Journalistic blather

Slate on Wednesday quotes Washington Post columnist David Ignatius's assertion that Muslim jihadists aren't impoverished or disenfranchised, just disaffected:

"This is the revolt of the privileged, Islamic version. They have risen so far, so fast in the dizzying culture of the West that they have become enraged, disoriented and vulnerable to manipulation. Their spiritual leader is a Saudi billionaire's son who grew up with big ideas and too much money. He created a new identity for himself as a jihad leader, carrying the banner of a pristine Islam from the days of the Prophet Muhammad. ..."

I find this really interesting so far. But read on, and see how Ignatius gets a bit carried away in his optimistic reading of recent and future history:

"What will stop this revolt of privileged Muslims? One possibility is that it will be checked by the same process that derailed the revolt of the rich kids in America after the 1960s—namely, the counter-revolt of the poor kids. Poor Muslims simply can't afford the rebellion of their wealthy brethren, and the havoc it has brought to the House of Islam. For make no mistake: The people suffering from jihadism are mostly Muslims."

Two questions, Mr. working-class spokeman:

What is the evidence that "the counter-revolt of the poor kids" caused the right-turn in American politics? Was it inner-city blacks that took their MBAs and bought into the Reagan-era myth that a rising tide lifts all boats? It was more likely the suburban Haves who chose to get theirs and screw the poor. Was it impoverished rural whites who took a ride on the Internet bubble in the 90s? More likely it was privileged offspring of the peace-love-justice generation who saw all that as old news and wanted something completely different.

If anything, the underclass was led - by whatever sources of information they give authority - to believe that the material rewards of consumer culture - and by extension the wealth-generating capacity of concentrating resources at the top of the economic pyramid - is their best hope. But I don't call believing the news and advertising you see on TV a counter-revolt. That's the oppressed being in complicity with their oppressors.

Second, what is the evidence that the social conditions that produced a "counter-revolt" in the U.S. now exist or will soon exist in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan? That scenario is a stretch. But it will play well in the living rooms of Amerika, because it trivializes the cultural conflict that U.S.-British colonial policy feeds: there's no fundamental problem between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims, just a few disaffected rich kids with not enough to do (like the tee-shirt that says "Experts agree: Everything is just fine!") And it encourages the rest of us to sit back and wait for this little tantrum to pass so we can get back to the important business of taking over that part of the world and consuming more of its resources. So China doesn't do it first.