Political Dynamite
Schweitzer Anti-Arab?
By Courtney Lowery, 6-13-06
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer is gathering heat for the part of his regular alternative energy stump speech in which he referrs to "sheikhs, dictators, rats and crooks" in oil-producing countries.
It's no surprise that someone would eventually take offense and as Mike Dennison reports for Lee Newspapers today, it's happened. John Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, D.C., tells Dennison that it's all part of a trend to make Arabs the scapegoats as energy prices soar.
The surprising part is Schweitzer's response to the criticism. He says his comments are in no way directed at Arabs. Instead, he says he's referring to dictators in general. But, he says, "If they're not supportive of our way of life, if they're a direct threat to our children or our grandchildren having a better chance at life than we do, then I'm not supporting them." He's also quoted as saying the United States should make friends with those who support our "way of life and our values."
Huh?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Man, I hope Schweitzer didn't offend those guys. They might get really mad at us, and maybe cause some trouble.
Hal
In fact, Senor Chavez has now been twice DEMOCRATICALLY elected by the people of that country – elections that have been declared free and fair by international election observers. He has also survived a coup organized by Venezuela’s wealthy elite and at least partially funded by the U.S. Government via the National Endowment for Democracy http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy#Venezuela.
A member of a long-disenfranchised, indigenous, ethnic minority in Venezuela, Chavez rose to power as part of a populist, revolutionary movement among the country’s poor. Before Chavez, approximately 5 percent of Venezuela’s population controlled 95 percent of the countries wealth. Now, for the first time in the nation’s history, a political leader is using Venezuela’s oil wealth to provide free health care, food and education to the millions of poor in the barrios, rather than stuffing it in corporate coffers. Last winter, Chavez offered to sell home heating oil “at-cost” to low income Americans, and has also led Latin American opposition to the FTAA – an anti-democratic trade agreement championed by the Bush Administration.
Since the ideas of fair trade, publicly funded health care and education run completely counter to the ideology of the Bush administration, it’s no wonder Chavez has been the target of the administration’s subversive rhetoric and policy. Governor Schweitzer, though, should not fall for it. In fact, if he looked a little deeper, he might recognize that he and President Chavez actually share many of the same progressive populist values and tactics.
Although I like and support Governor Schweitzer and most of his policy positions, I think that sometimes his mouth just gets a wee bit ahead of his brain.
Indeed. That's why gratuitous populism, as practiced by the good Governor, makes me so nervous. It might get votes in the short term, but it's tough to sustain. High-minded rhetoric might sound good at the time, but it's no substitute for thoughtful, reasonable, fact-driven argument. At least for this voter. I wish the Governor would engage in less of the former and more of the latter.
Come to think of it, so should I.
"More dangerous still are the equally demagogic efforts of populist Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer to promote "coal-to-fuel" technology as a petroleum substitute. Using coal, Schweitzer says, would free the US from "the sheikhs, the dictators, the rats and crooks around the world who are bent on destroying our way of life." On another occasion, the governor noted that with the exception of Canada, the single largest source of imported oil, "most of the countries [that export to the US] do not share American values."
This is all especially disturbing since Schweitzer first emerged on the national stage in 1999 with his widely covered rebuke to Montana's Senator Conrad Burns. Burns had criticised US dependency on foreign oil, referring to Arabs as "rag heads". In response, Schweitzer, who had worked for a decade in Saudi Arabia, began his press conference with "Alhamdulillah, salam alaykum" and chided the senator for using an anti-Arab slur saying: "Senator Burns, please quit calling Montana's customers names." Now, sadly, it appears, the governor has embraced Burns' Arab-bashing ways.
Popular New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has joined the fray, equating buying Arab oil with supporting Al Qaeda. And politicians in both parties, including President George W. Bush, now regularly refer to "ending our dependency on foreign [or 'Saudi' or 'Arab'] oil"— a mantra that is at least 30 years old and without substance or merit.
My concern here is that this bashing in no way addresses either the realities at work in the worldwide energy situation or the problem of high prices.
