Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Terror and Liberalism Hardcover – April 1, 2003
|New from||Used from|
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Customers who bought this item also bought
From Publishers Weekly
Berman puts his leftist credentials (he's a member of the editorial board of Dissent) on the line by critiquing the left while presenting a liberal rationale for the war on terror, joining a discourse that has been dominated by conservatives. The most original aspect of his analysis is to categorize Islamism as a totalitarian reaction against Western liberalism in a class with Nazism and communism; drawing on the ideas of Camus in The Rebel, Berman delineates how all three movements descended from utopian visions (in the case of Islamism, the restoration of a pure seventh-century Islam) into irrational cults of death. He illustrates this progression through a nuanced analysis of the writings of a leading Islamist thinker, Sayyid Qutb, ending with some chilling quotations from other Islamists, e.g., "History does not write its lines except with blood," the blood being that of Islam's martyrs (such as suicide bombers) as well as of their enemies, Zionists and Crusaders (i.e., Jews and Christians). Berman then launches into his most provocative chapter, and the one he will probably be most criticized for in politically correct journals: a scathing attack on leftist intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky, who have applauded terrorism and tried to explain it as a rational response to oppression. Berman exhorts readers to accept that, on the contrary, Islamism is a "pathological mass political movement" that is "drunk on the idea of slaughter." A former MacArthur fellow and a contributing editor to the New Republic, Berman offers an argument that will be welcomed by disaffected progressives looking for a new analysis of today's world.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
So new that at press time the publisher's sales reps had yet to hear about it, this work considers how liberals can respond to the threat of terrorism.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The book provides a chilling description of how easy it is for liberals to fall under the sway of such movements by pointing out the ominous parallels between France's descent into supporting the Nazis during World War II and Europe's currenct descent into blaming Israel for the Islamist problem.
Whilst the book's analysis is first rate and is measured in tone and backed up by formidable research, I was left a bit dissatisfied. The vast majority of the book is taken up with the analysis but I would have liked to have seen, and expected, some sort of reasoned approach to a solution. And that, is sadly lacking in this book. There are a few paragraphs that airily talk about having a "third way" but not anywhere near the substance of how to create it to combat the current evil.
So, that is why I slightly downrated this book. However, it is a very thought-provoking read.
A great companion to Terror and Liberalism is Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, which, written 50 years ago, provides a thorough analysis--often in sharply polished epigrams--of those "true believers" who follow irrational mass movements.
One writer that Berman spends a lot of time talking about is Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist philosopher who was put to death in Egypt back in 1966. Qutb wrote about the erosion of Islam due to the influence of Western secularization. His desire was to see a pure Islamic state created with the reinstatement of shariah laws. He hated the Jewish Zionists and Christian Crusaders and his basic goals seemed to mirror the goals of Bin Laden and Khomeini as if perhaps they were influenced by his writings. Qutb saw the pure Islamic state as a liberal utopia which seems, to a western mind, incompatible with his desire for seventh century justice including public stonings, severed limbs and a totalitarian law that applies to all public and private behavior. These Islamists have sunk into a pathological state creating a `cult of death' where philosophers and leaders revel in killing for the sake of killing. They see blood as purification. The bombshell is that these kind of nihilistic views are nothing new. They are no more violent that the writings in France during the Terror or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or the British occupiers of Africa where blacks were killed for seemingly no purpose besides performing the act. Berman argues that this cult of death is very much influenced by western philosophy and the results of WW I and II.
The author spends some time showing his admiration for the Bush administrations desire to improve the lives of women in Afghanistan as well as spreading Democracy to the Middle East. I was a worried that Berman was being naïve but he redeems himself completely in the last chapter. Bush's talk of spreading freedom and democracy and women's rights is a very liberal stance so why are liberals not cheering? As Berman points out the problem is that this is diametrically opposite of Bush's past views. He was never concerned about women's rights and went on record stating that he was against nation building. He even implied that if given the choice he would have stayed out of the Balkans. So how does a man unmoved by genocide suddenly decide to spread liberalism to the Middle East particularly since he so enjoys denigrating liberals? This cuts to the heart of the matter. Bush is a realist masquerading as an idealist although I question whether his reality matches the reality of our planet. The Daily Show did a segment on Bush's 2004 acceptance speech and counted the incredibly high number of times Bush used the words freedom and liberty. Believing in freedom, democracy and liberty are all well and good but if you continue to support repressive regimes it shows you are working in bad faith. You can't support Saudi Arabia, a monarchy and one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world, and claim to be spreading freedom and democracy. Bush recognizes Pakistan as a Democracy despite the fact that General Pervez Musharraf took over in a military coup and has never had a legitimate election. Working with allies based on strategic interest is fine but it cuts against Bush's idealistic moral rhetoric. He's working in bad faith which may work with American's who suck up his glittering future but not so well with foreigners who recognize the hypocrisy of his words.
Ultimately the problem of terrorism needs to be addressed on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals need to recognize that even with putting the violence aside for a moment the Islamist movement remains a racist, sexist, and bigoted movement with desires to create a theocratic totalitarian society. It is the opposite of liberal social ideals. Half a century ago many liberals made the mistake of defending Communism. The Islamist movement is undeserving of any liberal sympathy. The right needs to stop promoting unilateralism, preemptive strikes and excursions into fantastic nation building as in Iraq and start working in good faith.