Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Berkowitz's avatar

It seems to me that in the authors' desire to make the facts fit their thesis they have taken some liberties. The Right may be at fault for conflating "Islamist" with "Islamic" and immigration with illegal immigration, but that's rather a quibble when compared with the Left's narrative of racism and oppression.

On-the-other-hand, the Right's explanation can be said to "confirm[...] the jihadist narrative that the religion demands bloodshed and that the Western world is forcing this upon Muslims," whereas the Left's reaction-to-racism-and-poverty explanation cannot.

Expand full comment
C. Scala's avatar

I agree that both left- and right-wing American interpretations of violent Islamist extremist attacks demonstrate motivated thinking that reflects US ideological positions. In Terror and Liberalism, Paul Berman makes the case that American liberals are blind to the ideology that motivates such attacks, preferring to read the attackers' motivations in ways that exculpate them. I guess my question for Micheron and Haykel is: besides taking into account these most recent attacks in France, how is your analysis different than Berman's?

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts