Liberal Talk Radio

I think David Brooks makes a good point today (Time$ $elect!) about the knee-jerk response to the Islamization of our nation’s infrastructure:

This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven’t seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it’s been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don’t have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami.

But let’s be clear: the opposition to the acquisition by Dubai Ports World is completely bogus.

The deal would have no significant effect on port security. Regardless of who operates the ports, the Coast Guard still controls their physical security. The Customs Service still controls container security. The harbor patrols, the port authorities and the harbor police still do their jobs. Nearly every expert who actually knows something about port security says the ownership of the operating companies is the least of our concerns. “This kind of reaction is totally illogical,” Philip Damas, research director of Drewry Shipping Consultants, told The Times. “The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant.”

. . .

In short, there is no evidence this deal will do any harm. But it is certain that the xenophobic hysteria will come back to harm the U.S.

The oil-rich nations of the Middle East have plenty of places to invest their money and don’t need to do favors for nations that kick them in the teeth. Moreover, this is a region in the midst of traumatic democratic change. The strongest argument the fundamentalists have is that they are engaged in a holy war against the racist West, which imposes one set of harsh rules on Arabs and another set of rules on everybody else. Now comes a group of politicians to prove them gloriously right.

This rational response had to be said. At least I hope they reprint it in every (probably state-owned!) paper in the Middle East. But then you’re reminded that as recently as 1999 senior officials from the UAE visited Osama bin Laden and you start to second-guess yourself.

It kind of reminds me of stories you hear* about people who, not wanting to seem racist, choose not to cross the street and end up getting mugged. Here’s one I dug up, for example:

When Jeremy and I first moved to our place, one of our neighbors welcomed us by showing up at our gate, shaken. He had just been mugged at the alley right behind our house. It was 11:30 at night, and although he saw three men in the alley, he didn’t want to turn around (and use the main street) because he didn’t want to seem racist (he was a white man, and his attackers were black.) Sure enough, as soon as he walked in the alley, the three men robbed him at gunpoint. One of them hit our neighbor twice on the head with the gun.

The writer of the post (rightly, I think) notes that if she saw three guys of any color hanging around and alley, she’d take the extra couple of minutes to walk to the main street . . .

And that’s the issue here — and it’s an interesting debate! — how much trust do we put in globalism? We can’t be ridiculous about it, yet it’s unwise not to protect ourselves. It’s a tough one, but I think I’m with DB here . . .

*I actually heard a better one from a woman who had her bag on the seat next to her on the subway. The train stopped and a man of some ethnicity I can’t remember boarded, sitting down next to her. Rather than pick up her bag and hold it securely, she didn’t want to appear suspicious of the man, she kept it on the seat. He ended up stealing several items from the bag.