Who put the ‘Fun’ in Fundamentalism?: Addressing the Mass Appeal of Radical Thought
By Niketa Brar, Political Theory & Philosophy Staff Writer

The power of the media truly shines through in times of crisis. It is in these times that forgotten prophecies, ideologies, and academic studies suddenly appear on front pages, blaring out of popular radio stations, being cited in every 6 o’clock reporter’s critique of the world. In the aftermath of September 11th, the news media has chosen to refocus attention upon fundamentalism. To be clear, fundamentalism has been discussed by great political thinkers since the time of Aristotle. Only recently have modern writings on this topic become relevant again, as educated masses revise their reading lists to include the writings of political gurus. Through examining such writing, it becomes apparent that modern American politics have indeed become polarized due to a growing fundamentalist majority on both sides of the political spectrum. The significance of this becomes apparent in the works of classical political thinker John Locke, who illustrates what fundamentalism means to a democracy. Furthermore, the foundations of this nation were laid by men who anticipated the threat of fundamentalism, and diffused it with certain political measures, as discussed by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. However, the modern era presents the American public with a new scenario where these old measures are no longer effective in containing the threat of fundamentalism. In light of this, as will become apparent in the following pages, it becomes necessary to revisit the topic of fundamentalism and discuss new approaches to this age-old problem.

The polarization of American politics can be seen daily through the writings, rants, and critiques of modern political journalists. For example, prominent conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza makes the argument that 9/11 occurred because of liberal Americans. This illustrates how writing about the kind of fundamentalism that leads Islamic suicide bombers to attack American cities, American writers jump to one ideological base and dig their heels in. That is to say, they become fundamentalists themselves. D’Souza believes that “without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.” [1] With this attitude, based on the conviction that Islamic fundamentalists are opposed to the morally-challenged lifestyle promoted by abortion happy liberal America, D’Souza essentially denounces American democracy. He argues that it is American media, music, and popular culture that Islamic fundamentalists hate, and the best defense against the actions of such hate is to limit our democratic state. That is to say, Americans should not indulge in behaviors that “invite” fundamentalists to take action against us.

What D’Souza and other political gurus entirely ignore is that this American liberalism is suppressed considerably in the Islamic culture. While globalization may challenge boundaries across the planet, the Islamic world has maintained its culture remarkably well, sheltering itself from the influences of the West through strict laws as imparted by the religious authorities, or imams. At one point, the shariah (or religious law) forbade classical music, such as Beethoven. Laws such as these could effectively keep out the perversion of western culture. However, America’s complete hegemony and the aggressive policies of the latest generation of conservative politicians have forced the Islamic world to open itself up to American beliefs. In this way, American “neoconservativism” is no more acceptable to Islamic fundamentalists than is the liberal culture. While liberal America may encourage freedoms that go against the grain of traditional Islamic thought, it is conservative America that forces the Islamic world to come face to face with a culture that is anathema to Islam at its core. Therefore, limiting liberal thought would not reconcile the East and West; it would simply extinguish that which is unique about our culture in the first place—the freedom to speak one’s mind.

Neither liberal nor conservative America address the Islamic culture with a level of toleration advocated by early American political thinkers. The debate regarding the Mohammad cartoons serves as a prime example of this. The discussion prompted Americans on both sides of the political spectrum to cry foul as the censorship of these cartoons was perceived as an attack on the freedom of speech. Going against traditional American thought, neither side chose to practice toleration. Practicing such toleration would mean observing the Islamic edict against depicting any religious figure through art forms. Observing such toleration would mean that Americans understand that there are times where their belief in freedom of speech is superseded by a respect for other cultures and a desire to maintain positive relations with other parts of the world. However, in this situation, fundamentalists’ belief in the freedom of speech overtook any desire to practice toleration. This contradicts the belief advocated by John Locke, who asked of religious zealots, “Why then does this burning Zeal for God, for the Church, and for the Salvation of Souls; burning, I say, literally, with Fire and Faggot; pass by those moral Vices and Wickednesses, without Chastisement, which are acknowledged by all Men to be diametrically opposite to the Profession of Christianity”? [2]

Locke’s inquiry of religious fundamentalists holds just as true today as it did at the time of its first publication in 1689. He believes it is hypocritical to commit unchristian acts in the defense of Christianity. Similarly, when tolerant nations, such as the US, hold true to their ideals, they do not judge other cultures’ beliefs. This is because the action goes against the spirit of the toleration advocated by traditional American culture. Furthermore, Locke’s writing shows that the American principle of religious tolerance stands above any personal beliefs. This is because it is acceptable to hold one’s own personal convictions in high regard, while understanding that the freedom to hold these beliefs is what is truly important. After all, it is religious freedom that allows one to hold their personal religious convictions in the first place.

Obviously, toleration doesn’t eliminate divisions within our society. This issue was addressed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 10, where he defines the two ways to eliminate the problems caused by factions – by controlling the effects of factions, or by eliminating factions altogether. Hamilton illustrates two methods of eliminating factions, stating that both are impractical. One can either demolish the democracy that allows different opinions, or give each citizen the same opinions, interests, and beliefs.

[3] Although in most scenarios, it is impossible to ensure that each citizen has the same opinions, in times of crisis, the public often melts together and forms one general opinion that individuals avoid straying away from. For example, post-9/11, the desire to go to war was seen as the only patriotic response possible. Fundamentalism became mainstream, quickly garnering mass appeal. This unity quickly gave way to two different sects of fundamentalism – fired up conservatism and zealot-led liberalism. This indicates that Hamilton’s approach to containing the effects of factions did not, in fact, work. For hundreds of years, the popular belief stood that the effects of factions would be controlled by a democratic government structure that ensured that no extremist group would be able to garner enough public support to make considerable change. However, as seen in recent political affairs, this political system does not counteract fundamentalist politics. Diplomacy and moderate thinking are no longer necessary in order to conduct government affairs. Of course this fundamentalism does not come without its effects; the stagnation in the political machine and a disillusioned citizenry are among the many adverse results of this fundamentalist politics.

There are a few responses to this issue. The one chosen has been to respond with an equal, if not greater, force pulling in the opposite direction. This shows how the 2006 midterm elections rendered a Democratic majority in Congress. But this change doesn’t reconcile the differences between the two fundamentalist bases. Another option would be to allow the two groups to fight bitterly until there is one fundamentalist base that can overtake the public’s support. Clearly, this would not be beneficial either, as it would not allow freedom of political belief, as this freedom would be restricted by the lack of true choices. The last option then is the one preached by John Locke – toleration. By encouraging both fundamentalist camps to hold their own beliefs and respect those of the other, cooperation can be fostered between these groups. And ultimately, it is this cooperation that will lead to successful policy-making and restore the American way.

[1] Dinesh D’Souza, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.

[2] John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1983) 24. In this reference, the phrase “with Fire and Faggot” refers to the punishment of heretics through burning.

[3] James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (London, England: Penguin Books, 1987) 123.