JOHN MCWHORTER AUGUST 26, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

Who cares whether one in five people think Barack Obama is a Muslim?
Yes, that’s even more people than a couple of years ago, based on results from a Pew Research Center poll last week. But even so, though this misconception is a personal insult to a president many of us think warmly of, does it really matter? In the grand scheme of things?
Because the grand scheme is what should be on our minds, not score-settling and mud-slinging in the present moment. The foot-stomping frustration over the notion of Obama as Muslim—complete with the now-standard verbal footnote “And what would be wrong with it even if he was!”—is giving too much attention to the mere.
The Obama-as-Muslim issue is not the only one of late in which too many who ought to know better are yielding to the temptations of the mere. As it happens, the other Muslim-related issue in the headlines these days, the Ground Zero mosque controversy, is another one of them. Indeed, all arguments against its construction capitulate to the mere, and the mosque—sorry, Center—must be built.
The notion of the mosque in question is actually viscerally unpleasant to me to an extent. I dislike that some Islamists may interpret it as a Muslim victory flag in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But I know that this sentiment is mere, and cannot inform my considered opinion on the matter. As a nation truly devoted to plurality, we can make no gesture more dignified and even superior than a mosque near Ground Zero, asserting our distinction between Islam and the murdeous perversion of it espoused by a pathetic few.
Will some of the fans of those few see the mosque as a victory flag? We can be sure of it. Is the mosque’s imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf, “moderate” though he is, categorically contemptuous of the terrorist actions of Hamas and like-minded others? Probably not—i.e. he likely wouldn’t pass the stringent test Reuel Marc Gerecht proposed in these pages. But the man is seeking to not entirely alienate more radical Muslims; inevitably he will round off some corners in his public utterances. But that is a matter of present-day cultural politics, while the mosque and the larger statement it makes will live on. As to 9/11 victims’ families opposed to the mosque, are they in an emotional position to dissociate the mosque from fanatic Wahhabism? Understandably not—but as such we cannot use them as counsel on an ecumenical gesture based on the abstraction of overarching principle.
Which brings us back to Obama’s supposedly being a closet Muslim, in that here, too, the overarching issue is what ought to concern us rather than the follies of the moment. Over what, precisely, do they arch, these follies? For one, it’s unclear to me why anyone is surprised that people have a way of believing what they want to believe. Those who think Obama is a Muslim are primarily conservatives, according the poll data, and thus the Muslim canard is linked to a general dislike of the man and/or his policies.
So: people who don’t like Obama are fond of the idea served to them by right-wing media that he is lying about his religion. Shocking indeed! But not, actually—when he also happens to have spent some years of his childhood in a Muslim country and has an Arabic middle name. Indeed, not so long ago there was the publicity over his membership in Jeremiah Wright’s church, and Wright does not exactly go about titling himself Imam. Yet if you are fond neither of Obama (nor of thinking a whole lot at all), you might make a lazy equation between the reverse racism of Wright’s sermons and those of Louis Farrakhan and suppose that a Black Muslim might feel at home at Trinity United in Chicago.
Try to put yourself in the head of someone like this. How likely will that person be dissuaded by some functionary blandly asserting that Obama prays to God daily? After all, that person is as reflexively skeptical of the media as anyone.
But I’d argue that these people simply don’t matter. Most people who think Obama is a Muslim are vanishingly unlikely to vote for him. Even among Independents, how many will vote for Mitt Romney in 2012—or even a Republican congressional candidate this year—out of pique at Obama’s having turned out to be a Muslim, as opposed to his decisions on much more important issues, like the economy?
To wit: what historical imprint will people who think Obama is a Muslim have? Granted, to many of them, “Muslim” is an insult, associated with reductive views of Islam just as much of the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque is. But the insult and the feelings behind it are mere—in current as well as future significance.
In seeking an analogy, it occurred to me that almost certainly, there must have been widespread rumors that Franklin Roosevelt was Jewish. Legions hated him as passionately as many today hate Obama and often even more so. In Roosevelt’s time, the Jewish charge would have been the precise equivalent, in implications, of the Muslim one today.
And wouldn’t you know, it turns out there was exactly such a rumor—which didn’t matter one bit in terms of Roosevelt’s legacy. It was a product of ignorance a long time ago. Today we’re dealing with some more ignorance, a hallmark of this thing called humanity. But today will be a long time ago before we know it. The Obama folks are to be applauded for their relative lack of interest in “combatting” this silly rumor. The rest of the media should follow suit, and Obamaphiles at functions and play dates should find something to share disillusionment about that actually matters.
