The Outrage Machines: Libya and the US Congress

Salman Rushdie recently described the violent protests and assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi as a product of the "outrage machine" that has grown more sophisticated since targeting him in 1989. A couple of related questions are in order: Why has the outrage industry multiplied and whose purpose does it serve?

Surely one of the efficiencies is the advent of a better internet, with more people connected than ever before via greater infrastructure penetration and social networking applications. Ironically the same forces that unleashed the Arab Spring have been adapted to the purposes of marginal extremists. Moreover practice makes perfect as the saying goes.

And whose purpose does it serve? The clash of civilizations between Islam and the West has been sporadically reignited by incidents such as this one. The West for its part advertises its contempt for the barbarity of the Muslim world by publishing stupid cartoons and videos and burning Korans. The Muslim world responds with senseless and random violence. Why?

First we should note that there is no parity. Violence is violence and incitement is incitement. They are not the equally bad or the same.

That said the answer to the question is one word: power. Extremists exploit the sensitivities of either side to expand the ranks of their followers, magnify their voices and marginalize moderates. Eventually the media in the US caught on to this trick with Pastor Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida. Thanks to their refusal to give him attention, when he actually did burn the Koran the consequences were less serious than when he had backed down on his threat earlier.

The Middle East is going through a turbulent transition and there are many factions looking for an opening. Extremists are afraid they have lost the initiative to the democratic upswell. Ultimately it will stabilize.

Now what does all this have to do with the US Congress, you ask? Or perhaps it is already obvious. Mann and Ornstein wrote an excellent book about the polarization of the Congress over that last 40 years. In their analysis, it all began when certain Republican members of the House stumbled upon a brilliant, if ruthless, strategy. Demonize your opponents and they shall come. Conflict rather than compromise gains attention. It can make an unimportant person seem important and crowd out the serious-minded people who should be leading the party.

I hate to join the chorus of lunatics who routinely deride the media. But both stories do highlight a constructive media critique. The media is as predictable as piranhas.

Finally, one topic that is missing from the debate is the boundaries of the freedom of speech. Tarek Mehanna was sentenced to 17.5 years for inciting Muslims to engage in terrorism by translating extremist literature and publishing it online. Similarly in Europe it is illegal to deny the Holocaust or sell Mein Kampf in many places. But somehow there is nothing illegal about intentionally provoking violence and the clash of civilizations via denigration of the prophet of Islam or its holy book. Is it not unlike shouting fire in a crowded theater? It is a more worthwhile discussion to have than the one about whether the Ambassador's death helps or hurts Romney.