30 Comments

1. Dave the Kapampangan:

Yes, freedom must be a Bush word. Apparently only naiive Bush sympathizers want the freedom to solve their own problems and win on their own merits, while the really cool and progressive people of the world prefer the proven “Kim Jong Il” style prosperity of statism, self-censoring media, and popularity cults. Why, with somebody else doing the heavy lifting and greasing the wheels with bribe money, we can ALL be friends and overlook each other’s faults.

Jun 2, 2009 - 3:22 pm 2. buddy larsen:

And with such powerful incentives, one day we might tame fire, and invent a ‘wheel’.

Jun 2, 2009 - 3:51 pm 3. the Anti Jihadist:

The term ‘political Islam’ is misleading if not outright fraudulent. There is no such thing as non-political Islam.

Jun 2, 2009 - 4:09 pm 4. krontekag:

Dismay and resignation.

A lot of good people died to make real progress in the Middle East. This means nothing to the current president. Just more bus fodder….

Jun 2, 2009 - 4:19 pm 5. RWE:

During the Cold War, the Left never raised a stink when we threw a country under the bus in the name of “peace.” Their only complaints came from our actually fighting tyranny.

After we won the Cold War the Left maintained its stance that it was not the ultimate battle of diametrically opposed ideologies, but just a disagreement analogous as to whether you bought a Ford or a Chevy. In fact, they saw it as a choice between having Fords and Chevys versus universal health care and a great national ballet company. If you have to take public transportation because your city is too screwed up to be able to handle the traffic or if you ride in limos, you’ll take ballet over the cars.

But the Left realized before the Right that the Cold War being over meant a new and assertive US foreign policy could be advanced with no risk of Starbucks being out of lattes because of some bothersome downtown nuclear detonation. So we could gather on hilltops in our respective national costumes, Buy the World a Coke, and very carefully invade one pointless place after another. Instead of demonstrating at the Pentagon over the deployment of new missiles, with the missiles already coming out of the holes, the demonstrations could focus on things like the NEED to invade and fix all the problems in East Timor.

Jun 2, 2009 - 4:22 pm 6. Rurik:

“Freedom and Democracy” are Bush words. They are also Ameican words, and possibly some Democrat words. With each passing day it becomes more dubious whether they are Obama words. From the manipulations during the recent election, to his stated intent “to rule”, to his recent power grabs, it appears ever more questionable if The O means those words even for us.

Jun 2, 2009 - 4:26 pm 7. Willie G:

Ahhhh….the sheer ineptitude on public display!

Hope & Change!

Remember what William F. Buckley said about prefering to be governed by the first 50 names in the phone book rather than the Harvard faculty? The man was smart.

Jun 2, 2009 - 4:43 pm 8. hdgreene:

From the BBC:

For the first time since 1980, the US has authorised its embassies around the world to invite Iranian diplomats to Independence Day receptions.

They’ll provide the fireworks. No, that’s Hezbollah.

Maybe we can keep them locked up for 461 days.

Jun 2, 2009 - 5:01 pm 9. RAH:

What is the value of freedom and democracy to a budding fascist?

I do understand that the current Obamabots want to create new buzzwords for the Obama foreign policy. However freedom and democarcy are such good words they can be used for Obama also, unless he is really into realpolitics and purely pragmatic US policy.

If so, his blame America first seems to work against that idea.

Jun 2, 2009 - 5:18 pm 10. TheCharlatan:

He has to speak from Egypt to pull off his divine charade. “Out of Egypt I called my son!”

Jun 2, 2009 - 5:31 pm 11. RWE:

Buddy #2:

Perish the thought! Such developments would be sure to cause Global Warming!

Jun 2, 2009 - 5:41 pm 12. Belmont Club » America the dutiful:

[...] the preceding post, I noted how the other lesson — that Islam should learn from the United States — has [...]

Jun 2, 2009 - 5:47 pm 13. Subotai Bahadur:

#6 Rurik

GospodinRurik,

You always were too kindhearted and ready to give the benefit of the doubt to those who deserve only doubt.

The possibility you mentioned is a null program to them. They are not our countrymen anymore, and the ongoing Cold Civil War shows that they no longer speak the same language or think the same thoughts we do.

[ And by the time you read the first sentence, I will be safe in an undisclosed, secure location. (smile)]

Subotai Bahadur

Jun 2, 2009 - 6:14 pm 14. Tcobb:

Ah—you forget the real and true meaning of international diplomacy for the Great One–photo ops. He probably wants to be photographed making a speech on top of the great pyramid, not realizing, of course, that just like the US does not have 57 states, the pyramids are not located in downtown Cairo.

