Usually the daily farm report packs more action than a typical Congressional hearing. But Rep. Peter King’s (R-N.Y.) hearings on domestic radicalization will be anything but normal.
When the gavel calls tomorrow’s session to order, the hearing room will look more like a Hollywood set: a packed gallery, banks of TV cameras, photographers snapping stills in rapid fire fashion as they sit cross-legged in front of the witness table.
Yet what has thrust these hearings into the limelight–even before the first witness has been called–is not so much the subject of the hearing itself, but the over-the-top rhetoric and political posturing that began as so as Rep. King announced he would look into the topic. The resultant hype has been contrived, inexcusable–and unhelpful.
Really, what is the big deal? It is hard to argue that the Homeland Security committee should not be diving into issues related to domestic terrorism. That certainly makes more sense than the previous chairman’s penchant for scrutinizing how much of the department’s contracts went to small and medium businesses.
Since the 1980s, Congressional committees have had thousands of hearings on terrorism. What’s the problem with one more?
It is also difficult to argue this is not a legitimate issue. By The Heritage Foundation’s count, at least 38 terrorist plots have been aimed at the U.S. (and, thankfully, thwarted or botched) since 9/11. Most of them originated within US borders. Many sprang from groups or individuals who were largely “self-radicalized.”
Nor does it make sense to ignore or dismiss domestic radicalization so long as our homegrown radicals target only innocents outside our borders. From Londonistan to Hamburg, European states are now reaping the bitter fruits of ignoring concerted efforts to radicalize Muslim immigrants within their borders. Even in the US, we have seen the tragic consequences of letting evil ideas go unchallenged. Just ask the parents and relatives of young Somali-Americans recruited to throw their lives away for al-Shabab, a militant Islamist group based in Somalia with more blood on its hands than a Chicago butcher.
So why all the hysteria, name-calling, and fear mongering?
The hearings some argue, could lead a new wave of Islamaphobia. They could have a chilling effect on free speech and the freedom of religion. Perhaps. Or perhaps a lot of good could come of these hearings.
And that’s the point. A lot of things could happen. So why don’t we just wait until the hearings actually, you know, start? Then we can their value on the merits of how they are conducted or what we learn.
Some have compared the coming deliberations to the Cold War McCarthy hearings. But even that analogy cuts both ways. Say you want about Tail Gunner Joe. Though his methods were deplorable, there is no denying that his committee was looking into a legitimate issue. After all, Communists were attempting to undermine America. Communist spies had successfully infiltrated the U.S. government. And the Communist Party of the United States was taking its direction from Moscow.
Sen. McCarthy’s management of his hearings was despicable and, ultimately, led to his own downfall. President Eisenhower, who never had much sympathy for McCarthy, had predicted the senator would engineer his own end. And when the Senate finally censured McCarthy, Eisenhower mused McCarthyism had become “McCarthywasum.”
Comparing King’s hearings to McCarthyism seems grotesquely unfair without giving the hearings–well, a fair hearing. Chairman King–and every hand wielding a gavel–do their job. And then we–and history–can judge them fairly on how well they do it.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.