Matt Zeitlin

Jeffrey Herf is an intellectual historian of Islamism, and has written books and article after article connecting the dots between the two great totalitarian movements of the 20th century — Fascism and Communism — and Islamism. And while the connections may very well be there, and the writings of Sayyid Qutb are chilling, reactionary and scary, it seems like a stretch to really see Islamism as a threat on that level.

Communism reigned supreme for 45 years between Siberia and Berlin. Fascism had Germany and Italy, with an affiliate in Japan. Islamism has an amorphous non-state group whose leaders are constantly being killed by drones; Iran; and quasi political terrorist organizations in Hezbollah and Hamas. And it’s unclear what the relationship between the first one of those and the last three are.

But still, Herf wants Obama to stop all this pansy “engagement” with the Muslim world and make it clear that we have an ideological battle with Islamism to fight:

And the Islamists’ response has been as follows. Iran has made a mockery of “negotiations,” which it is clearly using to play for time as it continues to seek the bomb. It has also sent tens of millions of dollars and tons of weapons, including longer-range missiles, to Hezbollah and Hamas, placing larger areas of Israel in jeopardy. In Iraq, Iran has managed to exert influence over the Maliki coalition government. Islamists in Pakistan keep the Taliban afloat and threaten the political stability of Pakistan itself. Al Qaeda’s efforts to attack the West continue unabated, as indicated by the recent terrorism alerts in Germany and in this country—as well as the arrests in Sweden, Denmark, and Britain. Islamists continue to slaughter their fellow Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and have now added Iraqi and Egyptian Christians to the list of those they are eager to murder.

In truth, since the attacks of September 11, the U.S. government has refused to call a spade a spade and has not waged a full-scale war of ideas against the Islamists and against radical Islamist ideology. What Obama’s predecessor called a “war on terror” and what he calls a fight against “the forces of organized extremism” is in reality a war against terrorists and terrorist regimes inspired by varieties of an ideological tradition called radical Islamism. It really is the third great totalitarian tradition in world politics after Nazism (or fascism) and Communism. Like its two famous predecessors, it too emerged in the middle of the twentieth century. It drew bits and pieces from both—more from the Nazis than from the Communists—but it is the one that has persisted while the other two have largely lost their inspirational power. It is an autonomous ideological tradition with its own internal compass, and passions that are not primarily a reflexive response to what the president of the United States does or does not do. This is why Obama’s gestures of goodwill and empathy are met with the Islamists’ contempt and hatred.

I want to put aside the bigger questions about how many Muslims are actually blood-thirsty Islamists who respond to American engagement with “contempt and hatred” and just deal with the more concrete claim about how big a threat political Islam, and Islamic-inspired terrorism, is to the United States. Herf, while trying to show how salient a concern Islamism and Islamic terrorism are, actually gives away the game.  Although we obviously prefer a stable Pakistan to an unstable one, Herf doesn’t actually have an argument that the Pakistani Taliban is going to seize the government and their nuclear weapons anytime soon. And while Iran seems to be pretty desirous of a weaponized nuclear capacity, its actual weapons program isn’t going anywhere fast. And, most importantly, as Herf points out, Western law enforcement and intelligence agencies are doing a good job stymieing actual terrorist attacks! It’s not the efforts that matter, it’s the actual sucesses, which appear to be few and far between.

Fascism and Communism were not bad not because, as ideas, they were uniquely terrible ones (even though they were). They were bad ideologies because they were the presiding ideologies of large alliances of nations who wanted to expand their power over the globe, which in one case precipitated a global war that lead to some 50 million deaths, and in the other case, a huge portion of the world’s population living under dictatorship for nearly half a century, and, again, tens of millions of deaths due to state violence in Ukraine, the Gulags, China and Cambodia.

Intellectual history is interesting and important, but it’s capabilities that matter.

As my few remaining readers know, I really have a thing for Aaron Rodgers. I’ll admit, if it were not for the fact that I saw him play two amazing seasons at Memorial Stadium during his college career at Cal, I would not be enthusiastic and moved to write so much in praise of him. But I can only write these things about him because, when you look at him quantitatively and qualitatively, he’s simply amazing. He has an incredibly fast release, can throw darts despite being less-than-a-second-away from getting clobbered, has  Manning-and-Brady-esque accuracy, does not throw interceptions and is the best running quarterback who has never been convicted for running an interstate dog fighting ring. The statistics back all these claims up and he has been money in the playoffs.

