Who supports jihad?

Andrew Sullivan notes that a recent study shows that among Arabs, the richer you are, the more likely you are to support jihad.

One could probably spin these numbers lots of ways. But there is much anecdotal evidence that the usual line that "poverty breeds terrorism" is not really true. Bin Laden is [was?] a billionaire and we do not see much terrorism in Sub Saharan Africa.

Sullivan believes the problem is religious ideology. While I have little doubt that is part of the problem, I believe the larger part of the problem is simply the authoritarian nature of those governments. In Western societies, those who are wealthier or better educated are more influential politically. They can give money, host talk shows lobbing soft ball questions toward favored candidates, establish think tanks and run for office. (As an aside, I think that is one of the reasons Hollywood is so far left of the rest of the country -- they have money and glamor but generally are locked out of political influence.)

But if you are a wealthy or educated Saudi you probably find yourself locked out of government. There is no parliament to run for and any think tank will be censored. So you turn to religion and jihadism.

If this sounds far fetched, think back to European history. The Glorious Revolution, while portrayed as a religious and liberal revolution, was in any ways the revolt of the "squirarchy" who felt left out of the governing class by an increasingly authoritarian James II. The French Revolution began as an attempt of the urban middle classes and wealthy to take control of the French government (and it rapidly spun out of control). Even our own revolution was the result of the local elites wanting to control the colonies' destiny, not some far distant parliament.

I know most Americans have given up on democracy as a panacea for the problems of the Middle East (Sullivan seems to), but liberalization of the political structures in the Arab world is needed to stop jihadism. If wealthy and educated Arabs are in parliament or able to have influence in civil society, then maybe they will be less inclined to support bomb throwers.

Another Reason to Support School Vouchers

The Supreme Court has ruled that a high school can discipline a student who, after being let out from school early to watch the Olympic torch run, held up a sign that said "Bong Hits for Jesus." So for holding up a nonsensical sign at an event only tangentially related to education, high school student Joseph Frederick found himself suspended from school. The school's reasoning apparently was that the message was pro-drug. I do not know what is sillier, (i) the fact that the student unfurled the banner, (ii) the fact that the school suspended him, (iii) the fact that it got to the Supreme Court, or (iv) the fact the court ruled as it did.

It reminds me how I got in trouble once for "disrupting" a field trip to the Whitney Museum by basically telling a tour guide that modern art was dreadful. The highlight was when the guide showed us his favorite piece, basically three metal boxes attached to the wall, signifying, well, something I guess. After he said what a great exhibit it was, I noted that it was three metal boxes attached to the wall. When we got back to school, I was told to write a letter of apology. I was rude I admit, maybe even purposefully disruptive of an actual educational event, as I realized the emperor has no clothes. But it was in a matter of personal opinion and taste. I wrote the apology letter as it seemed silly to fight it.