Congress is a Carnival (believe it or not)

David Paul Kuhn thinks that the Congressional hearings on Islamic extremism in America are a joke, a “circus” that is, as one Democratic member of Congress puts it, “certainly the equivalent of reality TV.”  In his editorial, The Circus Investigates Muslim Extremism, Kuhn asserts that Republican and Democratic participants, as well as those citizens providing testimony, approached the hearings with preconceived notions, planned party-line results, and with no intention of reaching any universal consensus. 

Labeled as a right-leaning blog, Real Clear Politics bent, without breaking, its mold, and published the piece, which is no compliment to either righties or lefties.  Instead, the editorial criticizes both sides, appealing to an audience that is in no mood to entertain soapbox oratories or lazy investigations that do little more than highlight two “radically different views of radicalism.”  Kuhn points out the lack of credible authority and seems to doubt that either side worked very hard when compiling evidence.  He also criticizes the use of such icons as the picture of the burning World Trade Center towers, which was hanging on the wall throughout the hearings.  In addition to this offense, Kuhn offers multiple examples of over-the-top Republican antics, such as Jeff Duncan’s concern that Sharia law poses a threat to the American Constitution.  

Helping the reader understand that he intends to criticize both sides equally, Kuhm wastes little time, moving from Duncan’s “crass generalizations” to a mathematical gaffe by the Democrats, who downplay the role of Islamic extremists in terrorist plots in the U.S.  Kuhn also points out the disorganization of Democratic arguments by highlighting a failed attempt to draw support from one witness.  These and other jabs at the left solidify the fact that the author was reaching out to an audience of mixed affiliations.

It seems that the purpose of Mr. Kuhn’s editorial is to criticize the hearings, their participants, and the lazy, extreme tactics employed by both sides.  This is particularly entertaining when one considers that extremism is the one thing that this commission set out to control.  The author impresses this writer by calling out the teenage (dare I say “tweenish?”) nature of the proceedings and by challenging any future hearings, with sheer wit and biting criticisms, to create something worthy of Americans’ time, attention, and tax dollars, not just another carnival of rhetoric.

RW