The current kerfuffle over the “Ground Zero Mosque” is just the latest example of how we (by which I mean reasonable people of goodwill who may reasonably disagree amongst ourselves) have let an extremist fringe define the terms of the discussion. We’ve allowed ignorance, bigotry, and cynicism to invent a bogeyman that doesn’t exist, and let them whip up the sort of fervor that fed the Know Nothing and Nauvoo mobs. When the adults speak up, as President Obama did at a Ramadan supper, they’re pilloried for failing to grasp the import of an imaginary situation.
The “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy should have been shut down before Sarah Palin’s first “refudiate” tweet on the facts alone:
- It’s not a mosque; it’s more like a YMCA. It will include a gym, swimming pool, classrooms, restaurant, and bookstore, in addition to a prayer room with space for 1-2,000 worshipers; its secular facilities will be accessible to everyone regardless of faith (or lack thereof). But “Ground Zero Y” just doesn’t have that rally-round-the-flag fearsomeness to it.
- It’s not at Ground Zero; it’s in the neighborhood, a couple blocks away, not sitting on top of the hole left by the 9/11 attack. But “Lower Manhattan Y” doesn’t sound nearly scary enough.
Other things to note: the “they” who attacked “us” are not the “they” who want to build the community center; indeed, the “they” who want to build the community center are the “us” of whom “we” speak. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam associated with the project, is the author of What's Right With Islam, of which Devika Mistry says,
[The book] draws a vision of a Muslim world that can embrace its own form of democracy and capitalism, aspiring for a new Cordoba, a time in history, where Jews, Christians, Muslims and all other traditions lived together in peace and prosperity.
Hardly fire-breathing radical Islam; more like the modern Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish attempts to find a balance between the sacred and the secular. American Muslim’s are not a “them”: they’re just like us, trying to find their way in a world where people who have fundamentally different beliefs about ultimate things must still live together peacefully and, one would hope, prosperously.
Cordoba House, the original name of the project, was a perfect description for its spirit. Newt Gingrich to the contrary (and quite thoroughly refuted by a real historian), medieval Cordoba under the caliph was a place of pluralism and exchange. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophers and scientists made Cordoba a center of learning in a very dark Europe indeed. We live in dark times now, with ignorance and bigotry driving far too many people; we could use some of Cordoba’s light today.
The tinfoil-hat fantasies of Colorado gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes are only the most extreme example of conservative opposition to bicycle-positive public policy. Disparaging remarks from the likes of John Boehner and Patrick McHenry are depressingly common (though it should be noted that Ray LaHood, the most bicycle-friendly head of the Department of Transportation ever, was a Republican representative in a previous life).
I suspect that the Republican animosity toward bicycling is more cultural than it is economic. Bicycling culture in the United States has a generally liberal feel to it, perhaps because more bicyclists live in urban rather than rural or suburban areas, or because cycling instead of driving has a countercultural feel to it in our car-dominated society. Championing automobiles over bicycles, with their faintly European and therefore suspicious aura, is a way for politicians to signal their support for the “real” America.
This is a little curious, because a case can be made that bicycling actually fits many planks of the conservative agenda. My own politics are a little to the left of Leon Trotsky, so perhaps I’m not the best person to point this out, but maybe it takes an outsider to see the opportunities that conservatives are missing. So here are a few key conservative values–both cultural and economic–that line up well with cycling.
Self-Reliance
The bicycle ought to be an icon of rugged individualism. Few people tinker with their cars anymore–modern automobiles are black boxes which require highly specialized tools to maintain–but almost anyone can keep a bicycle running themselves. Bikes are relatively simple machines that can be maintained with a few wrenches and a screwdriver. And most bicycle commuters make their daily trips in all kinds of weather with no support system but their feet and their wits. Remember that rush of freedom you felt as a kid on your first two-wheeler? It’s like that every day for cyclists.
Conservatives love cowboys, but there are precious few of them left. Might I suggest the bicycle courier as the rugged individualist’s new hero? Out there on the edge, living by wits and courage, the bike messenger is the ultimate romantic loner. (Ignore for a moment that there are a good many anarchists in this niche.) Trade in your Stetson for a bike helmet, and your saddle bags for a courier satchel, and maybe get Alan Jackson to write a few songs about the brave and lonely messenger, riding in the tracks of the Pony Express. American enough for you?
Energy Independence
The Republican Party platform has touted energy independence for four decades, but they’ve done precious little to really encourage us to give up foreign oil. As long as we remain an auto-centric society, we’ll never be free of the negative consequences of depending on despotic and unstable regimes for our energy.
My bicycle isn’t entirely free of petroleum products–rubber tires and tubes, petroleum lubricants, and some plastic parts go into keeping it running–but it is a darned sight closer to energy independence than any car. There’s no need to invest in alternative fuel technologies, no need to drill for risky and inaccessible domestic oil; the bicycle is a near-perfect technology now, and an obvious part of an energy independence plan.
End Subsidies
Conservatives hate subsidies. Subsidies distort the market, redistribute wealth, and open the door to all sorts of social engineering aspirations.
And one of the most heavily subsidized aspect of our daily lives is the automobile. Whether through bailouts and tax incentives to manufacturers and dealers, or the proportion of general funds as opposed to user fees (license and registration fees, gas taxes) that go into infrastructure, or the hidden subsidies on parking, we pay individually far less for our cars than we pay collectively. If the true cost of our reliance on the personal combustion engine were borne by individual drivers, there would likely be many more people on bicycles or public transportation.
Bicycle infrastructure, by comparison, is incredibly cheap. And because bicycles cause so much less wear and tear on roads, bike lanes are cheaper to maintain. (We Minnesotans know that Republicans hate maintaining infrastructure almost as much as they hate subsidizing it…)
There are still plenty of left-leaning reasons to ride a bike, too: environmental, social, and economic. But that doesn’t preclude conservative support for cycling. The fact that liberal and conservative policies can converge on cycling just means that, like motherhood and apple pie, bikes are a good thing that ought to belong to neither end of the political spectrum.
