What’s Wrong with the World

While, during more aristocratic ages, one divided the world between friend and foe, the democratic millenarian man must divide it between good and evil. While a foe could be left alone and even respected, evil must always be confronted and overcome. Not to be democratic (and pro-American) is evil and must be stamped out at all costs, even, perhaps especially, with American money and lives. The good news is that the ideological party cannot go on forever, as hastily printed money can only go so far. An English Tory once told me that the greatest thing that could ever happen to conservatism would be the decline of the United States.

MAR - Nietzsche famously distinguished between the ancient aristocratic "good & bad," on the one hand, and the judaeo/christian "good & evil," on the other.

It's interesting to consider how "friend & foe" fits (or fails to fit) into that scheme.

The Middle East has always been a poison cup to any nation or empire that was foolish enough to get their hands on it. All the nations and empires of the last century who thought they could handle it, where are they now? Shadows of what they once were! If we wish to save what is left of our power, lets get the heck out of the ME, and let some other fools get burned.

I am amazed at Krauthammer's provincialism: not only democracy, but democracy of a decidedly modern American style and arrangement, no other will do! One might think that he has never considered the possibility that there are other _legitimate_ forms of democracy than ours, and other _legitimate_ forms of government than explicit democracy.

But all that aside, does anyone think that our involvement can be managed in such a way as to definitely help democracy? Americans are in a decidedly different odor there than we were in Europe after WWII. Might it be political suicide for a party to be known to take American aid?

I know enough about those far-off countries to see that it is just such sentiments (and the actions in fulfillment of them) as those expressed by Rubin and Krauthammer that have raised Arab hatred of America to a white heat. I hope Tunisia and Egypt are only the beginning of the overthrow of the USA's power in the Middle East.

It requires a free press, the rule of law, the freedom to organize, the establishment of independent political parties, and the peaceful transfer of power.

The checklist is telling. Where is freedom of religion, or is it just assumed Demos is the only deity worthy of worship?

An English Tory once told me that the greatest thing that could ever happen to conservatism would be the decline of the United States.

You had me at"the ideological party cannot go on forever", but then ruined it by welcoming national decline in exchange for The Sacred Cause of "conservatism." Bummer.

Steve says,

"One might have hoped that the fiascos resulting from our attempts to promote the "democratization" of Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza would have cooled any &/or everybody's ardor to embroil the U.S. any further in Middle-Eastern affairs."

I have two problems with this statement. The first is that I wouldn't describe our adventures in Iraq and Lebanon as "fiascos" and as Steve's scare quotes indicate, folks throw around the word democratization without getting specific about what they mean and what we are trying to accomplish. To Steve's credit, he quotes Rubin and Krauthammer giving a more complete analysis of what they mean by democratization -- it is really Western liberalism or if you prefer Constitutional republicanism.

Anyway, we get involved in the Middle-East because we perceive that we have interests in the Middle-East -- oil mostly, but also the spread of radical Islam. Of course, while we promote democracy in Egypt we are happy to do business with the monarchy in Arabia and Jordan and Qatar, etc. So our current policy is not as idealistic as folks make it seem. But for us neo-cons, we do really believe that in the long-run, the Middle-East and American interests would be better served by governments that were more liberal and safeguarded freedom of speech, religion (especially the freedom to leave Islam), protected private property, gave people some say in electing their leaders, established an independent judiciary, etc.

Finally, with respect to Gaza, I agree that is a mess, but to be fair, the election that was held there was not fair or free -- Hamas basically fought a civil war with the Palestinian Authority (PA) to make sure their candidates won that election and the PA was kicked out of the Gaza Strip. Much like the revolution in Iran, violence was used to make a mockery of the democractic process (which suggests that the Gaza wasn't ready for such a process).

In other words, we must be against democracy until we're for it. Democracy can wait. The first order of business is to impose modern American-style liberalism on the Saracen.

So who died and left to America the power, and the right, to bind and to loose, in these far-off countries of which we know next to nothing?

The debate between the Realpolitik, idealism, and isolationism camps have been going on for well over 100 years, and always will. Those with little military or economic power still have to make these choices. The "when did you stop beating your wife" style polemics above I don't think are productive in any real way.

"So who died and left to America the power, and the right, to bind and to loose, in these far-off countries of which we know next to nothing?"

How about looking at in from the perspective of looking out for our own interests.

If you have any alternatives to the imposition of sharia by the Muslim Brotherhood - which is where this train is heading - then please enunciate them.

Or do you root for the Saracen and their religion?

"Finally, with respect to Gaza, I agree that is a mess, but to be fair, the election that was held there was not fair or free -- Hamas basically fought a civil war with the Palestinian Authority (PA) to make sure their candidates won that election and the PA was kicked out of the Gaza Strip."

Jeff, how do you reconcile the fact that the Palestinian elections were held in January, 2006 and Hamas forced Fatah out of Gaza in June, 2007 with your summary of what happened?

It has been expected for at least a hundred years that America must assume the task of leading the world towards universal democracy. When Kipling wrote The White Man's Burden in 1899 he had the Philippines in mind, but the mission continues, perhaps indirectly, in the Middle East and elsewhere:

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Democracy has become a word that is all encompassing, meaning, totally moral in itself, and implicitly at least the cure all for every societal imperfection. It is Magic, establishes one's ethical intentions and supplies immediate answers, undefined.
It requires neither thought nor structure. No suggestions as to legal foundations or operations are necessary, no fitting to the society, it's history or mores need be referred to.
It helps eliminate the headaches & frustration that come with thought, and offer an easy path to pomposity, the nectar of pundits.

If Krauthammer and his pundit buddies really knew and understood Islam, they would not write such folly as if democracy were possible in the Middle east. Mubarak was a dictator much like Saddam Hussein and the Kings of Saudia Arabia who keep the Imams in check and Islam from taking over the land. Their depredatations are evil but Islam is pure evil and needs to be kept in check.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology that is taught to every muslim from the time before they can walk until the day they die. There are no democratic ideals, freedom of speech, freedom of religion as in the American Republic. This is a tribal culture and all is sacrificed for the tribe. All of this vain babble about democracy in the middle east would be laughable if those espousing it were not serious, but, alas, they are. Our government sops up this stuff as if it were the gospel truth.

The idea that we saved Europe from communism is true enough but those peoples shared a common heritage and government structure with America. And the job was difficult enough with this as an advantage. True, we did turn a couple of evil empires around with WWII but we had to totally destroy them and build them back to American ideals. This will not happen in the middle east. America does not have the will for this. We do, however, have the ignorance and stupidity of our government to allow them to come into our country, unchallenged, and impose sharia right here in America. Showing tolerance to an intolerant evil is national suicide, but we plod on. And we are going to dictate democracy to the middle east? Ha

"Democracy is more than just elections. It requires a free press, the rule of law, the freedom to organize, the establishment of independent political parties, and the peaceful transfer of power. Therefore, the transition to democracy and initial elections must allow time for these institutions, most notably political parties, to establish themselves."

Krauthammer is correct here, but he woefully underestimates the time needed for these things to establish themselves, especially in nations which have no tradition of democracy, and/or factions on the ground which are hostile to it. These things require a culture conducive to democracy, and, as John Crowe Ransom wisely observed, you can't pour culture in from the top. Neither does it spring up overnight like a fairy ring. We are talking years here, and not just two or three.

Despite the nation-builders' implications to the contrary, there is not a red, white and blue butterfly waiting to burst out of every drab foreign chyrsalis.

It has been expected for at least a hundred years that America must assume the task of leading the world towards universal democracy.

By whom? Our missions have not always been welcomed by the alleged beneficiaries, and the British empire was in full bloom during Kipling's time serving as savior to the "lesser races."

It does appear the quest to remake the world in our own image has been present from the beginning and given voice by insatiable revolutionists like Thomas Paine;
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation similar to the present hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of the new world is at hand,..." Yet, history also shows the American people traditionally have little appetite for empire and usually have to be manipulated or bamboozled into expansionist campaigns.

It is also impossible to disenetangle raw commercial interests and geopolitical calculations from the messianic ideology and July 4th rhetoric and determine which is the prime driver for our foreign policy. Is "Universal Democracy" the motive, or the mask for our actions?

kzndr,

Thanks for the correction -- you are right about the elections in Gaza in 2006 (they came complete with international observers). We shouldn't have let Hamas compete in the first place which is what the Oslo accords demanded -- any party openly calling for the destruction of the State of Israel was not supposed to be a part of normal democratic politics. As usual with the Palestinians, we demand one thing and then later let that demand slide. I'd argue that this behavior is part of the problem.

