|
AMERICAN ARABS AND MUSLIMS AND THE US PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS Anthony McRoy The next US Presidential elections could see Muslim and
Arab- Americans
making a crucial impact for the first time. The Sunday Times (13. 8.00) quoted The Wall Street Journal concerning
Democrat Al Gore’s Jewish running mate, Joseph Lieberman, that ‘There are now a
few more Muslims in America (6m) than Jews (5.7 million). Muslims make up 5% of
the vote in Michigan, 2% in Illinois and 1% in California and Ohio. These are
critical states where the margin of difference between Gore and Bush is 5% or
less, Since the Jewish turnout is already high and already solidly Democratic,
those numbers are a problem’. The Journal
also noted that ‘there are two million Arab Christians’, and observed that
‘Lieberman’s staunch support of Israel may not endear him to this
constituency.’ Before selecting Lieberman, Gore enjoyed a slight lead over Bush among
Muslim voters, according to a poll by the Council for American-Islamic Relations
- Gore 33%, Bush 28%. The figures probably represented traditional Democrat
support among Muslims as more minority-friendly than Republicans. The impact of
Gore and Lieberman’s hard-line Zionism may affect actual voting. However, as
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper warned us, the difference between the candidates
‘is only one of degree’. American Muslims
for Jerusalem noted Bush’s commitment on moving the US embassy to Jerusalem,
though his running-mate Dick Cheney is more equivocal. At any rate, US
politicians often make promises they don’t keep! Hussein Ibish, spokesman for
the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee warned us that Bush and his team
may want to address his father’s ‘unfinished business’ with Saddam. Echoing
Hooper, Ibish saw little difference between the candidates, though on Palestine,
Republicans were marginally ‘the lesser of two evils’. Ibish felt Arab and
Muslim voters might find Green candidate Ralph Nader, himself an Arab-American,
to be an attractive choice. Palestine is the central overseas concern for Muslim and Arab-Americans,
closely followed by Iraq. Domestic issues include anti-Arab racism and
Islamophobia, ethno-religious discrimination, ‘terrorist’ smears and media
hostility. In particular Hollywood’s virulent anti-Arabism/Islamophobia,
typified by the recent film ‘Rules of Engagement’, perpetuates the cycle of
hostility and hate crimes against the community. It can be seen that American
Muslim concerns mirror those of the British community. As in Britain, there have
been disputes with other communities, which impedes the community’s
empowerment. There has been some conflict with Christians over foreign human rights
issues. Relations with Jews are sometimes tense. In Britain, the MCB and the
Board of Deputies have collaborated at least once, and rivalry has been
relatively restrained. In America, despite some progress, militant Zionists have
sponsored Ralph Emerson, labelled an Islamophobe by many Muslims, and also
blocked a Muslim from being appointed to a congressional committee on terrorism,
though it should be said that many liberal Jews publicly deplored this action.
As yet there are no Muslim congressmen, though there are some Arab Christian
representatives. There are some Muslim judges. Recently, a Bangladeshi-born
American was appointed Ambassador to Fiji. The crucial distinction between British and American Muslims is that the
latter have not run for cover when attacked, but faced-up to these problems. The
foundation of CAIR especially has seen Muslims pro-active in combating
blasphemous adverts, and religious discrimination in employment practices,
especially by court action. It is the political field, however, that really sets
the two communities apart. Despite the absence of congressional representation,
Muslims have intensified their political mobilisation in recent years, actively
attempting to secure high voter registration and turn-outs. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee has
published a sophisticated guide to evaluating congressional hopefuls, including
questionnaires explaining the Muslim agenda to candidates and requesting a
response. Muslim leaders have had an informal meeting with one Presidential
candidate, and plans are set for a meeting with the other leading contender.
The comments by Ibish and the CAIR poll suggest that Muslim-Americans
have avoided the British Muslim mistake of in putting all their eggs in one
party basket – Labour. This has led to Tories ignoring them, with Labour taking
them for granted and marginalising them. US Muslims are more likely to consider
what an individual candidate has to offer before committing themselves. Perhaps
because America is, as President Kennedy said, ‘a nation of immigrants’, Muslim
Americans are more psychologically secure about living in a non-Muslim state
than British Muslims, and probably because of this, have avoided the sycophantic
approaches of leading British Muslims who, as Lord Ahmed once complained, seem
more concerned about photo-opportunity with UK politicians. American Muslim
leaders seem more concerned with actual results for the
community. One major reason for this has been the presence of the Arab-American
community, which historically has been majority Christian. Their presence
stretches back into the 19th century, although their political
campaigning largely began after the 1967 war, and only began to have any
influence in the last ten years. Well-established, usually educated and
prosperous, they provided a natural base of support for the millions of Muslim
migrants arriving after 1960 – when there were only 100,000 Muslim-Americans.
Since so many of their concerns and membership overlap, notably on Palestine and
Iraq, Arab and Muslim Americans officially collaborate at all levels. An
agreement on co-operation was signed last year by the American Muslim Political
Coordination Council and the Council of Presidents of Arab-American
Organizations ‘to work together to strengthen the bonds of solidarity among the
Arab and Muslim communities and to coordinate their activities in pursuit of
common goals.’ ‘Election 2000’ is one of these collaborative projects. The
Muslims give the Arabs numerical advantage, whilst the Arabs give the Muslims
the benefit of long-standing political and lobbying
experience. Of course, with both communities, this lobbying is only in its infancy
when compared to the effective lobbies of African-Americans, Jews and even
Evangelical Christians. However, according to both Hooper and Ibish, the signs
are for increased political mobilisation. Hooper informed us that the Muslim
voter-registration drive, reminiscent of similar actions by Black civil rights
workers in the 1950s and ’60s, is something never done previously by the
community. The joint Arab and Muslim lobby represents a constituency of up to
ten million people, and if electors voted tactically and en bloc in certain places this year,
they could be effective in deciding the outcome. Again, there are obvious
parallels with the British experience, especially with the recent successes of
the Justice for Kashmir party in Birmingham. However, Ibish has warned that in American politics, bloc votes matter
less than donations for candidates, and this is where the pro-Israeli lobby
scores. Surprisingly, Ibish stated that there is enough wealth in the
Arab-American community in particular to virtually match the pro-Israeli
contributions. The problem, again, is mobilising Arabs and Muslims to reach
into their pockets. If performed, candidates benefiting from this are likely to
remember, and to vote on Muslim-sensitive issues accordingly. Translated into
the Congressional and Presidential fields, such mobilisation could finally end
the biased, racist and Islamophobic policies of American governments towards the
Muslim world. US Muslim groups are aiming to get not just more Muslim voters,
but also Muslim Congressmen and Senators. Community numbers suggest this dream
will soon come true. Who knows? One day when a TV newscaster refers to ‘President Hussein’, he
might not mean the one in Iraq. Top of the Page |