But Rick Reilly, who is famously character obsessed, doesn’t even want to talk about the qualitative aspects of Rdogers’s greatness, which he describes in typical overly-cute Reilly fashion — “Houdini feet” “rifle-scope accuracy” “freakish arm,” and finally, “courage while the land around him burned.” But no, Reilly wants to talk about “how he lives.”

Reilly wants to remember Rodgers for not publicly bashing Brett Favre and for throwing to Jordy Nelson even though Nelson dropped a few passes. So Rodgers, instead of getting credit for having some of the best playoff statistics ever and, through his short career, the best efficiency ratings ever, is supposed to be remembered for playing some part in a soft-focus, violin-scored Ebersol production about the power of forgiveness? Really? Because would anyone care about his lack of public vitriol towards Favre if he hadn’t outplayed the ageing sexter the last three seasons? What if Rodgers kept on throwing to Nelson, but instead of hitting him in the hands, overthrew him on some key plays (as actually happened)? What if quarterbacks were largely instinct driven and worked through their progressions and automatically threw to the first open receiver they saw, and were not obsessed over the last play in a way that only sportswriters can be?

It’s weird to see that Rick Reilly, such an anachronism whose insights about sports are so impoverished, so overdetermined and so irrelevant to how most fans experience and evaluate the game, is still given top-bill treatment from ESPN, when they have people who are pushing forward sports analysis and writing (John Hollinger, Bill Simmons, etc) or old-school sports writers like Mike Wilbon, who, despite their inability to fully adapt to the new stats-driven world , at least have something more than half-baked Lindsey Lohan jokes to push their columns forward.

At least, anyone who has actually watched Aaron Rodgers play will know that Reilly’s “analysis” is, at best, superfluous and does not risk impoverishing the singular experience he so poorly captures.

In Novmeber 2004, the undefeated USC Trojans hosted the California Golden Bears. Aaron Rodgers, Cal’s starting quarterback, completed his first 23 attempts, but when it came time for him to score a touchdown at the goal line, Cal’s offense and Rodgers were stymied four times and USC won 23-17. Matt Leinart, USC’s starter, would go on to win the Heisman that year, the Manning award for best quarterback and USC would annihilate Oklahoma in the National Championship Game.

Leinart stayed at USC for another year, losing in the national championship game to Vince Young and the Texans and got drafted tenth overall by the Arizona Cardinals. He was the second quarterback drafted behind Vince Young. Leinart was cut by the Cardinals at the beginning of this season. That same season, Cal was ranked number four going into the final voting. Despite having only one loss to the eventual national champions, Texas leap-frogged the Golden Bears and Rodgers in the Coaches Poll, snatching the four spot and an automatic BCS bid to the Rose Bowl. Cal would go on to lose the Holiday Bowl to Texas Tech.

Aaron Rodgers declared himself eligible for the 2005 draft and was picked 25th by the Packers. Despite overall praise, ESPN draft guru Mel Kiper Jr said that Rodgers “can be a bit mechanical in his throws” and “on basically a gut feeling” said Smith was the (slightly better pick). Rodgers was the second quarterback selected and was 24 picks behind Utah’s Alex Smith, who the 49ers drafted first overall.

Aaron Rodgers’s most prestigious award in college was either his first team all-Pac 10 his junior year or the honorable mention All-American nod from Sports Illustrated. He was not recruited by any major schools and transferred to Cal after a year at Butte Community College. He spent three years backing up Brett Favre as his play declined and he tormented the Packers with his endless indecision about whether, and where, to continue his career.

Now Aaron Rodgers has the highest regular season quarterback rating in NFL history and the lowest interception percentage of all time. He is Super Bowl MVP. His career playoff record is 4-1. This year in the playoffs, he had nine passing touchdowns, two rushing touchdowns and two interceptions. He did not make the Pro Bowl this season.

It is unclear if any of Matt Leinart, Carson Palmer, Vince Young or Alex Smith will be a starting quarterback next season. Aaron Rodgers will be reigning Super Bowl MVP.