Rob G.,

I think your observation about time is an important one. You'll all find this dialogue on the topic of democratization interesting:

http://www.meforum.org/983/debate-democracy-is-about-more-than-elections

Krauthammer is correct here, but he woefully underestimates the time needed for these things to establish themselves, especially in nations which have no tradition of democracy, and/or factions on the ground which are hostile to it. These things require a culture conducive to democracy, and, as John Crowe Ransom wisely observed, you can't pour culture in from the top. Neither does it spring up overnight like a fairy ring. We are talking years here, and not just two or three.

Despite the nation-builders' implications to the contrary, there is not a red, white and blue butterfly waiting to burst out of every drab foreign chyrsalis.

Oh come on Rob, be fair here. Krauthammer is a wise man and I know he knows well what you claim he doesn't. You disagree with him on certain specific things, but you present him as stupid as an explanation for the disagreement. If you aren't willing to understand those you disagree with, do them the favor of not misrepresenting them as fools and knaves will you?

Like I said, the debate between the Realpolitik, idealism, and isolationism has been going on for a long time. As Steve said on another occasion, paraphrasing those you disagree with in a way that they'd accept is the minimum required for academic discussion. I'm not entering this debate unless someone in the "amen chorus" can display that they understand anything but their own isolationist and/or Realpolitic views. These "when did you stop beating your wife" type polemics are not a discussion of ideas, but a substitute for one.

As usual with the Palestinians, we demand one thing and then later let that demand slide. I'd argue that this behavior is part of the problem.

Well, yes, this sort of State-department style of behavior was firmly established in the years of Communism. We never really make anyone toe any line that we draw in the sand. In Iraq, we caved to international pressure (read: Russia and France) to replace true embargo with "oil for food", so that the Russians and French could sell them oil for weapons. We don't do "tough guy with integrity" all that well.

do them the favor of not misrepresenting them as fools and knaves will you?

True enough, Mark. Krauthammer is certainly an intelligent man. I have greatly appreciated some of his columns.

Krauthammer: "We need a foreign policy that not only supports freedom in the abstract but is guided by long-range practical principles to achieve it — a Freedom Doctrine composed of the following elements:

"The United States supports democracy throughout the Middle East.

In the light of our support of Mubarak, and direct support of the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and our former support of the King of Persian / Iran, what do you call someone who says "The United States supports democracy throughout the Middle East"? And, what do you call someone who simply assumes that we must support democracy when the question that needs to be asked is: DO we want to support democracy...always, or mostly, or at certain times, and how to tell the difference if this is not one of those times?

Maybe in the context of a short article, Krauthammer was taking a few shortcuts toward his focus. Maybe those shortcuts were tantamount to begging the whole question.

Is it RealPolitic to say that attempting to overtly and covertly apply pressure towards a specific sort of governmental form that WE like best may not, in the long run, be in our best interests?

DO we want to support democracy...always, or mostly, or at certain times, and how to tell the difference if this is not one of those times?

Well I guess it all depends on what you mean by not supporting democracy. Do you mean there are times we should actively undermine a nation or group's desire for democracy? Or do you see some sort of perfect neutrality that may be attained?

Maybe in the context of a short article, Krauthammer was taking a few shortcuts toward his focus. Maybe those shortcuts were tantamount to begging the whole question.

He is speaking in a long tradition, and I can assure you he isn't begging any questions.

Is it RealPolitic to say that attempting to overtly and covertly apply pressure towards a specific sort of governmental form that WE like best may not, in the long run, be in our best interests?

Of course not. Problem is, that you are assuming a neutrality that is likely not possible that isn't also immoral. Before we get started, let me ask you a question. If you had an aquaintance over whom, for some reason, you had influence who started beating his wife, would you be justified in NOT using your influence over him to persuade him not to do so by reasoning it wasn't in your interests to do so, as indeed it might not be?

"Oh come on Rob, be fair here. Krauthammer is a wise man and I know he knows well what you claim he doesn't. You disagree with him on certain specific things, but you present him as stupid as an explanation for the disagreement."

I have no problem with Krauthammer, generally speaking, and I certainly find much of his commentary both intelligent and on-target. I do, however, differ with those conservatives who believe that democracy can take root anywhere, even without a supportive culture, and that it's our job to broadcast the seed. I don't think they're stupid, just wrong. It seems to me that they overestimate the ability of democracy to self-propagate, and underestimate the necessity of cultural/societal preparation for it.

"If you aren't willing to understand those you disagree with, do them the favor of not misrepresenting them as fools and knaves will you?"

I'm not misrepresenting anyone, just generalizing, which always includes missing it on some specifics. So sue me.

I see the friend-foe scheme as complimentary to Nietzsche's good-bad division, as they both presuppose an historical realism and shy away from ahistorical absolutes (also known to some as liberalism).

I do, however, differ with those conservatives who believe that democracy can take root anywhere, even without a supportive culture, and that it's our job to broadcast the seed. I don't think they're stupid, just wrong. It seems to me that they overestimate the ability of democracy to self-propagate, and underestimate the necessity of cultural/societal preparation for it.

Krauthammer, and any other credible person who thinks likewise, is saying we should have a principled foreign policy? Do you disagree? If not, what principles do you propose we use?

The self-doubts about our own system of government are fine to a point, but in the real world promoting democratic principles means telling other governments you aren't going to get our best treatment by throwing dissenters in jail. Which, by the way, is exactly what the "realists" tell us we must ignore. That is the real crux of the matter. Don't be fooled that "promoting democracy" polemics as if it means sending in the marines or the CIA. It means diplomatic pressure not to oppress the populace. What gives us the right to do that? How can anyone not? This is nothing other than "loyalty to persons" writ large. This is why it was such a travesty that Arafat was feted at the White House in the Clinton years. A man that ordered the murder of so many, including one of our own diplomats. How can one not judge the behavior of governments and treat them accordingly. This is the shocking and wild-eyed idealism? Hardly.

No one is saying we must do any particular action. Egypt is complicated because Mubarak's relationship to the US started during the Cold War, and it was a necessary relationship at the time I think. But the principles that Krauthammer talks about, which are nothing other than the principles that Reagan believed in and applied as president, are simply that we treat more favorably governments that respect the natural rights of their citizens. If all these "benevolent dictator" polysci thought experiments were actually occurring realities we wouldn't use the term "democracy" at all, but they aren't. We're talking about governments that throw dissenters in jail and those that don't.

Look, in Egypt there may be something worse come out of this. And believing in democratic principles doesn't mean we were required to throw Mubarak under the bus. It all depends on the alternatives, and I think Obama has acted like a pure amatuer in all this. But a set of principles like Krauthammer is talking about would involve a conversations like this years ago:

"Look, it is in the US best interest right now that we support you in power because we think you're better than the other party or whatever for thus and such reasons. But our support has limits. If you don't allow freedoms to the extent that you can, eventually our interests are going to diverge. If your people start marching in the street for freedoms our citizens have, don't count on us not supporting them, because we will unless we happen to have a left-leaning dufus for president at the time. Don't let it come to that and we'll not have any problems."

The problem is that the "realists" don't believe morality should inform foreign policy. They even prefer to deal with brutal strongmen because it is easier than dealing with a representational government. Obama is clearly of that stripe, but he's bowing to pressure. He didn't support the Iranian protestors, and many die in prison in the most brutal ways. But for those who think that operating from democratic principles is wrong, the question is what principles should we use? And if the answer is "none," then that is an admission that a cynical foreign policy is the best one.

I'll go ahead and note the similarity of the skepticism of democratic principles between the left-liberalism and the right-leaning paleo-libertarians that comprise the "realist" school of foreign policy, even thought I'll probably get accused of calling someone a fascist. The shock-value decreases over time. :)

It seems to me that they overestimate the ability of democracy to self-propagate, and underestimate the necessity of cultural/societal preparation for it.

I realized I didn't state something explicitly that I hinted at earlier. Your disagreement Krauthammer is over the applicability of universal principles to cultural life. On this blog the contributors and commenters are overwhelming skeptical that universal principles have any bearing on human well-being. I differ, as Krauthammer would. I could be wrong, but I'd bet real money that if we posted a survey for W4 contributors and commenters on whether the Declaration's most famous statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

had been a positive contribution to Western society, that the majority would say "no" or "not sure." Or am I wrong?

"Your disagreement with Krauthammer is over the applicability of universal principles to cultural life."

How so?

"On this blog the contributors and commenters are overwhelming skeptical that universal principles have any bearing on human well-being."

Put the word 'abstract' in place of 'universal' and you might have a point.

We're talking about governments that throw dissenters in jail and those that don't.