Contrary to assumptions fed by this scapegoating, Arabs are not the cause of high prices, nor are they the source of US energy woes. In fact, Arabs only account for about one-fifth of US oil imports. And worldwide skyrocketing prices are due not to Arab evildoers, but to rising demand (not only in the US, but more significantly in China and South Asia), and to limited refining capacity here in the US.'
BC
But there is no doubt whatsoever that the profits from Saudi Arabian oil sales fund the promotion of Islamic extremism and terrorism.
It is not "bashing" to call a dictator a dictator, or call people who fly planes into office buildings and blow up subways full of civilians, terrorists. Let's not let broadmindedness and political correctness (or business interests) get in the way of reality. Ever wonder what percentage of the population of Saudi Arabia supports global attacks against infidels?
I've never heard or read a figure. If it was a tiny minority, that would be good to know. But we don't know.
I ask myself, if we did not buy the oil from the Middle East, would not every dollar that we did not spend be one less dollar available to fund jihad?
Hal
--The Islamic press has picked up the story and is making it an issue. Look at another New West story about the Idaho governor where the writer lambastes him for his remarks about New Orleans.
--The Montana governor appears to want it both ways, attacking Senator Burns for intemperate remarks while doing essentially the same thing for populist consumption.
--John Zogby, a noteworthy democrat, has called the governor on it. Reminds me of today's news about the polar bears chewing on each other.
<I've never heard or read a figure. If it was a tiny minority, that would be good to know. But we don't know.
I ask MYSELF, if we significantly reduced the oil we consume, period, would not every dollar that we did not spend be one less dollar available to fund global warming, oil spills in pristine wilderness, American military and corporate imperialism, etc.?
Personaly, I think greatness is reflected in the success of social institutions, stewardship of the environment, and in the arts-- performing, literary, sculpture, painting, and such. However, people of limited means look to more tangible benefits.
What would be wrong with calling Governor Schweitzer a "dictator"? Would it be harmful? Would it be politically-incorrect? Would it simply be inaccurate? Or would it sound ludicrous, possibly driven by ideology or irrational prejudice?
Calling Hugo Chavez a "dictator" is harmful, irresponsible and deserves our strongest condemnation! Hugo Chavez has been DEMOCRATICALLY-elected three times (one was a recall referendum). Each of these elections were observed by myriad election observers from around the world.
The Organization of American States and the Carter Center held a joint press conference proceeding the recall election. OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria and Nobel Peace Prize winner and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter declared: "electoral observation mission's members had found no element of fraud in the process." In fact, several observers commented that the elections in Venezuela were much more legitimate than those in the U.S. (Florida 2000/Ohio 2004).
Interestingly, what people admire about Chavez and Schweitzer is their tough talk. However, a rational analysis of their rhetoric would bare extremely different results. For one, a rational observer would see that Chavez bothered to check his facts before commenting, while Gov. Schweitzer's comments would be an impassioned appeal to the prejudices and emotions of uninformed and frightened mass of Americans seeking order and security. The latter's comments more accurately describe the behavior of a dictator!
Gov. Brian Schweitzer clearly cannot mean what he has said on more than one occasion about Hugo Chavez, so we must disregard his comments. The reason he and others cannot have meant what they said is because of the level of deep rascism that it would require to hold this belief. By lumping Hugo Chavez, his majority supporters, the millions of Arab and Muslim people, or anyone who might oppose being treated as cogs in a machine that serves a miniscule minority into one group as "the sheikhs, the dictators, the rats and crooks around the world who are bent on destroying our way of life," is a textbook definition of rascism. This attitude conveniently ignores fact. To find the sheikhs, dictators, rats and crooks one need not look any further than the buried mirror that conveniently denies and defies honest self-reflection!
The overwhelming majority of people in Venezuela support Chavez (approval rating of Chavez is higher than Schweitzer's: 70%). National pride in that country is based in revolutionary missions that are serving a country's essential needs. Hugo Chavez has led a charge to feed, house, educate and medically treat its people. Hugo Chavez has criticized American foreign policy and stood up to ignorance and irrationality in a time of extreme rascism and global crises. Billions of people that suffer the effects of environmental devastation, smash-and-grab mentalities from imperial countries, and a rascist misunderstanding of their situation have found a powerful voice in Hugo Chavez.