Newsletter subscribe

Entertainment, Features, Politics, Top Stories

If only Massachusetts were more liberal, the Tsarnaevs wouldn’t have become terrorists

Posted: April 24, 2013 at 5:15 pm   /   by

If you’re involved with or pay attention to politics at all, you’ve heard this left-wing trope: America is to blame for all the woes of the world. Anything bad happens anywhere else in the world, and it’s somehow our fault. Anything bad is done to us, and it’s somehow our fault. The “blame America first” mentality is a signature feature flaw across the spectrum of the left. The reasons for it are complex, but it essentially involves an oikophobic anger at the fact that we are not the statist utopia the leftist believes we can and should be.

“The Face of Oikophobia”

My single-most unpleasant encounter with this attitude came on September 12, 2001. The dust was still rising from ground zero, and people were still holding up signs with pictures of their loved one’s faces in the soon-to-be-dashed hope that they might still be alive, when I received a deeply repellent email from a former coworker. After paying brief lip service to the horror of the attack, she got to her main point: We must consider what we did to provoke it. It was a good thing that she was a former co-worker.

Today, a friend and colleague called my attention to a terrific post by Steve Sailer making this point vis-a-vis the Tsarnaev brothers, which begins . . .

We have to ask ourselves: What did we do wrong? How did American intolerance alienate the Tsarnaev Brothers? Perhaps the political climate was not welcoming enough, too conservative, ignorant, xenophobic, and right-wing. A quick search shows that Cambridge, MA was only the second most pro-Obama town in Massachusetts

Sailer goes on to provide a chart showing the top ten towns in Massachusetts by percent of vote for Obama*, all of them in the 80s, and then notes

 Perhaps if they’d grown up in Provincetown, they would have felt more appreciated.

Ha! Touché.


*I am horrified to note that I lived in three of these towns in the early ’90s!

Christopher Cook

Christopher Cook

Managing Editor at Western Free Press
Christopher Cook is a writer, editor, and political commentator. He is the president of Castleraine, Inc., a consulting firm providing a diverse array of services to corporate, public policy, and not-for-profit clients.

Ardently devoted to the cause of human freedom, he has worked at the confluence of politics, activism, and public policy for more than a decade. He co-wrote a ten-part series of video shorts on economics, and has film credits as a researcher on 11 political documentaries, including Citizens United's notorious film on Hillary Clinton that became the subject of a landmark Supreme Court decision. He is the founder of several activist endeavors, including (now a part of Western Free Press) and He is currently the managing editor of and principal contributor to
Christopher Cook


  1. phoenixlaw says:

    What the terrorists themselves tell us consistently is contrary to the dangerous and self-delusional view you seem to hold.  They tell us that they terrorize us because we terrorize them.  They are motivated by the continuous and horrific violence brought by the US and its allies to the Muslim world – violence which kills and oppresses innocent men, women, and children.
    You and your ilk seem to believe that we can invade, bomb, kill, torture and occupy whomever we want, and there will be no consequences.  And that is a very dangerous and self-delusional belief.

    1. @phoenixlaw Actually, I do not support any policy that suggests we can “invade, bomb, kill, torture and occupy whomever we want.” But whether I do, or not, or what my “ilk” do or do not believe, is not relevant. The terrorists can tell us whatever they want—there may even be a modicum of truth to it. But it by no means explains the vast majority of Islamist terrorism worldwide. As I asked earlier, in a separate thread . . .
      When Muslims slaughter two people in Tanzania for selling non-Halal meat, is that because of U.S. foreign policy?
      When Sunni Muslims kill a Shia schoolteacher in Pakistan, is that because of U.S. foreign policy?
      When Muslims douse a Copt in gasoline in Egypt and light him on fire, is that because of U.S. foreign policy?
      When a Buddhist woman is murdered by Muslim separatists in Thailand, is that because of U.S. foreign policy?
      When Muslims slaughter non-Muslims, or Muslims of a different sect, in Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chechnya, China, Denmark, East Timor, Egypt, England, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gaza, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, the Maldives, the Netherlands, the Philippines, the Sudan, the Ukraine, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen and elsewhere, is that because of U.S. foreign policy?
      The body count of people killed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, is in the hundreds or thousands per month—every month. It has nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy.

If only Massachusetts were more liberal, the Tsarnaevs wouldn't have become terrorists