Mark, what if you were convinced that every group, even those who would be elected, whom the people would truly want, would throw people in jail for reasons of conscience or execute apostates, etc.? What if sharia were instituted in a democratic process? What is there to say then? See, the thing is, there may _be_ no good side. And it may be that "the people" (really "the people"), in their majority, don't want what we in the West would recognize as the rule of law and freedom of conscience and religion. In that case promoting elections is not a good idea.

This is not just theoretical. In Turkey we have opposed the army's suppression of Islamist elements on the grounds that it is not "democratic." In Gaza we pressed for formally "democratic" elections that resulted in the election of Hamas. American foreign policy really has set up the form of democracy as an end in itself. Recommending that we stop doing so hardly seems like such a bad idea, nor is it a matter of recommending that we cheer and uphold nasty dictators. I'm not particularly a friend of the realists, and the paleos would (for reasons you will understand if you read my personal blog) call me a neocon. But I do recognize the problems with saying that democratic forms are good in themselves and should be spread and promoted for their own sake, even when we can foresee that it will be a case of "out of the frying pan, into the fire."

Mark -- I, personally, esteem the Declaration of Independence highly, so long as (a) we do not neglect those vital words "we hold these truths" and (b) we do not let that most famous sentence completely overawe the rest of the document.

Lydia, the context is whether Krauthammer was a nut to say we should advocate democratic principles in our foreign policy. As I said, nothing required us to throw Mubarak under the bus, and the Obama administration handled it like amatuers and have unsettled our allies. Always supporting democratic principles does not mean always doing any particular action.

Surely this is not surprising. Who claims that believing we should "always act morally" means we cannot consider the outcome of our actions such as in the classic lying to protect Jews in the basement? Do you think the statement "we should always act morally" is a bad idea to teach because it might drive some misguided persons to to things comparable to revealing the Jews hiding place? Surely not. BTW, considering consequences as *a* factor (the normal thing) doesn't make one a consequentialist. That is all Krauthammer is saying, and all I'm saying, and all Reagan believed.

Nothing in anything Krauthammer says or believes, or myself, that we must advocate elections in every case at every time. He doesn't and I don't. That said, there will be times where the outcome may well be poor and Islamic law may be voted in. But in the long run when people are forced to live under the effects they have chosen they tend to not do so. Results are uncontrollable. It isn't that democracy is the anecdote to everything, it is that the alternatives are often worse. I'm just agreeing with Mr K that *in general* we should adopt democratic principles in our foreign policy. That was the Reagan revolution in foreign policy.

I know what happened in Gaza. They went from one bad option to the next, not from a good governance to a bad one. The folks that claim this is somehow shocking aren't the idealists? When is the next election going to happen? If they are't continuous does it even count? And what does "stop doing so [advance democratic principles]" mean? How does that work? As I've said, case-by-case is wise but that only works within certain principles. From what you are saying I can only detect and anti-policy, but that isn't good enough when you're president. There have to be some principles to advance. That is why we swing back and forth between a Reagan/Bush foreign policy to a "realist" one of pure power politics where we fete dictators in the White House (and shunt the Dalai Lama out the back door if our dictators demand it) and who gives a darn how many die in their jails?

Mark -- I, personally, esteem the Declaration of Independence highly, so long as (a) we do not neglect those vital words "we hold these truths" and (b) we do not let that most famous sentence completely overawe the rest of the document.

Paul, I was excepting you. You may be the editor, but you are in a different demographic than the rest. I suspect you'll be the only one of the regulars willing to affirm this.

And what does "stop doing so [advance democratic principles]" mean? How does that work?

Condoleeza Rice strongly supported and called for the very elections in Gaza that put Hamas in power. USAID even helped to craft Fatah's campaign, believing this would insure the result they wanted. The rest is history. Mark, you act like I have nothing concrete in mind. I do. How about we stop doing stuff like _that_?

Mark,

As I said upthread, I think we should have pushed for liberal democratic institutions in Gaza before the elections or concurrent with the elections. As Lydia pointed out, it was kind of crazy to just assume that with support Fatah would win that election and/or Hamas was going to play by the rules once in power. If Hamas wasn't going to agree to certain rules of the game (i.e. live in peace with their neighbor that just gave them control of their territory) then they shouldn't have been allowed to play. Period.

By the way, I just want to add my vote to the positive column for the Declaration.

As far as the statement in D of I goes, I believe it has been a positive contribution to Western society, generally speaking. However the words should not be considered in isolation, and care must be exercised in their interpretation and application.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unalienable: "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away."

Obviously we are talking hyperbole here, as Jefferson along with all the founding fathers found reasons for government to take away the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness of citizens who transgressed certain norms. The same can be said of "all men are created equal". The value of this sentiment lies in its rhetorical power and the implied injustice of legal and political disadvantages due to one's birth. Would that most Americans understood the document in its context rather than as a call to worldwide democratic revolution.

Mark, you act like I have nothing concrete in mind. I do. How about we stop doing stuff like _that_?

Sorry, Lydia. I meant no offense. I really don't know what you mean since thought I acknowledged your concrete examples as valid, but then I don't really have time reread or really be commenting at all right now. I think I'll just drop out of the commenting business rather than to be perceived as edgy or some such.

Jeff, I read a really interesting article once in First Things that argued that the phrase "inalienable rights" meant that one could not, as an otherwise innocent person, give or sell those rights away from oneself. So, for example, you couldn't rightfully sell yourself into slavery or sell your life to someone else (because he'd pay money to kill you which would go to your hungry family). The rights couldn't be separated from the person. They were not property rights. An interesting perspective, and enlightening, if correct.

Apparently, it's not just us neo-cons that welcome the change in Egypt:

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=9262

Does Islam hold that all men are created equal? If not, isn't universal democracy in an Islamic country impossible? If so, why have their been no historical examples of democracy in an Islamic country? It is hubris to ignore history.

The Chicken

Obviously we are talking hyperbole here, as Jefferson along with all the founding fathers found reasons for government to take away the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness of citizens who transgressed certain norms. The same can be said of "all men are created equal". The value of this sentiment lies in its rhetorical power and the implied injustice of legal and political disadvantages due to one's birth. Would that most Americans understood the document in its context rather than as a call to worldwide democratic revolution.

Okay, personal time crisis over. This argument is of identical form to the one we all know that the liberals use alleging a racist core to the nation, rather than that racism was accommodated to the minimum extent possible at the time with the expectation that it would lose force and go extinct. Instead it grew and metasticized and led to the Civil War.

I'd love to have this discussion in another thread, and all I can say is those who can see the problem with this old argument should have a ready answer to these allegations. They are readily available and well-known.

By the way, I just want to add my vote to the positive column for the Declaration.

Jeff, I knew you'd be an exception too. :)

As I said upthread, I think we should have pushed for liberal democratic institutions in Gaza before the elections or concurrent with the elections. As Lydia pointed out, it was kind of crazy to just assume that with support Fatah would win that election and/or Hamas was going to play by the rules once in power. If Hamas wasn't going to agree to certain rules of the game (i.e. live in peace with their neighbor that just gave them control of their territory) then they shouldn't have been allowed to play. Period.

Jeff, I agree completely with your assessment. I have no idea why Lydia thinks I or Krauthammer thinks otherwise. I've followed events in the ME since I was in fifth grade. Here is Krauthammer on what happened on the first day of Israeli pullout. The idea that Krauthammer is naive on what would happen in Gaza is hilarious. The idea that promoting democratic principles generally --all Krauthammer argued for--means supporting an election at any time, for any reason, is just bizarre.

Does Islam hold that all men are created equal? If not, isn't universal democracy in an Islamic country impossible? If so, why have their been no historical examples of democracy in an Islamic country? It is hubris to ignore history.

Not if you separate politics from religion, which of course is the rub with Islamicists. Where you don't separate them and require persons to conform forcibly to what they don't approve you have totalitarianism.

If Hamas wasn't going to agree to certain rules of the game (i.e. live in peace with their neighbor that just gave them control of their territory) then they shouldn't have been allowed to play. Period.

Like everything in the Middle East, it is complicated. Fatah is far too corrupt and fractured to be an effective political opponent of Hamas, but I will agree with the holding them to the Oslo accords and liberal democratic institutions as a basic foreign policy goal. In the meantime, US supported military actions against a democratically elected group, even a loathsome one like Hamas, doesn't do our freedom rhetoric any favors.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?currentPage=all

Mark, what if you were convinced that every group, even those who would be elected, whom the people would truly want, would throw people in jail for reasons of conscience or execute apostates, etc.? What if sharia were instituted in a democratic process?

