Our second greatest worry is that Political Correctness will kill liberal democracy
What a lovely world it would be if indeed everything wrong with it was the fault of George Bush, as so many people claim. We might ourselves be tempted to that seductive view if we were still on the Left side of things. Nah, not likely! IBD list a few reasons why. Still, we can understand why some people would like to live in a dream world; it would be ever so much more pleasant than the world that actually exists.
The real world is becoming worse and worse, but that is hardly the fault of George Bush. Did George Bush burn 18 churches because a Nigerian woman refused to be stoned to death for making rude comments? Is George Bush to blame for the death threats to a French high school teacher, claiming that “one billion, three hundred thousand” people are out to kill him. And on and on, the Pope, the cartoons, the increasing violence, the increasing brazenness, the increasing self-censorship and groveling before juvenile delinquents of the lowest sort. (Of course, George Bush actually is responsible for part of the situation: a lot more people in Iraq should have been shot on sight in the last three years — it is ridiculous to think the the brutal men of the last generation there could be tamed by less than an iron fist.)
In important ways, the political leadership of the West is failing us today. The US President should have stood up for free speech in the cartoon matter, for example. The French President should make a cause celebre of Robert Redeker. The German Chancellor should have insisted that Mozart be performed. Their failures to do so may come back to haunt us, and rather quickly.
The enemy is emboldened, and affirms the dark vision of him that the man-in-the-street understands completely, but that the elites do not want to acknowledge. The truculence and “divine mission” of the enemy should rouse all of us, but the elites want us to slumber. We agree with Thomas Lifson that Islamist violence, and its promise of the slavery of sharia, is a mortal threat, but that “the other more complex tragedy lies closer to home, with the enforcers of PC orthodoxy.” The man in the street sees what is going on in the world around him, and he doesn’t like it one damned bit. He resents the speech codes and other denials of reality forced upon him by his political and social betters. Perhaps the man in the street will meekly be led to his own dhimmitude like a lamb to the slaughter. But perhaps he will not. Here’s our point: given the oppressive nature of political correctness as well as of the Islamist mob, the kind of man who will stand up against both may well be a brave and ruthless strongman, of the sort history has witnessed time and again.
Hence, the current weakness of the West’s leaders carries within it the risk of, not just one, but possibly two bad outcomes: rule by the intimidation of Islamist mobs, or a radical political reaction from the Right which is itself dismissive of Western freedoms.
September 30th, 2006 at 9:32 am
I think your last paragraph nails it. As the Left/Islam continues to push for only one school of thought to be heard, I too have wondered if/when there will be a backlash from the Right. The outcome of such an ensuing struggle could have very sad results for democracy.
September 30th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Dear Sir:
Your wonderful essay sounds, at times, too complex to define, at least for me and my limited use of the language. I pick up two subject matters embeded in your last paragraph: either living with fear of Islamic attack or submmit all of our liberties and check points for the “imaginary” security this president has been trying to sell to us. Frankly, I am more afraid of the latest one. Sincerely, Tony Juncale
September 30th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Your notion of a democracy threatening reaction to Isomofascism from the right is absurd. The right is already reacting to Islamofascists, with measured and forceful push back, the iron fist and velvet glove strategy. It may not ultimately work, it requires the people of these Islamic countries to see that the way of peace is better than the way of war, but it at least has a chance for success. The difficulty, it is time consuming, the political left in the US and Europe seems to think that taking advantage of that fact is best for their political gain. Their irresponsible rhetoric is being repeated by the terrorists, how is that for getting your message out. Indeed it is a trap laid by the left which will consume us all as surly as it did in WWII.
In fact your very words say the West’s reaction has not been harsh enough, a point with which I agree. You cannot negotiate with suicide bombers whose only world view is a dark one where you submit to their asinine perverted religious ways or they have the right to kill you for resisting. Some cleric in a mud tower somewhere issues a fatwa and you are supposed to lay down and obey or die, I think not.
What would you do if Iran achieved a nuclear weapon, and then decided to use it? The Iranian theocracy has said they intend to ‘wipe Israel of the map’, do we just watch? The aftermath of such an event is hard to contemplate.
I do think you are close when you say the political leadership of the world is failing the free countries of the world. The appeasement mentality is likely to result in emboldening of the Islamofascists which will cause them to react the way they did in Somalia in the early 90s, build bases, train suicide bombers and attack the west again. It is indeed a clash of civilizations. Why the people of Europe cannot see this is beyond me. Maybe the many years of the cold war has exhausted them, and they just want to sit quietly, I do not know. But I do know it is very risky in the age of weaponry of unimaginable destruction.
September 30th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Good post, but my concern is that this fear of a rightwing backlash (reflected in your closing paragraph) will preempt any hard, concerted action against the forces of Islamic terrorism and intimidation. To be clear, as I argue (or rather rant) below, I think the “bad outcome” you fear of a radical rightwing political reaction is probably the only option that will allow us to “win” this war. So if this is a bad option, then you can kiss our way of life goodbye.
There are A LOT of people in this world who should be “shot on sight” (to use your words). This is a rather rightwing thing to say, no? However, were a “strong man” to rise in the West who asserted this view vis-a-vis our Muslim enemies, he would be shouted down (perhaps even forced down) by the established elites and the goodhearted, but misguided, people who will fear “becoming just like our enemies.” Indeed, despite using such harsh language yourself, you end your piece by lamenting the possibility of such a rightwing reaction.