In fact, ideally Obama would go as far as to do something he has studiously refrained from in public: speaking Indonesian. He spoke it as a child and certainly can hold a conversation in it now (the most authoritative discussion on this is here). He is one of our few presidents to be fluent in a second language: Martin Van Buren was raised in a Dutch-speaking home when Dutch was still a home language of many New Yorkers and slipped into it when angry, and Herbert Hoover could speak some Mandarin—and now we have an Indonesian-speaking President.
Almost certainly we never see it because Obama feels that speaking it would fuel the fires of the Muslim rumor. Well, he should care little enough about such foolishness as to go ahead and speak a good paragraph of it with cameras rolling. It would mean that he is comfortable showing America and the world that he spent formative years in a Muslim country, was integrated deeply enough into it to speak its language, and is aware enough of the impotence of the rumor that this makes him a Muslim to feel no need to hide any of this. The clip would roll on assorted chatter sites as further evidence that he is a Muslim—the quintessence of the mere. Meanwhile Obama could continue in the larger, and realer, task of leading the free world.
22 comments
Nice analysis, as usual. Lest we forget, at least 20% of the country can't stand Obama, and it's likely that being against Obama is causing people to stick him with what they consider pejoratives -- not the other way around. I think that if one of these folks never got 10 miles near Obama, they'd confidently tell a questioning pollster he's got bad breath and a limp handshake.
- MICRM
August 26, 2010 at 12:51am
And lest we forget, 25% of the country cannot name the VP, 35% do not know the significance of July 4, and 60% believed Sadaam Hussein had a direct hand with 9/11, in spite of Bush Inc never making that statement. And we have a president with a funny middle name, that loves going to countries in the middle east where everyone in the audience is dressed differently and telling everyone how much these countries rock because a long time ago they figured out algebra. And then the president recounts that that the muslim call to prayer was the most beautiful sound he can remember. My god, I'm shocked that ONLY 20% believe this. Watch the video below, it really is quite amazing how many references the president has made to Islam. If his Islam references outnumber his Christian references, then you'd expect most to take away the impression that he's Muslim. That's what advertising does. It hits you over the head again and again with a suggestion, and the one day you believe it to be true. So, the correct question to ask here is not really why do so many believe him to be Muslim. The correct question is why does the guy talk about Muslim religion so much more often than his Christianity? Now, the correct answer is probably "because he's trying ot build bridges". But then there's then we should expect people to be confused. Remember, a scary number don't even know Biden's name. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY PS. Why do you think Bill Clinton always carried such a massive bible, and carried it on the same side the cameras were on? Is it because he was consumed by the holy spirit? Clinton made such a spectacle of going to church each week. No fool he.
- seattleeng
August 26, 2010 at 2:49am
"The Obama folks are to be applauded for their relative lack of interest in “combatting” this silly rumor. The rest of the media should follow suit, and Obamaphiles at functions and play dates should find something to share disillusionment about that actually matters." I agree. So tell me again why this 1200 word article appears in TNR?
- nacnud1
August 26, 2010 at 3:30am
"As a nation truly devoted to plurality, we can make no gesture more dignified and even superior than a mosque near Ground Zero, asserting our distinction between Islam and the murdeous perversion of it espoused by a pathetic few." Mr. McWhorter, I agree with most of your inclinations and sensibilities. It is the 'murderous few' assertion that is anything but confidently apparent. Distortions do make themselves available on a daily basis due to sensationalist characteristics of media and its committed communitariat. However one might be forgiven, after having witnessed cheering crowds of Muslims endorsing the dosing of just desserts, the accuracy of 'few'. Pathetic can stand on its own.
- jacko
August 26, 2010 at 8:34am
Dick Cheney often played the Saddam-9/11 tie, like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k There's your video evidence. Or if you want it in print: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/ "Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks." No wonder many thought Saddam was involved with 9/11. It was guilt by association, repeated by the #2 man in "Bush Inc.", which was a lie. The administration never did much to change the perception, if anything.
- tnmats
August 26, 2010 at 10:38am
Back in the 50's/60's, the John Birch Society claimed that Ike's brother Milton was an agent of the international Communist conspiracy. This was too much for William F. Buckley, who made it clear that the JBS was an assortment of kooks, and not representative of the conservative movement he3 was trying to build. Of course, in those days, the conservative movement was so small that it had no hope of winning elections outside the South (where conservative Dixiecrats were sure to win), so WFB could be morally pure without having to worry about losing elections conservatives weren't going to win anyway. (WFB famously said he did not want to win the NYC mayoral election he entered.) Today, the conservatives need the kooks to have any hope of winning elections, so they channel the basest impulses of the base.