Do you have any examples of sharia being voted in democratically, or even any threat of it? No. Why? Because people "vote" for sharia for others, not for themselves. You can whip a population into a frenzy over many things, but when they'll have to live with what they vote for it is another matter. Elections, and free and fair elections are two very different thing. Rigged elections are the bane of the ME.

Here is the rub with these paleo-libertarians views. The doubt about principles in the Declaration hides a historicism -- a relativism. The story goes like this. Some free people would just choose sharia, while others would choose some form of democracy. Some people just don't appreciate freedom you see. To each his own. But it isn't true. People don't freely choose sharia in free national elections, and they won't. Sharia and other such totalitarian things are put upon them by oppressive regimes, whose leaders don't even subject themselves to it. There are such things as universal aspirations in human beings.

The parallel is that in the middle decades the academics thought Communism was a valid alternative to democracy. It isn't and never was. It was a military threat, but never a serious ideological challenge, no matter how much the academics were hoodwinked. It was a totalitarian scheme that no one would vote for if given a chance on any scale. The same is true with the struggle against Islamicism. It is about totalitarianism. The Isamicists are deadly, and it is a serious struggle, but the struggle is within the West. Whether or not there are universal principles, and whether America was corrupt from the beginning. As Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out, radical Islam is a political movement that needs and requires western guilt.

Now China is anther story. We may be seeing the only case of a mature fascist state in history. In any case, it is a highly unique situation and unprecedented circumstances. How that will play out is a real wildcard. With the Islamicist threat the only wildcard is if we really have confidence in the principles we use to govern ourselves. For many even here, the answer is no.

Not if you separate politics from religion, which of course is the rub with Islamicists.

It should also be the rub with Christians. The only way to separate politics from religion is to separate men from their religion. That's been tried, and that also gets us totalitarianism. The problem isn't the influence of religion on the state in general, it's the influence of the wrong religion on the state in particular.

Like everything in the Middle East, it is complicated. Fatah is far too corrupt and fractured to be an effective political opponent of Hamas, but I will agree with the holding them to the Oslo accords and liberal democratic institutions as a basic foreign policy goal. In the meantime, US supported military actions against a democratically elected group, even a loathsome one like Hamas, doesn't do our freedom rhetoric any favors.

I don't disagree, but it should never have come to this. Israel rescued Fatah from destruction to be politically correct in the 80's, and since then western money has poured into that regime by the billions from Europe and America. How anything good could come out of that mess even without the anti-Semitic hatred is beyond me.

Do you have any examples of sharia being voted in democratically, or even any threat of it?

Um, yes. Egypt right now (threat thereof). Gaza already. Iraq. Serious Muslims believe in sharia. You've perhaps read the poll results about the Egyptian people and what they believe in?

Mark, I will criticize the relativism of the paleolibertarians until the cows come home. I think part of the problem is that you've never dealt with anybody like me before. I'm sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I think it's true. You answer a comment from _me_ and then go into a spiel about the relativism of paleo-libertarianism. No kidding. I knew about that a long time ago and have criticized it. You have no idea of all the ways in which I dislike and disagree with the paleos for those _very reasons_. But it doesn't follow that I think that *as a matter of fact* Muslims will choose "freedom," etc., etc., if left to themselves to engage in "free elections." Do I think that it's good, or no big deal, or nothing for me to comment on, or a relative matter, or whatever, if Turkey (for example) becomes more Islamist as it becomes more populist? No. I think it's a *very bad thing*. I have no truck with the quasi-relativism that says, "To each his own." I recognize _facts_--namely, that some large groups of people, in their majorities, want bad things inconsistent with what I would call freedom, particularly good freedoms for the individual. That can be a _fact_ even if it's a _really bad fact_.

Mark, here's something you have to realize: It really is not a logical truth that if a polity is bad, shocking, and unfree, it cannot be chosen by a majority of voting adults in a country.

It should also be the rub with Christians. The only way to separate politics from religion is to separate men from their religion. That's been tried, and that also gets us totalitarianism. The problem isn't the influence of religion on the state in general, it's the influence of the wrong religion on the state in particular.

The separation is a distinction. Nothing in any way absolute. There is a degree of infusion, and should be. But they can be distinguished. If not distinguished theologically (theoreticallly), you don't even have a religion, since any legitimate religion implies a high degree of freedom.

If not distinguished theologically (theoreticallly), you don't even have a religion, since any legitimate religion implies a high degree of freedom.

Hmmm, I don't know about that. Christianity obviously distinguishes the roles of Church and State and recognizes their different spheres of responsibility. Can the same be said of Islam? Does Islam even understand these categories in the same way?

Or are you saying that Islam is not a "legitimate religion"?

Some religions allow for high degrees of freedom, others very little. Freedom is a fine thing, but it's not the barometer of "legitimate religion". Where do you get this stuff?

Mark,

I like a lot of what you say here in the comments, but to come to Lydia's defense for a moment, I do think she makes a perfectly valid point that those of us who want to promote democracy and freedom around the world have to come to terms with: namely the fact that some folks might not want Western-style democracy/freedom. To bolster Lydia's case that folks in Islamic countries might prefer sharia to say a Bill of Rights, read this and shudder:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259844/bangladesh-today-egypt-tomorrow-andrew-c-mccarthy

As far as I know Bangladesh is a democratic country that has an elected parliament and a Constitution (and they definitely aren't Arabs!) Diana West has also talked about whether or not Egyptian attitudes will be compatible with what we consider to be freedom:

Many on the right have seen in the anti-Mubarak movement vindication of George W. Bush's Big Idea -- that ballot-box democracy would transform the umma into Jeffersonian, or, at least, pro-Western and anti-jihad republics. That this hasn't happened anywhere (and in spades) doesn't dampen their enthusiasm. In fact, citing Bush to bolster pro-"opposition" commentary is in vogue. Writing in the Washington Post, Elliott Abrams quotes Bush, circa 2003, as saying: "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? ... Are they alone never to know freedom ...?" Jay Nordlinger at National Review quotes Bush, circa 2008, as saying: "The truth is that freedom is a universal right -- the Almighty's gift to every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth."

Such is "universalist" gospel. Universalists believe all peoples prefer freedom to its absence, which is probably true. But they also believe all peoples define "freedom" in the same way. Is that true?

The answer -- and first concept -- is no. The entry on freedom, or hurriyya, in the "Encyclopedia of Islam" describes a state of divine enthrallment that bears no resemblance to any Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the individual conscience. According to the encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is "the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and His human slaves who are completely dependent on Him." Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as "being perfect slavery" to Allah. To put it another way, Islamic-style "freedom" is freedom from unbelief.

Suddenly, something seems very lost in Bush-speak translation. It has been from the start, which helps explain what's gone wrong in U.S. wars in the umma. Bringing Western-style "freedom" to the Islamic world may have resembled an idealistic extension of the civil rights crusade in the eyes of President Bush and his followers, but it was actually one big cultural misunderstanding.

So there are definite hurdles to overcome! On the other hand, I did think it was interesting that the Coptic Bishop released the statement I linked to earlier and there are liberal elements in Egyptian society -- the question is whether they can win the day and not get coopted like the liberals did back in '79 in Iran.

Or are you saying that Islam is not a "legitimate religion"?

To the extent that a particular sect or understanding does not distinguish between religion and politics, I would say that politics has swallowed it and you are not longer dealing with a religion.

Some religions allow for high degrees of freedom, others very little. Freedom is a fine thing, but it's not the barometer of "legitimate religion". Where do you get this stuff?

Didn't you say upthread that you don't think there is a legitimate or healthy way to separate politics from religion? Where did you get that? By "separate" I only mean to distinguish, not any sort of "separation of church and state" ideology.

BTW, how do you read Luke 20:25?

Um, yes. Egypt right now (threat thereof). Gaza already. Iraq. Serious Muslims believe in sharia. You've perhaps read the poll results about the Egyptian people and what they believe in?

For the 100th time, Gaza was a catastrophe culturally and politically and the elections there were fairly meaningless. Before significant events a good number of Palestinians are rounded up and shot so great is the leaders faith in how people will vote.

We are using the term "sharia" equivocally. In Iran sharia was the law before 1979, but women wore Western clothes, low neck dresses at weddings, and voted! And it was liberalizing even from there. When the mullahs came to power they instituted a harsh and oppressive form that the population hates, and it could only be done by coercion by armed secret police and large prisons. Did anyone care that Iran had sharia in its weak and liberalizing form before 79? No. It matters with the rise of radical Islam and its virulence and its radical use of sharia.

I recognize _facts_--namely, that some large groups of people, in their majorities, want bad things inconsistent with what I would call freedom, particularly good freedoms for the individual. That can be a _fact_ even if it's a _really bad fact_.

