events mark the role of faith in the lives of the American people and affirm “the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.”  The events are “an affirmation of who we are as Americans,” with a long history, illuminated by Obama by citing the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Act of Establishing Religious Freedom and remembering the First Amendment of the Constitution.

This tradition of religious diversity and respect has made the United States politically strong and open to vibrant and multiple religious traditions, the President noted, making us “a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in stark contrast to the religious conflict that persists elsewhere around the globe.”

Yet, he recalled, there have been controversies, most recently concerning “the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York.”

And then he pronounced his strong commitment.  “As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.)  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.  The writ of the Founders must endure.”

He continued to explain the implications of his commitment.  We must remember the tragedy of 9/11 and honor those who risked their lives in response to the attacks.  We must remember that our enemies do not respect the rights that are fundamental to our country.  “In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims killed on 9/11.”  And recalling his Inaugural Address, he emphasized that “our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus —- and non-believers.”
Did the President then endorse the Park51 community center?  Actually if one reads carefully, he did not. But he did, more importantly, declare that he viewed the building of such a center as not only an American right, but also as an affirmation of American political identity –  this without endorsing the specific details of the construction of such a building in such a place.

Why is an Islamic community center dedicated to intercultural and interreligious understanding in any way a desecration to the memory of the victims of the attacks?

Why is the planning of the center provocative or insensitive?

There are problems with facts and truth, as I have reflected upon in my previous posts, but there are also problems with interpretation and evaluation.  Given the facts, the community center can only be considered an affront if there is something fundamentally wrong with one of the great world religions.  This center is clearly not the work of radical fundamentalists.  Its goal is dialogue and understanding.  If these are jihadists, all Muslims are.  If we publicly speak and act with such interpretation, we are effectively declaring a religious war, playing the game of the religious fanatics.

And isn’t it odd that it is now, 9 years after the attacks of 2001, and not in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, that a broad fear of Muslims seems to be sweeping the country? So many major political leaders are complicit in the Islamophobia: from those who are stoking the flames, Gingrich and Palin and their media facilitators at Fox and company; to those who fear opposing the hysteria, Harry Reid and the like?

Even President Obama has not been clear about the problem (more about that in a later post).  I think that Islamophobia, not Islam, now presents a clear and present danger to American democracy, not only because it compromises our fundamental principles, but also because it challenges our security.  See for a report on this issue: U.S. Anti-Islam Protest Seen as Lift for Extremists

The battle between intelligence and ignorance has intensified since the election of Barack Obama, and it often has a surreal partisan edge, centering around the biography and the identity of the President.  A disturbing report in today’s New York Times: “a new poll by the Pew Research Center finds a substantial rise in the percentage of Americans who believe, incorrectly, that Mr. Obama is Muslim. The president is Christian, but 18 percent now believe he is Muslim, up from 12 percent when he ran for the presidency and 11 percent after he was inaugurated.” (link)

This is puzzling.  “Obama is a Muslim.”  “He is not an American citizen.”  Can people seriously believe such things?  Apparently they do.  They ignore the facts to the contrary, either cynically or because they allow their convictions to blind them from the stubborn truth of factuality.  Mostly this seems amusing.  The material for nightly satires on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.  But in that a major source of news, Fox News, regularly confuses fabrication with facts and many people base their opinions upon this confusion, suggests that there is a cultural crisis, a cultural war worth fighting.

It is not primarily a partisan battle, or at least it shouldn’t be.  It is a struggle to make sure that factual truth is the grounds for public life.  It is in this context that I think the case of the so called Ground Zero Mosque should be understood.   The controversy itself indicates a major cultural and political defeat.  The struggle is to get beyond the controversy, and it seems to me that the only outcome must be to build the Park Islamic Cultural Center.

It should be clear to anyone who wants to know the facts that Barack Obama is an American citizen, born in Hawaii, raised by his mother and grandparents, with an absent father from Kenya.  He became a practicing Christian as an adult in Chicago.

It should also be clear that the Islamic Center planned is the work of Muslims who are seeking inter-religious understanding.  It is two city blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center.  It is modeled after the 92nd Street Y, and has been planned in consultation with 92Y officials and representatives of a broad range of religious and cultural groups in New York City.  It is planned to be a fifteen story structure, with a prayer room on two floors, but also included will be a library, a gym and a restaurant.

Far from being a mega mosque in the shadows of the former World Trade Center, in that neighborhood, in lower Manhattan, it is a modest structure.  Far from being a monument of Muslim triumphalism, everything the planners of the center have said and done indicate it is dedicated to oppose such a position; they are against Fundamentalism.

The religious leader behind the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a Sufi Imam, who has worked and continues to work with the State Department, both of Barack Obama and George Bush, in the attempt to win the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world.

These are indisputable facts.  These facts about the planned Islamic Cultural Center are as solid as President Obama’s citizenship.  When political positions are asserted that deny facts, a sensible democratic politics becomes impossible.  More thoughts to come.