You know what the result of this opposition to rightwing forces will be? Dhimmitude, because no one else will be willing to stand up — violently — against the Islamists who are OPENLY terrorizing and intimidating our countries. See, most recently, the French school teacher whose life is now ruined because he dared to exercise his right to free speech and speak his opinion about Islam. There is no way to “reason” with the Islamists. They have declared their intention to kill us and destroy our society. We either give in, or we kill them first. There are no other options in an existential conflict.
It’s only a matter of time before the Islamists bring their act, which they are perfecting in Europe, to this country. Why haven’t they yet? I think it is because they still fear the very “rightwing” citizen backlash that you and others apparently think is such a bad thing. Europe could use some more armed “rednecks” who are willing to oppose the Muslim protesters, rioters, and terrorists in their midst. Crap like that won’t happen here, at least not now, because there is too much fear in the Muslim community that the ordinary citizenry would react violently.
But citizen backlash aside — which is not happening in Europe and will probably become less and less likely in our own country over time — western countries have granted their governments a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This presents a serious problem because if our governments do not stand up for us, who will? Suppose there were a massive Muslim march on Washington full of the hateful signs and slogans and threats we see in Europe. And suppose that some group of pro-American counterprotesters decided to crack some heads. Who do you think would be protected by law enforcement? Hint: not the Americans.
So better get used to more and more dhimmitude, because our current leadership is doing very little to turn the tide against Islamic terror and intimidation.
I’m afraid that you, like so many other terror warriors, refuse to accept the implications of your own ideas and assertions. If the islamic threat is as dire as you and so many others (including myself) believe, then we haven’t even begun to fight to the degree needed to “win.” To win this war will require massive infringements on Muslim civil rights in the West and devastating military and covert retaliation against terrorists and their sympathizers (including the entire Wahhabi network), without warning, mercy, or due process of law.
A terroristic war of attrition cannot be won through sensitivity and half-measures. If this is true, and I think it is, then don’t look to our current group of leaders to guide us to victory. Who will? The only person who can, if anyone, will be the very kind of “strong man” you deplore, who isn’t afraid to tell 1.3 billion people that we will kill them before they kill us, and who refuses to “compromise” until the Muslim world accepts peaceful coexistence on OUR terms, not theirs.
What other alternative is there? President Bush’s desperate and pathetic belief that the Muslim world is full of “freedom loving” people who are oppressed by a small number of political and religious dictators? What a ridiculous idea that has absolutely no historical or contemporary evidence to support it. Sure, everyone points to a handful of pro-democracy forces in Iran, but that hardly means a “pro-west” revolution is just around the corner. We have our own committed communist and socialist groups in this country. But the people’s revolution is not going to happen here anytime soon. This faith in the “people” of the Islamic world is based on nothing but anecdotes and dreams.
True, there are some good Muslims in our society (I have Muslim friends myself), and I truly feel terrible for them that they have to bear the weight of a backward and violent civilization. But you know what? Anti-western, anti-Jewish, and pro-terrorist ideas are depressingly prevalent in Muslim communities in the West, and are sky-high in Muslim countries. So, yes, these people are the enemy, unless we have decided to eschew the very notion of an “enemy” (which many liberals already have done) and just give in to them for the sake of “peace.”
And as you have pointed out several times, the refusal to recognize that the Muslim world is our enemy will make it impossible for us to take massive military action in reaction to even the most devastiting terror attacks (e.g., if New York gets nuked). Why? Because of all the supposedly “innocent” people who will be killed. So despite the fact that the Islamist terrorists are supported by the greater Muslim community (as all evidence shows), we will refuse to take any concerted action against this larger community, despite Bush’s bold warning after 9/11 to do just that. Unless we get a new, radicalized, openly jingoistic leadership. Simple as that.
Ugly, yes. Indeed, it is horrible where the world is heading. But that’s the world the Islamists have wrought. The Nazis did the same thing 70 years ago, and we know what the result was. Thankfully, after World War Two we were such a great military power that the communists were deterred from plunging the world into full-scale war like the Nazis did. What deterred the communists? The idea that they would be destroyed if they went too far.
The Muslim world does not have this fear, and so they have pushed their terrorist elements into open warfare against the West, striking at the very heart of our civilization. We have allowed them to engage in an “asymetrical” war, only because we lack the cajones to hold the Muslim world (or at least major parts of it) responsible for the actions of the terrorists. More, out of fear of committing ourselves to a much larger and deadlier form of warfare, we try to re-define reality with balderdash about freedom-loving Muslims, instead of accepting reality and doing what we have to do to protect our way of life.
At the end of the day, the only question that matters is whether we think it is morally superior to kill millions of the enemy (and expel them from our own countries) or to accede to their demands and accept dhimmi status? Is it better to have blood on our hands while protecting our way of life? Or to have “clean hands” even if that means we give up much of what we value and enjoy in the West? I know what option most liberals and intellectuals (right and left) in Europe and America will choose. Let’s hope there are still enough America-loving “rednecks” in this country who won’t give in. In sum, contrary to your post, I think we need a rightwing reaction to harden us before it’s too late.