There are struggles between good and evil persons (and everything in between) in every nation. In oppressive states you have the strongest group impose its will on the rest, and those who want to live tow the line to stay alive. Look, the Muslim Brotherhood was the outcome of political agitation by German intelligence services before and during WWI as an anti-British tool by exposure to a mix of liberalism, nationalism, and jihadism. The MB and the Baath party was spawned by the Axis.

I think radical Islam is a political creature with some religion thrown in, but draconian sharia implementations are simply not popular to live under. Do Iranians want sharia? No. People voting for sharia uncoerced is not the same as towing the line for fear of being shot. Sharia in any sort of harsh form can't be instituted except by oppression. If Iraq wants to go down the road of the shia law that Iran has they can do it, but they'll have to do it by arming the state police to do it and throw people in jail if they don't. Are they doing that?

Mark, here's something you have to realize: It really is not a logical truth that if a polity is bad, shocking, and unfree, it cannot be chosen by a majority of voting adults in a country.

Logical truth? Of course not. And I didn't say populations couldn't vote poorly and do bad things. What I've said is that free people do not vote for severe laws that *affect themselves* and their families adversely. Coercion of majorities my minorities is done by tyrants with violence. That is quite a different thing than what you are attributing to me.

I like a lot of what you say here in the comments, but to come to Lydia's defense for a moment, I do think she makes a perfectly valid point that those of us who want to promote democracy and freedom around the world have to come to terms with: namely the fact that some folks might not want Western-style democracy/freedom. To bolster Lydia's case that folks in Islamic countries might prefer sharia to say a Bill of Rights, read this and shudder:

Jeff S: The issue isn't whether "some folks" want sharia law, but whether it is a popular movement that people would freely accept for themselves. Obviously, some folks want it --for others at least.

Diane West's article comparing the "state of divine enthrallment" with Western concepts of freedom seem misguided. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Islam's state of divine enthrallment with St. Theresa of Avila's view on that? Well no because she doesn't seem to distinguish between political ideology and religion. How is that helpful to defeating radical Islam, which so conflates them as well?

Sharia in any sort of harsh form can't be instituted except by oppression.

Fail. Perhaps you should ask the inhabitants of Dearborn if this is true. Maybe you should ask the Acts 17 missionaries who were arrested at their instigation. By the way, death for apostasy _is part of_ sharia. So is the prohibition of all Christian witness and missions (which our military is promoting in Afghanistan now, by the way). I kind of regard those things as "harsh," but they aren't going to affect the majority in a majority-Muslim country, now are they? Those are just a couple of examples.

And regarding all the lessons supposedly we're supposed to learn about Gazan elections, the main actor in the Gazan drama is Iran. The Iranians autocrats are willing to fight to the last Palestinian, and even fund the rocket launchers to be placed in civilian areas.

There is nothing about Gaza that is normal. Anyone who thinks any sort of straightforward lessons about democracy can be learned without understanding some basic facts about Gaza doesn't know anything about Gaza. Here is a decent article on the political situation in Gaza.

Sadly, many do not even know about Iran's evil role in Gaza.

Academic analysis has been virtually non-existent. It should therefore come as no surprise that Iran’s significant role in exacerbating the conflict is all but unknown.

Fail. Perhaps you should ask the inhabitants of Dearborn if this is true. Maybe you should ask the Acts 17 missionaries who were arrested at their instigation. By the way, death for apostasy _is part of_ sharia. So is the prohibition of all Christian witness and missions (which our military is promoting in Afghanistan now, by the way). I kind of regard those things as "harsh," but they aren't going to affect the majority in a majority-Muslim country, now are they? Those are just a couple of examples.

If you think it doesn't affect the majority, let alone whether it was done by popular vote, what does that have to do with our discussion of what people would choose for themselves in a free and fair election?

What it has to do with it is that the majority might well choose it by popular vote, but it isn't the creation of a free country/state/polis.

What it has to do with it is that the majority might well choose it by popular vote, but it isn't the creation of a free country/state/polis.

Then what is the disagreement with me over the emphasizing that a radical sharia can only be had on any scale by force or violence or its threat, or at least deception combined with force for its continuance? Didn't you just admit as much?

What is the problem with recognizing that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamicist groups are an allied political movement? Or noting that what has happened in Gaza and Turkey in the last decade say more about the common political AXIS among Turkey, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria than anything meaningful about democracy?

Didn't you just admit as much?

No. Can't imagine why you would think that I had. If the majority happily and gleefully votes to oppress the minority (for example), they may well need no force, violence, or threat thereof to induce them to do so.

Mark,

I think what you say about sharia and coercion is interesting, although given what our own founders said about the "tyranny of the majority" I think what we are both ultimately talking about is not democracy but some sort of protection for individual rights. Given the demographic reality of Egypt or any Muslim majority country, passing a law that requires death for apostates (which is what sharia requires according to mainstream Islamic thought) would easily have majority support and if I'm not mistaken, such laws do exist on the books in diverse Islamic countries (e.g. Malaysia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) And where the laws don't exist, often the population isn't happy with apostates and takes the law into their own hands:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/059fpgrn.asp

Let me just say I love the fact that you have found your way over to W4 -- it is a delight to have someone else around here linking to Commentary magazine around here!

The separation is a distinction. Nothing in any way absolute. There is a degree of infusion, and should be. But they can be distinguished. If not distinguished theologically (theoreticallly), you don't even have a religion, since any legitimate religion implies a high degree of freedom.

I am not sure that is valid in principle: After the second coming of Christ, I suspect that religion and politics will be smooshed together to a degree that Muslims cannot imagine. But that's OK, because Christ the King is also the High Priest, and he knows everything anyway. And that state of affairs will certainly entail a great deal of freedom.

Before the parousia, politics and religion need to be distinct because men are not free from original sin, and they must have rule with respect to the temporal order in a way that can be assented to by those who are unable to perceive proper rule with respect to the eternal order. If we all automatically saw exactly how an action bears on the eternal good as well as on the temporal good, we would not need to keep politics distinct from religion.

In the meantime, there are Muslims who believe that there is no such thing as a "state" as a true political entity because they don't believe in any kind of delegated authority by which God permits men to participate in His authority. For these, theocracy is the only proper mode of rule, because it "correctly" puts God as master and humans as slaves. I have yet to hear how a Muslim believes that God, without man playing any kind of instrumental role, picks out and elevates the Caliph to being ruler of that theocracy. Not to mention how there come to be so many different caliphs around.

I think what you say about sharia and coercion is interesting, although given what our own founders said about the "tyranny of the majority" I think what we are both ultimately talking about is not democracy but some sort of protection for individual rights.

I have nothing invested in the term "democracy," and I think often the term does get in the way of discussion. That is why I tend to refer to "democratic principles" rather than "democracy". Democratic principles are far more specific and identifiable.

Given the demographic reality of Egypt or any Muslim majority country, passing a law that requires death for apostates (which is what sharia requires according to mainstream Islamic thought) would easily have majority support and if I'm not mistaken, such laws do exist on the books in diverse Islamic countries (e.g. Malaysia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) And where the laws don't exist, often the population isn't happy with apostates and takes the law into their own hands:

Here is what the article you linked says:
Abdul Rahman's plight is merely the tip of the iceberg. Like the violence over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, or the Ayatollah Khomeini's demand that Salman Rushdie be killed for blasphemy, it reveals a systematic, worldwide attempt by Islamists to imprison, kill, or otherwise silence anyone who challenges their ideology. . . . They seek to place dominant, reactionary interpretations of Islam beyond all criticism. Thus--since politics and religion are intertwined--they seek to make political freedom impossible.

This is exactly right, and exactly my view. We are talking about a political totalitarian movement that uses religion as a tool. I am not defending Islam in any way. What I am saying is that the movers and shakers of the Islamicist movement are cynical. The 9/11 hijackers went to strip bars before attacking NY for its immorality! I'm simply saying that the radical Islamicists are best seen as primarily political enemies that use religion to that ends, rather than sincere religious believers, however misguided. Why does this matter? It matters in how we see the struggle. As I said, what is wrong with noting that what has happened in Gaza and Turkey in the last decade say more about the common political AXIS among Turkey, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria than anything meaningful about democracy? Surely something is wrong with making arguments about democratic principles from the most brutal and oppressive tyrannies in the world.

Notice how the discussion here is always framed in terms of the U. S. Isn't that interesting? I think it is very clear we all detest radical Islam and regard it as dangerous. I don't think there is any light between us on that. But the strongest disagreements always revolve around these things:

-Are our Western ideas about the distinctions between religion and government valid? I don't think you even have a religion if you have one that intentionally won't allow a distinction to be made in practice, however much they must overlap. In that case you have a political movement. If so, what difference does it make if radical Islamists don't agree that there is a distinction? All that matters if whether or not they are totalitarian in ideology, and if so an anti-totalitarian solution is required.

