Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2000, Pages 26, 81, 82

Special Report

American Muslim Voters Come of Age With Bloc Vote

By Riad Z. Abdelkarim, MD and Basil Z. Abdelkarim, MD

In a post-election survey of American Muslim voters conducted by the Washington, DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), one of the nation’s largest grassroots Muslim advocacy and civil rights groups, nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated that they had voted for Texas Governor Bush. Of these, 85 percent noted that the endorsement of Bush by the American Muslim Political Coordinating Committee Political Action Committee (AMPCC-PAC) was a factor in their vote. In this survey of 1,774 voters, 72 percent of Muslim respondents said they voted for Bush, 19 percent supported Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, and only 8 percent favored Vice President Al Gore. Those results reflected a major change from a September poll that showed 24 percent support for Gore. In an important footnote to this survey, an astounding 36 percent of Muslim respondents indicated that they were first-time voters.

American Muslim voters also played an important role in the critical state of Florida. While perhaps too much media attention was focused on the importance of the Jewish vote in Florida, the as yet unrecognized role of the state’s estimated 60,000 Muslim voters—who participated in the bloc vote for Bush—may ultimately prove to be one of this bizarre election year’s most momentous—if unreported—stories. According to an exit survey conducted by the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), over 90 percent of Florida Muslim voters chose Bush for president. The math is simple. In an election that hinged on several hundred ballots, the Muslim vote played a pivotal role in determining the presidency—far exceeding Bush’s slim margin of victory.

Over 90 percent of Florida Muslim voters chose Bush for president.

This unprecedented bloc vote was the culmination of intensive efforts to unite the ethnically, politically, and economically diverse American Muslim community, with the goal of strengthening its collective voice in their country’s political affairs. Several factors contributed to the convergence of support behind the Bush candidacy. First, Governor Bush, in keeping with his oft-repeated campaign theme of “uniting” Americans, had the political wisdom to sit down with American Muslim community leaders, face-to-face, to discuss their concerns—something his Republican predecessor, Sen. Bob Dole, refused to do in 1996. Vice President Gore, on the other hand, never met directly with American Muslim leaders.

Another decisive factor in the AMPCC-PAC endorsement was Bush’s public denunciation of the use of “secret evidence.” This draconian provision of 1996 congressional immigration legislation has unfairly targeted Americans of Muslim and Arab heritage and has drawn the condemnation of American civil rights groups, U.S. congressmen, and American-Muslim and -Arab advocacy groups. In the second nationally televised presidential debate, Bush correctly cited the law as an example of unfair ethnic and racial profiling. Although Bush only briefly touched upon this topic, American Muslims viewed his unsolicited comments as a symbolic but significant display of sensitivity toward an issue critical to their community.

The Middle East Issue

For some in the American Muslim and Arab communities, the absence of political and moral courage on this issue brought into glaring focus Green Party candidate Ralph Nader’s scathing analysis of the merits of attempting to distinguish between the “lesser of two evils.” This sentiment was partly reflected in the poll conducted by CAIR noted above, where Nader out-polled Gore by more than two-to-one among American Muslim voters.

What is clear is that Al Gore’s incessant pandering to pro-Israeli voters clearly alienated Muslim voters. Many American Muslims who traditionally vote Democratic found that they simply could not support an individual—or a ticket—so blindly supportive of Israel. This sentiment is best captured by the words of Geoffrey Wheatcroft in The Guardian of Dec. 12. In describing the impact of a Gore victory on U.S.-Israeli relations, Wheatcroft wrote: “If Gore wins, he will be the most totally committed partisan of Israel ever to be president. He has been nurtured and hand-reared for the role for 35 years. At Harvard, he was taught by Martin Peretz, a rich academic who later bought the New Republic, and has made that weekly paper a byword for uncritical or even fanatical support for Israel right or wrong....”

In addition, many in the community viewed the Clinton administration’s ever-increasing tilt toward Israel this year as another cynical, transparent ploy to garner more Jewish votes for Al Gore and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was waging a bitter campaign for a New York Senate seat. This bias was especially apparent after the collapse of the Camp David peace negotiations last summer, when President Clinton suggested publicly that he might be inclined to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (in clear violation of international law). His words sparked outrage and cries of “foul” throughout the Muslim world. Furthermore, in recent months, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s ridiculous assertion that Israel was “besieged”—even as Israeli helicopters, tanks, and troops rained death and destruction on Palestinian towns and villages—struck most American Muslims as arrogant, insensitive, and blatantly untrue.

Many in the American Muslim community ultimately concluded that a potential Bush administration would at least be a slight improvement for the cause of peace and justice in the Middle East over the past eight years of the Clinton/Gore administration. It is no secret that many Israelis, as well as American Jewish leaders, view a potential George W. Bush administration with apprehension. These individuals recall with dismay and outright disgust the era of Secretary of State James Baker, which was characterized by unusually blunt language and was devoid of much of the kid-glove treatment to which Israel had grown accustomed. As Wheatcroft wrote in The Guardian, “although every presidential candidate has to intone the platitudes about ‘Israel-our-truest-friend-in-the-Mideast,’ Republican administrations have been much less susceptible to Israeli pressure than the Democrats...”

It remains to be seen whether the incoming Bush administration will recognize the importance of the American Muslim vote to its success in the recent elections. American Muslims are waiting for some clear signals from President-elect Bush that their support is both welcome and appreciated. At the very least, Muslims will look to the incoming administration to maintain and indeed expand access to government officials, work earnestly toward repeal of the onerous secret evidence law, and initiate a more balanced, honest approach to the conflicts of the Middle East that truly conforms to American principles of freedom, justice, and respect for human dignity.

Far from resting on its laurels after the successful bloc vote campaign, the American Muslim community must continue efforts to strengthen its collective voice. American Muslims realize that this will not be a simple task. As their attempts to enhance their prominence in the American political system grow, so do efforts to marginalize and intimidate their constituency and leaders. One only has to look to the unfortunate and inexcusable Muslim-baiting that was rampant in the New York Senate race between Congressman Rick Lazio and First Lady Hillary Clinton, whose campaigns not too subtly suggested that “Arabs and Muslims Need Not Apply.”

Voter registration efforts must continue unabated during the election off years so as to enfranchise even more Muslims. Attempts must be undertaken to seek unity between indigenous American Muslims—many of whom are African-American—and the immigrant Muslim community, who not infrequently have differing goals and perspectives. Together, American Muslims will need to raise their collective voice in support of domestic civil liberties, religious tolerance, and the promotion of human rights and social/political justice at home and abroad—and in support of candidates that support these issues.

Indeed, after an incredible 2000 election year—for the nation and for American Muslim voters—American politics will never be the same.

Dr. Riad Z. Abdelkarim and Dr. Basil Z. Abdelkarim are free-lance writers and regular contributors to iViews.com.