- Geoff G
August 26, 2010 at 10:46am
tnmats, the links you have don't show Cheney claiming AQ was responsible for 9/11. Why did you share them? Edwards did EXACTLY what the left did all this time. Cheney says AQ has worked with Iraq. That is not in dispute. The left then says "OK, so AQ worked with Iraq. We knew that under Clinton". And then some time goes by. And then the left says "Cheney said Iraq helped AQ with 9/11. There is NO proof that is true! Cheney is a liar". Cheney would refute. Lather, rinse repeat. If anyone planted this seed in the mind of the american people it was the left. Even the print link you cite says so: -- But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know." -- So please, cite a source where you having Cheney quoted as saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11, or just drop it.
- seattleeng
August 26, 2010 at 11:25am
Religions are a problem. They always impede human progress, and they cause untold violence. Some of the violence is war and some is sexual abuse in dozens of forms. Catholic priests molesting children, Catholic priests telling women to take abuse from violent spouses, sharia law making women powerless targets for sexual and physical abuse, Southern Baptists empowering males to abuse wives and children as the head of the household, and on and on. So criticizing religion is an honorable calling. Which isn't to say the rightwing cannot screw up the execution of an honorable calling. That's the reason to ignore the Mosque controversy. It's a poorly executed effort to call a religion to account and hence not worthy of much attention, since it does not provide support for enlightened criticism of religion for the many dangers it poses. Given Europe's turn away from religion, Europeans have some claim to "clean hands" when they are frank about their views of Islam. A lot more than the American right.
- Walpole
August 26, 2010 at 11:27am
“In seeking an analogy, it occurred to me that almost certainly, there must have been widespread rumors that Franklin Roosevelt was Jewish. Legions hated him as passionately as many today hate Obama and often even more so. In Roosevelt’s time, the Jewish charge would have been the precise equivalent, in implications, of the Muslim one today.” The analogy is inaccurate. Roosevelt was indeed called “Rosenfeld” (or given similar sounding names by antisemites) but that didn’t affect his popularity. He was reelected many times with large majorities. Moreover, saying that someone was a Jew in the 30’s was more of a comment about his ethno-racial characteristics rather than his religious affiliations.
- jdyer
August 26, 2010 at 11:34am
Martin Van Buren did not grow up in the Netherlands. He grew up in a Dutch-speaking village in up-state New York. He was merely the first American president who was not of British ancestory.
- tmitch57
August 26, 2010 at 12:12pm
Seattle: So, the correct question to ask here is not really why do so many believe him to be Muslim. The correct question is why does the guy talk about Muslim religion so much more often than his Christianity? This is not true, in fact Obama has mentioned Jesus more often than Bush did at this point in his presidency. This from politico: He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day. As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity. In his speech in Cairo, Obama told the crowd that he is a Christian and mentioned the Islamic story of Isra, in which Moses, Jesus and Mohammed joined in prayer. At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he’d seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. “I found myself drawn — not just to work with the church but to be in the church,” Obama said. “It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.” And a month before that, Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at Georgetown University to make the case for his economic policies. Obama retold the story of two men, one who built his house on a pile of sand and the other who built his on a rock: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.”
- blackton
August 26, 2010 at 1:16pm
Seattle - Perhaps, just maybe, Obama is speaks of Islam frequently (rather than his personal religious habits which private business) because our relationship with the Muslim world, fighting the terrorism and toxic mindset that exist there are the premier issues of our time? Yes, he could secretly be trying to reminisce about his true self on our tax dollar or maybe his unconscious is leaking out or he's pulling one over on us. But why bother? Oh, that and fullfilling his campaign promises, levereging his unique background in an attempt to being peace to his nation and showing courageous leadership. It's called "being the President of America while fighting two wars with Islamic countries." At some point it would be nice to see a change in our relationship with those nations and an end to the wars (although I doubt that will happen anytime soon and I accept that, I'll go out on a limb and say we may even need to deal militarily with Somalia soon which I would support). Why would you even ask this question? The real problem would be if he didn't mention Islam or speak directly to Islamic nations frequently. His personal habits are something small minds dwell on. How he serves our nation is thankfully what he dwells on. With all due respect, grow up.
- WandreyCer
August 26, 2010 at 1:29pm
seattleeng: "60% believed Sadaam Hussein had a direct hand with 9/11, in spite of Bush Inc never making that statement." That's true. The Bush administration never made that statement. But they did put 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence an awful lot which allowed people to conflate the two, and they did nothing to correct the misperception. Here's an excerpt from Bush's 2004 nomination acceptance speech: "After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused. "And I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office, a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make: Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman..." http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/campaign/rncspeeches/bush.html The Bush administration always chose its words carefully. That doesn't mean it wasn't involved in a PR campaign. (Another example: when touting the dividend tax cut, the administration said 60% of the people who would benefit made under $70,000 a year. Well, I could give $1 to 6 people named Bob and $1 million to 4 people named Fred, and truthfully say that 60% of the people who benefited were named Bob. But most people will hear the technically true statement as a good deal for the Bobs of the nation. Why leave out the other data unless it's to purposely allow people to reach a flawed conclusion?)