-Are the most basic ideas our Founders believed in true? Namely, that certain principles are universally true? In other words, do some things have universal applicability and appeal or not? Or would some free people simply vote for sharia on a provincial or national scale? I say no, and we don't have any examples of this yet.

-Has the U. S., the prime exemplar of the democratic ideal, been corrupted by the very democratic principles contained in the Declaration?

As for as the examples you gave . . . is there evidence of "easy majority support" in the examples you cited? Because we are free to answer polls as we wish and say what we think doesn't mean we can project this autonomy onto those that don't have this freedom. How far can you speculate about the desires of populations that can't freely express their desires? For one example, Iranian law has zero to do with public opinion. Zero. Zip. Nada. I don't know of any credible source on Iran who disputes this. They hate sharia with a special passion. When the Mullahs lose power you will see Burkas burnt in the streets, just as when the Taliban was overthrown in Afghanistan the men all shaved their beards. Even in weddings now women wear totally Western garb. You'd think it was NY or LA. Slinky and revealing party dresses, but they put on covering to go outside if they think it necessary. I know this because I know some Iranians well and have first hand evidence, including videos. For that matter, the Mullahs have entirely discredited Islam entirely in the eyes of the Iranian people. It is widely regarded as a majority secular population.

Or there is Indonesia. In Aceh province, in a lame duck session, legislators before departing shocked everyone by passing a draconian Sharia law, and it is highly controversial. And this is just one province. Will it be put up for referendum? I doubt it. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't by popular vote, or desire.

Let me just say I love the fact that you have found your way over to W4 -- it is a delight to have someone else around here linking to Commentary magazine around here!

You're too kind. I love your respectful tone and the way we can disagree in such a civil manner. I hope to emulate your tone. It isn't about being right, after all. It is about understanding, and we do that by arguing.

No. Can't imagine why you would think that I had. If the majority happily and gleefully votes to oppress the minority (for example), they may well need no force, violence, or threat thereof to induce them to do so.

There are some assumptions baked into your example. It all depends on the system of government doesn't it? In a nation governed by democratic principles, it is understood that all are subject to the law. That isn't even close to the norm in the nations in question, and that is the point.

If a majority imposes something on a minority that the majority has no intention of following, then saying that no force is needed isn't true, because massive force is required to put that state of affairs into being in the first place. So this is not a counterexample. I simply said that people don't freely vote for sharia that intend to live under it, and your scenario is not a counterexample, but rather seems to affirm this.

Wow. I have never heard of this guy, or read this article until a few minutes ago (I just went as always on Friday nights to the WS website see the latest print edition stuff) but this Algerian author is making an identical argument to the one I'd developed for the first time in the course of this thread (I've never argued in this context before.) Amazing. Here is a quote.

". . . Above all, they have to stop carrying out the debate with the Islamists in religious terms . . . The second level concerns the battle that the West has to fight against Islamism. One needs to put an end to the concessions, the doublespeak, the realpolitik. Western governments have to stop flattering the Islamists (in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for instance) and should stand up for their own values, which are the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One example: when Mahmoud Abbas says that as soon as Palestine is independent it will not accept that there is a single Israeli on its territory, one has to take note of this and stop dealing with him. There could hardly be a greater expression of hatred."

"The world needs clarity and it needs people with the courage of their convictions. Tactical choices should never be allowed to diminish the clarity of one’s fundamental ideas."

And if you think he's naive about what might happen, you need to read the full article. This is exactly the same calculation that Krauthammer makes, as do I. You can't eliminate the possibility of a worse case scenario, but thinking you can manage outcomes indefinitely only increases the likelihood of such a scenario.

If a majority imposes something on a minority that the majority has no intention of following

Mark, what in the world does this mean in the context of laws against apostasy or Christian witness? "Has no intention of following." What? The Muslims have no intention of ceasing to be Muslim (or of attempting to lead people to Jesus Christ). So of course they intend to follow the laws against these things, and they want people punished who don't, including executed, as is about to happen to Said Musa in Afghanistan. They don't want the opportunity to convert for themselves, and they want it blocked for others. What's hard about understanding this?

massive force is required to put that state of affairs into being in the first place.

Really? No, not really. You would require _no_ massive force to get the inhabitants of Dearborn to vote for sharia.

I'm afraid your categories are just too rigid and narrow. You think of sharia as "bad for people" and then assume as if it were a necessary truth that people won't vote for something for themselves that is "bad for them." There are all _kinds_ of problems with this assumption.

If a majority imposes something on a minority that the majority has no intention of following . . .

Mark, what in the world does this mean in the context of laws against apostasy or Christian witness? "Has no intention of following." What? The Muslims have no intention of ceasing to be Muslim (or of attempting to lead people to Jesus Christ). So of course they intend to follow the laws against these things, and they want people punished who don't, including executed, as is about to happen to Said Musa in Afghanistan. They don't want the opportunity to convert for themselves, and they want it blocked for others. What's hard about understanding this?

Why do you keep insisting, or at least implying or assuming, that there is no difference between a minority trying to impose its will on a majority and a majorities expressed wish? Until you decide to answer this question, we are at an impasse and the far more interesting political questions will have to be addressed to others. I am at least as informed as you are on the politics of the region, and follow it avidly and have for many, many years. I am aware of all the cases you cite. But the rub is that you treat radical Islam as a grass roots phenomenon freely chosen and it simply isn't. I think radical Islam is a totalitarian political movement, as do many others. I may be wrong, but repeating to me all the injustices of the world that I already know doesn't change the fact that that is our disagreement, you are not and seem unwilling to acknowledge this simple fact, let alone argue against it. Until you are wiling to do this we're at an impasse. To throw your words back ... "What is hard about understanding this?" and could it be that "your categories are just too rigid and narrow"?

Really? No, not really. You would require _no_ massive force to get the inhabitants of Dearborn to vote for sharia.

I wasn't talking about Dearborn, and I assumed you weren't either since Dearborn isn't majority Muslim. As I said, I don't understand why you insist that a minority imposing its will on a majority is the same as a majority decision. What happened in Dearborn was a travesty of justice by a liberal police chief and mayor at the behest of agitation of local Muslims, and such a large Muslim population is itself a calamity. The easy acquittal was evidence of the injustice, though small consolation for being dragged through the courts like that, which is itself a massive threat and inhibitor as they well know. But none of this has anything to do with my quite modest political argument repeatedly stated, right or wrong.

So why you have such a hostility to the abstract idea that radical Islam is a totalitarian movement, when I agree with you about the danger of radical Islam entirely? There is no case of Islamic influence you can point to that I'd say "Hey what's wrong with that?" No, my attitude would be "amen brother, preach it!" I think it is fair to say I hate all of it as badly as you. So if our disagreement isn't about the evil of radical Islam, what do you think our disagreement is really about?

Our disagreement is about whether Muslim majorities would choose sharia. I say they would. You say they wouldn't. That's pretty clear. And I've made it clear again and again that they "have an intention of following" laws against apostasy. They don't intend to apostasize! Said Musa could not even get a lawyer to defend him. The majority populace of Afghanistan appears fully to support his death. They were not forced to decide or to believe that he should die for converting to Christianity. And as far as they can tell, it's no skin off their nose. If the majority support it, it's just confusing to call it "totalitarian." It's "totalitarian" in relation to _him_, the individual harmed, but it is not totalitarian in relation to the majority of the people in the country. It's not as though I'm being unclear.

There are, of course, other disagreements between us, such as for example the fact that I believe there are many women in Muslim countries who would actually vote, freely (in the sense of uncoerced), for a system that would harm themselves and their daughters. Call it "false consciousness" or what-have-you, but I believe it is a reality. There are even cases of women going behind their _husbands'_ backs to have their daughters genitally mutilated in Muslim countries. This is difficult for a Westerner to understand, but it is a reality in the world nonetheless. Plenty of people _do_ support systems that harm themselves and their children directly. About the best shot I can make at giving a name to this phenomenon is to call it "cultural immersion in a deviant culture," but it's a real phenomenon whatever one calls it. You seem to believe that no such thing ever happens, because people will always choose what is really best for themselves. So that is another disagreement, even though I have not mentioned women before in this discussion.

Our disagreement is about whether Muslim majorities would choose sharia. I say they would. You say they wouldn't. That's pretty clear.

Yes.

