Drawing Conclusions

Maybe you remember, back in 1989, the controversy over Piss Christ, a piece of art by the now-fashionable artist Andres Serrano. His brave breakout work (a photo of a crucifix immersed in urine) was later followed by Chris Ofili, the Afro-British winner of the Turner Prize, and his Holy Virgin Mary, whose media included elephant dung. The debate over these works of art and their depictions of the divine constituted, at least in my view, the ugliest battle in the culture wars. It was started on the left, and it was the left that won it. And I'm not sure it shouldn't have. Yes, the First Amendment and all that. You may dislike what it protects, but protect it you must.I was reminded of these episodes by the riots now spreading here, there, everywhere over the twelve cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed published in a privately owned Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, last September. It seems that the Islamists believe that they cannot simply disagree vehemently with those who offend them. They seem incapable of simply opposing. Killing--or threatening to kill--seems to be a reflex with enough of them to make militant Islam a danger. As Saturday's Guardian pointed out, a demonstration "led by the extremist group Al Ghuraba ... marched to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge carrying banners calling on Muslims to `massacre' those who insult Islam and chanting: `Britain, you will pay, 7/7 on its way.'" Why, exactly, threaten England? As far as I know, no British periodical has run the cartoons, even as an act of solidarity. This is not free speech. This is rank intimidation-- and, given July 7, there is, in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a clear and present danger. These Islamists and their followers among the Arab and Muslim immigrant populations of Europe increasingly do not seem to grasp the most elementary of democratic transactions: Give berth even to that which you dislike. The very essence of liberal society is the willingness--OK, the doleful willingness--of its members and constituent groups to be slighted. Liberals play into Karl Rove's hands. Opposition Party By Steven Groopman Karl Rove recently unveiled the GOP's strategy for the 2006 elections. At its heart is emphasizing distinctions between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of national security. If Rove wanted evidence that this strategy will succeed, then he should have watched the State of the Union with me. I watched the speech at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, perhaps the most high-profile liberal advocacy organization in the country. Early on, when Bush invoked September 11, the audience let out a loud groan and snickered. Seconds later, the president mentioned "weapons of mass destruction" for the first time. A bell rang, and the audience laughed; then Bush said the words "freedom" and "terror" and bells rang again, followed by more laughter. This ritual was repeated throughout the speech. Why the visceral reaction to these particular formulations? Spreading freedom around the world is--or should be--a paramount goal of liberalism. Meanwhile, terrorism remains a real threat to America, and a source of continuing death and destruction the world over. This is not an invention of the Republican imagination; it is reality. In the years since September 11, many liberals seem to have concluded that you're not really opposing Bush's means unless you also scorn his stated ends. That's too bad. Liberals have no chance of winning the national security debate if they dismiss its premises.

By Martin Peretz