- dsimon
August 26, 2010 at 9:04pm
blackton: "This is not true, in fact Obama has mentioned Jesus more often than Bush did at this point in his presidency." If you can find data that says Obama has talked about christians as much as he's talked about muslims, then you'd flip me. I'm just trying to point out why John Q. Public is confused on the issue. I believe you that Obama has mentioned his christian faith more than Bush. It's funny, because Bush never talked about it, but as I noted the left liked to portray Bush as so hung up on religion that he's decision making abilities were impaired. But clinton talked about his faith all the time, had the big bible, went to church all the time, and nobody worried at all that his decision making abilities might be impaired.
- seattleeng
August 26, 2010 at 9:41pm
dsimon: "The Bush administration always chose its words carefully. " Hmm. So now we're at the point where they never mentioned it specifically, and if asked they'd refute it, but it was instead code words and signals that they used? The ONLY people I've EVER heard talk about a link--real or not--between Iraq and 9/11 is dems, and in the context of accusing Bush et al of claiming it was true.. John Edwards did it in the video. Pelosi. Reid. Obama. Rockefeller. And on and on. And each time the assert that the republicans asserted the tie was there. And when challenged, they fall back to some "coded message" meme. And you've done the same thing in this thread. Aren't you part of the problem for asserting something was true that wasn't?
- seattleeng
August 26, 2010 at 9:51pm
Ok, seat, so income grew under Bush. The point is that for the bottom 90% of earners income growth under Bush--and under Clinton too, to be fair--lagged far behind economic growth. Productivity increases, but the only people who reap the benefits are the rich. Also, you completely fail to account for the fact that most of your modest gains in income have been wiped out by the GFC. Anyway, like icarus said, massive income inequality is no way to run a republic. If you believe that it is you belong on Team Stupid. If you understand the truth but continue to tolerate such growing inequality, crowing about "parasites", you belong on Team Evil.
- AaronW
August 27, 2010 at 4:31am
I think the argument is not that Bush, Cheney, et al specifically stated that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, but rather that they deliberately put adjacent statements and implied conclusions out there that by way of accrued emphasis created a narrative of Saddam's involvement in the conspiracy. It was by stealth rather than directly. A similar thing happened with the Iraq-WMD rhetoric, of which a classic example is Condoleeza Rice's "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud!" She does not specifically state that Iraq has nuclear weapons but leaves the strong impression in the air that they do (otherwise where would the cloud come from?) and that immediate action is demanded (waiting could be deadly!). Neither of the assumptions embodied in her comment was true -- Iraq didn't have WMD and there was no need for an immediate invasion as the UNMOVIC teams were close to establishing that fact -- but her statement is designed to sneak those assumptions past the gate, as it were.
- ironyroad
August 27, 2010 at 5:12pm
McWhorter is wrong. Several presidents knew foreign languages well. Franklin Roosevelt was raised speaking fluent French and German. Theodore Roosevelt spoke French. Thomas Jefferson knew several languages, including French and Latin. John Quincy Adams spoke French. John Adams knew and translated Latin and Greek. As a linguist, McCarter should be more careful about these things.
- PeteBeck
August 28, 2010 at 1:33pm
Well I'm worried. I don't care actually if Obama is a Muslim, as Colin Powell suggested during the campaign. So what. What worries me is the insanity and hate. Man. I've been getting tarred and feathered over at Harry's Place which is SUPPOSED to be a progressive site, merely for pointing out that Not All Muslims Are Alike. Unbelievable. You know I've run into this s*** in other contexts, and it's especially wierd to encounter bigotry among people who are theoretically liberal/progressive and/or wouldn't hesitate to fight other kinds of bigotry including antisemitism. Also there is no excuse for wholesale ignorance on the part of the general public OR for the fearmongering we've seen since Obama was elected.
- Sophia
August 28, 2010 at 10:52pm
I'm jumping right over the thread to say this: I can't think of one single thing I disagree with in McWhorter's fine post. Maybe looking at the thread will change my mind but I doubt it.
- basman
August 29, 2010 at 4:51pm
Yep, still agree 100%.
- basman
August 29, 2010 at 4:53pm
I agree with McWhorter's analysis of what is going on with the opposition to the lower-Manhattan Muslim center and the misconception about Obama's religion, but I don't necessarily agree that the problem is "mere." The concern is not the extent to which it will affect Obama's chances of re-election or his legacy. The issue is that it reflects a very significant strain of anti-Muslim bigotry in our country, and that is a matter for serious concern.
- NR143296
September 1, 2010 at 9:33pm