And I've made it clear again and again that they "have an intention of following" laws against apostasy. They don't intend to apostasize! Said Musa could not even get a lawyer to defend him. The majority populace of Afghanistan appears fully to support his death. They were not forced to decide or to believe that he should die for converting to Christianity. And as far as they can tell, it's no skin off their nose. If the majority support it, it's just confusing to call it "totalitarian." It's "totalitarian" in relation to _him_, the individual harmed, but it is not totalitarian in relation to the majority of the people in the country. It's not as though I'm being unclear.

Well, neither have I been unclear in saying in response to others that it is not a legitimate move to project the freedom that you have onto a people that don't it. It is unwarranted. You say Said Musa "could not even get a lawyer to defend him." Now isn't that strange? Not a single person? That doesn't strike you as odd to assume that this means there was no coercion? It is reasonable to think that not one person willing to represent him implies unanimity? Of course not. Not one? If that isn't evidence that anyone that wanted to represent him thought they'd be killed if they did, then I don't know what is. When is there unanimity on such things? This is entirely unlike human nature. There is no willful unanimity on anything! To imply a wilfull unanimity is begging the question par excellence.

If the American Colonies didn't fully embrace the rule of law and the other democratic principles that they did, do you think John Adams would have represented the British soldiers who fired the shots at the Boston Massacre? _Not_a_chance_ if he'd known he'd be killed. Would you? No. Would I? No. It is desperately sad that our government hasn't the confidence in our system of government to state any principles of our being there, or now that they haven't even the softest of the softball politics required to free this man. But this proves your case that the majority wills this? Not a chance.

There are, of course, other disagreements between us, such as for example the fact that I believe there are many women in Muslim countries who would actually vote, freely (in the sense of uncoerced), for a system that would harm themselves and their daughters. Call it "false consciousness" or what-have-you, but I believe it is a reality. There are even cases of women going behind their _husbands'_ backs to have their daughters genitally mutilated in Muslim countries. This is difficult for a Westerner to understand, but it is a reality in the world nonetheless. Plenty of people _do_ support systems that harm themselves and their children directly. About the best shot I can make at giving a name to this phenomenon is to call it "cultural immersion in a deviant culture," but it's a real phenomenon whatever one calls it. You seem to believe that no such thing ever happens, because people will always choose what is really best for themselves. So that is another disagreement, even though I have not mentioned women before in this discussion.

This is not an accurate characterization of my position. Not at all. I know very well that women have their daughters mutilated, and that fathers perpetrate honor killings. You think I don't. Amazing. I agree 100% with what I understand of the expression "cultural immersion in a deviant culture." I would have expressed it just this way myself. But my account of it is that coercion plays a decisive role in all of this. If someone provided a safe haven for children and/or mothers who disagree with this practice to escape and live their lives without this mutilation, it would collapse. You are mistaken in supposing that "cultural immersion in a deviant culture" implies willfulness in the same sense it would for you if you sought mutilation of your children because of the fact that in our culture for you to do that to your children certainly would imply willfulness. How can you assume that because women find the best way to stay alive and have a life is to go along with what is backed by coercion and violence implies wilfulness of the sort normally meant by people like us? How is choosing the lesser of two evils that happen to be child mutilation when the alternative is worse wilfullness? On this understanding, wouldn't we say Rommel desired to commit suicide since his family would be killed if he didn't? Who ever said or thinks that? What about a ten year old boy who "chooses" to beat his own mother to death by murderous soldiers because of a fear of violent death?

As I said earlier, how far can we speculate about the desires of populations that can't freely express their desires? We're both speculating to a degree, but surely the burden is on you to give examples of free people voting for these horribly destructive practices. But your examples won't hold up. The example of Gaza has been thrown out. Really? Iran by someone else. Really?

Like I said, reasonable people can disagree on whether radical Islam is a totalitarian movement. But that isn't what is happening with us. You are attributing to me what you think I have to think on the assumption that your understanding that radical Islam isn't politically coercive. But this doesn't follow at all.

Plenty of people _do_ support systems that harm themselves and their children directly.

Well of course they do, black liberals do it every time they visit a polling place.

Of course there is a perfectly valid sense in which extreme Islam is a totalitarian movement. But there is also a (weird, oddball) sense in which Christianity is a totalitarian movement, at least as some liberals suggest: any movement that claims something that is universally true about human nature, and has ramifications on what is universally acceptable for humans to do or not do, is ipso fatso a "total" standard bearer. It does not admit of someone saying "hey, you go your way, and I'll go mine, and we'll just not interact". A good Christian cannot say of someone who wants to murder babies "just go your way, leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone." Christianity involves claims of truth that apply to all humans, and some of them can be enforced on all humans whether they agree with the claims or not. Secular liberals call this a totalitarian thought-regime.

But that is not something that is distinct to religions, of course. Even purely secular governments do this, much as they would like to say they don't. Any system of government does it. So if we want to use totalitarian movement to mean something useful, we need to distinguish what it means. And I am afraid that it will be difficult to state that meaning in such a way that extremist Islamicism will be found to be essentially a totalitarian political movement, rather than a totalitarian religious movement that has political expression. Not that I think any form of Islam is a true religious movement, as in being truly religious in its origin. But that can be said of many other false religions that are still called religions.

I want to start using "ipso fatso" as a new double entendre. It is a wide, colossal standard that carries more weight than it should.

How can you assume that because women find the best way to stay alive and have a life is to go along with what is backed by coercion and violence implies wilfulness of the sort normally meant by people like us?

You need to learn to use "conclude" instead of "assume," Mark. I _conclude_ that they choose to have their daughters mutilated when, in fact, _no one_ is going to kill them or even beat them if they don't do so, _no one_ is going to kill their daughters if they don't do so, and even when, in some cases, they have to sneak behind their husbands' back to do so. I don't know how much clearer it gets. This is a conclusion, not an assumption.

You say Said Musa "could not even get a lawyer to defend him." Now isn't that strange? Not a single person? That doesn't strike you as odd to assume that this means there was no coercion? It is reasonable to think that not one person willing to represent him implies unanimity? Of course not. Not one? If that isn't evidence that anyone that wanted to represent him thought they'd be killed if they did, then I don't know what is. When is there unanimity on such things? This is entirely unlike human nature.

On the contrary. It is exactly like human nature. Human nature isn't so great. By the way, here's what happened when a lawyer was suggested for Said Musa:

"Nobody [wanted to be my] defender before the court. When I said 'I am a Christian man,' he [a potential lawyer] immediately spat on me and abused me and mocked me..."

Why assume he was coerced into spitting on his potential client?

To imply a wilfull unanimity is begging the question par excellence.

I conclude at least a large majority support for his death. Unanimity? Perhaps there's somebody, somewhere who is a Muslim and feels bad about it. But that the attitude to Musa is evidence that large majorities in Afghanistan support death for apostates is beyond doubt. This is evidence. It isn't question-begging to see what conclusions evidence supports.

By the way, when a recent poll found large percentages of Egyptians favoring death for apostasy, what do you think, Mark? Were they "coerced" to give those answers? Why insist on that? That's just saying that the data can't mean what they appear to mean. That's ignoring evidence, refusing to acknowledge it.

Step2, you're welcome to it. I borrowed it from my old theology professor, a great Jesuit (before the Jesuits tanked) by the name of T.A. McGovern. Need I mention that T.A. stood for Thomas Aquinas?

Though, now that I think of it, his complete phrasing was "itso fatso." That's even better, yes?

You need to learn to use "conclude" instead of "assume," Mark. I _conclude_ that they choose to have their daughters mutilated when, in fact, _no one_ is going to kill them or even beat them if they don't do so, _no one_ is going to kill their daughters if they don't do so, and even when, in some cases, they have to sneak behind their husbands' back to do so. I don't know how much clearer it gets. This is a conclusion, not an assumption.

Well that is a strange conclusion. No one is going to beat them? In these societies, girls are not considered ready for marriage until circumcised, and if that weren't bad enough the community shuns those who refuse the procedure. If they are not beaten it might be because there are worse punishments than that. Surely anyone would prefer being beaten to being considered unsuitable for marriage and shunned, and this is what happens. It is hard to imagine a heavier punishment. In places like Kenya at least, parents are circumcising girls at an increasingly younger age to try to avoid the resistance of the girls who are hearing more and more about what will happen to them in a modernizing (if slightly) culture. The percentage of uncircumcised females are three times higher in cities where it is hard for communities to shun a person. I don't know how much clearer it gets that there severe consequences for non-compliance are behind the practice.

Why assume he was coerced into spitting on his potential client?

I don't assume it. I never said, and didn't think it necessary to say, that every individual had to be coerced. Obviously they don't. "Cultural immersion in a deviant culture" doesn't work that way. But let's just end this unfruitful debate here. I would just be repeating myself.

Let's clarify a point or two here. There is a distinction between an act being voluntary and an act being wholly and completely free - at least, that's the traditional teaching. If I hold a gun to your daughter and tell you I am going to torture and then kill her if you don't rob a bank for me, you may well feel constrained by the threat to cave in to my demands. But whatever the pressure, at the moment you choose to rob the bank, you are acting by way of your own will choosing the act. That means it is voluntary. It is not, obviously, absolutely free. The choice itself issues from your own will, and thus it is truly your act. But your responsibility for the act is to some extent diminished because of the pressure put on you. The degree of responsibility is a separate criterion from the consideration of whether it is a voluntary act: if not voluntary, there can be NO responsibility at all, because it does not issue forth by way of your own will, and you are only responsible for what is in your will.

Thus, it can be consistent with what Lydia is saying to accept that these women who bring their daughters to be mutilated, that they are acting voluntarily, AND with what Mark is saying that they are not acting entirely freely. There is no doubt that their actions spring forward from their own wills, and thus the acts are voluntary acts. The real debate, then, is about whether they are freely choosing those acts or not.

Mark, I don't quite follow your claim about the underlying social FACTS of the case: Are you saying that even though there are laws against the mutilation, and there are men who won't allow it in their family, it still remains true that socially an unmutilated girl will not be at all marriageable at all? This seems difficult to fathom: if enough people have achieved enough social push to change the law, and enough men are around that won't allow it in their families that women in significant numbers must go behind their husbands' backs, surely it must be the case that the social environment is in flux, and therefore, there are indeed some men who will marry un-mutilated women? Maybe the number is still a minority, but surely not a miniscule minority of only 5%, or they could never have gotten the law changed.

If there are indeed changing social mores about this, then the women who are going behind their husbands' backs are in the position of trying to maintain a tradition against a wave of change in the culture, they are bucking an _emerging_ trend, they are resisting what other people call progress, for the sake of tradition. But to be in that position cannot be, at the same time, to be stuck in a situation where the _entire_ social fabric will disapprove of you if you go with the change. The appearance, then, seems to be that these women have at least some opportunity (to some extent a free choice) to align themselves with the new idea, and instead they (at least to some extent) freely reject that opportunity to maintain an older social custom.

Thus, it can be consistent with what Lydia is saying to accept that these women who bring their daughters to be mutilated, that they are acting voluntarily, AND with what Mark is saying that they are not acting entirely freely. There is no doubt that their actions spring forward from their own wills, and thus the acts are voluntary acts. The real debate, then, is about whether they are freely choosing those acts or not.

Tony, thanks for taking my view seriously. I do appreciate it. Looking for common ground is the right thing to do. But I would say the discussion only bore on legal and cultural matters, and societies cannot and do not expect there members to act heroically so not all philosophical distinctions you are making about willfulness would apply. To take the most extreme case, surely no non-depraved person would find blameworthy a ten year-old boy who was forced to beat his mother to death to avoid his own violent death, no matter that it is possible to do so. Surely to think so in any but an abstract sense is heartless and shows why this isn't akin to some abstract free-will debate in church. I'm not sure using the case of female circumcision helps much given how we know it is perpetuated, and the testimony of the victims we have available to us.

The real debate, then, is about whether they are freely choosing those acts or not.

In context, and with what I've just said, I think the real debate is political as I've said all along. On the degree of wilfulness, the issue is one of explanation. Social pressure combined with severe penalties for non-compliance will get results. This is not in dispute, naturally. We can argue about a mother's culpability, but my point was that the results such systems obtain make unwise projections of voluntary action in the same sense that we can and do assume of the actions of persons in free societies. First, though not by Lydia, the claim has been made that Iran is a good example of willful acceptance of Sharia despite the fact that polls have clearly showed for decades that the Iranian people hate sharia as imposed by Khomeini with a special burning passion that is unmistakable. Now I've cast doubt on the reliability of polls in oppressive societies, but how can those who use Iran as an example ignore polls when it suits them?

But look, I'll just bottom line the larger political point lest it be lost. My view isn't nearly as absolute as it might have seemed from looking at individual later comments. It took a number of twists and turns. From the beginning I've maintained that when you peel the lid off of a repressive and/or violent society that you often will have people voting for egregiously bad things, sharia, and such like. Who doesn't think that part of the support for the Muslim Brotherhood does not lie in the fact that they opposed Mubarek and were suppressed? This is the flipside of the repression of the Muslim Brotherhood without any political framework to legitimize it. Who thinks that taking responsibility for ones actions isn't largely governed by learning from mistakes? Who doesn't think the worst thing a parent can do is to shield a child from the consequences of actions? Societies go through the same thing, even advanced ones like ours. The polls from Egypt are grim there is no question. The question can a dictator rule there forever and the answer is "no." As horrible as it is, if things continue as they are the Christians will be driven out in any case or forced into a lower level of degradation.

The classic liberal understanding (the original sense) is that people that have lived in repressive societies often do dumb things immediately afterwards, but that keeping the lid on it just makes the inevitable removal of the lid more violent and extreme. And it is immoral to boot. There is no legitimate option to keep the lid on forever because there is such a thing as universal values, and government by consent is a natural desire, and the lid will come off eventually. The "realist" view seems to me to just try to keep the lid on as long as you can and hope your party isn't in control when it come off. The classic view is that it is a matter of statecraft to advocate prudent management of the lid removal process, at the right time and the right way to the extent that it is possible, which frankly sometimes isn't. It is inherently chaotic. It introduces --gasp!-- instability! Lord have mercy--duck and cover--instability has been loosed on the world! And instability is bad unless it is something we want, in which instability is good. Like I said at the outset, a classic battle of Realpolitik, idealism, and isolationism. As it ever was. The problem is in trying to keep the lid on forever, and to think that may work because some folks would not be able to handle freedom and *could not learn to do so*. No universal values. The classic view is that they can't handle it now, but good luck denying it to them forever, and good luck sleeping at night when you support oppressive regimes beyond what is absolutely necessary.

Mark, I don't quite follow your claim about the underlying social FACTS of the case: Are you saying that even though there are laws against the mutilation, and there are men who won't allow it in their family, it still remains true that socially an unmutilated girl will not be at all marriageable at all? This seems difficult to fathom . . . If there are indeed changing social mores about this, then the women who are going behind their husbands' backs are in the position of trying to maintain a tradition against a wave of change in the culture, they are bucking an _emerging_ trend, they are resisting what other people call progress, for the sake of tradition. But to be in that position cannot be, at the same time, to be stuck in a situation where the _entire_ social fabric will disapprove of you if you go with the change. The appearance, then, seems to be that these women have at least some opportunity (to some extent a free choice) to align themselves with the new idea, and instead they (at least to some extent) freely reject that opportunity to maintain an older social custom.

I agree with your assessment, if I understand correctly, that female circumcision is no different than Chinese foot-binding and such things sociologically. It will end someday the same way if people are allowed to dissent. But you seem not to have dealt with the fact that I stated that many places we know of, perhaps even all, those who don't conform are shunned by the community. If it isn't uncharitable to characterize your description as dismissing breezily the force of shunning by one's community, and the underlying social support required to do it, all I can say is "wow". Not talking about you, but how is that the same folks who say that is is terrible to be childless in Western society can turn around and say shunning by one's community and limiting one's marriage prospects to those who don't mind associating with those who are shunned in rural third world areas must not rise to the level of coercion on a par with violence? Isn't this a projection of some sort of West Side Story version of events that all resolves in a happy ending to dismiss the coercive nature of female circumcision in the places it typically happens? And note that I never said, and don't think, that there aren't true believers and all persons must be individually coerced to do evil things. That's absurd. I've already noted honor killings by immigrants to Western countries. But none of this discounts the social pathology that sustain this where these folks come from.

So I stand beside my belief that things like female mutilation are inherently coercive, and not freely chosen in the sense that we are able to freely choose such things and a society that maintains basic democratic principles, which I take to be a "relevant sense" --i. e. in political terms, which is how I see this issue, right or wrong. I hope that was helpful.

VDH nails it as always (and agrees with Krauthammer):

What is the U.S. official policy in all this? Is there a consistent one? When it came to encouraging anti-theocratic protesters in Iran, our policy was not to meddle; then we meddled quite a lot in anti-authoritarian protests in Egypt. Cannot the administration at last state that it supports non-violent, gradual transitions to consensual government, institutionalized secular human rights, and an independent judiciary — regardless of whether the overthrown government was hard-right authoritarian or hard-left totalitarian or theocratic Islamist? Since all governments and figures in the Middle East seem transitory, it would be far better to establish a policy that is principled and constant, no matter the ideologies and authoritarians involved.