Jun 2, 2009 - 6:15 pm 15. buddy larsen:

Napoleon for a fact swiped the pyramids to name his 1798 victory over the Mamluks “the Battle of the Pyramids”. The pyramids were miles away, tips barely visible in the best light, from the battlefield –but Napoleon was already reading the Paris headlines in his mind.

Jun 2, 2009 - 7:35 pm 16. Mad Fiddler:

Nu, Gospodin i Gospazha – “Comrade” or just “Citizen?” The new form of address among Soviet citizens under the consolidating Bolshevik regime…

How do those translate properly into a language in which any reference to gender is punishable by scourging?

Pogo always use-ta address female characters as “Miz XXX” – like “Miz Hepzibah” or “Miz Grackle.”

Did the Communards who defended the Paris barricades in 1871 coin a new greeting for their comrades?

The Left love their titles, just as surely as did members of the Ancien Régime.

Jun 2, 2009 - 8:06 pm 17. Cadmus:

the Anti Jihadist:

You are correct. Islam by definition is a Religion and a State, which means political. “Political Islam” generally refers to violent and extremely oppressive culture, intent on killing anyone in its path. That culture is however found more in Central Asia than the Middle East. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are all in Central Asia. In fact many of the worst traits of Islam come from the Central Asian culture.

Most people tend to forget that many Middle East countries were socialist and even communist in the years following WWII. And, even the Monarchies were siding with the Soviets because of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict.

The West fought hard to prevent socialism from taking root in the region in the confrontation with the USSR. But, in fighting communism, the US and its Western allies sided with the most anti-communist forces in the region – Radical Islam, which would never accept any rule other than Islam. The Saudis were at the helm of that group, with money to finance the operations. The Iranian Mullahs and Taliban were the guardians against Soviet expansion southward.

Anwar Sadat (Nobel Pease Laureate) used to proudly state that he will make sure that Christians in Egypt will not even be allowed to be shoe shiners. Yet, he was killed by the Moslem Brotherhood for not being radical enough. Mubarak was accepted because he leaned more in their direction. The abuse of Christians in Egypt is abhorrent.

But, Washington is still willing to deal with the Moslem Brotherhood. Most recently, the Saudis convinced Washington that a coupe against Assad by the Brotherhood is a good thing. It did not materialize, but we heard a lot of talk about how they are moderate Moslems, and they would introduce democracy into Syria. This is an organization that grants its full support for Al-Qaida. Zawahiri is one of its leaders.

Do not get me started on the Saudi version of Islam. It is the breeding ground for a large part of the problem and the main source financial assistance.

Pakistan was founded as an Islamic fundamentalist state and remains so. The Taliban movement started in Pakistan with Saudi financing before moving into Afghanistan. They fight them today as a struggle for power. But, there is no dogmatic disagreement.

But, these are our friends and allies in the region.

The Axis of Evil includes only one Islamist state – Iran. Syria is ruled by a secular party that is credited with brutally killing its Islamic movements. Iraq was the same until we removed Saddam and opened the gates of hell he was brutally guarding. North Korea does not even have any Moslems.

What are we fighting for? And, who are we fighting? How can we win this war if we are allied with the people who are feeding the fire that burns us?

Democracy is not just a constitution and laws. It is a way of life, a mind set and an inherent belief. Asked what Democracy means, most Middle Easterners will claim it is their right to do and say what they want. When I would explain that democracy means respecting the rights of others and accepting their differing views, they are always befuddled. It is an alien notion, because they had never experienced it.

Introducing democracy into the region cannot be rushed as Bush had wanted. We see what is happening in Iraq. The Constitution we wrote for them is not worth the paper it was printed on. Democracy must be worked from the bottom up. The people must be taught to accept and respect differences, and that could take generations.

But, all the talk about democracy is moot if we do not defeat the fanatic movements who will benefit from the introduction of democracy and then become our worse nightmare. Any free elections today will bring fundamentalists into power, as they are the only organized group other than the autocrats.

We can start by cutting the main sources of financing from the royal families of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, banning Madrasas and hate preaching wherever we have the power to do so, starting here in the US, insisting on the respect of Christians in the Middle East. Etc.

Anyone opposing such moves is not our friend or ally. They are the enemy and should be treated as such.

We must remove our heads from the sand and start looking around.

Cadmus

Jun 2, 2009 - 9:44 pm 18. dan:

The choice between our SOBs and their SOBs was a false choice and plagued the Cold War? I always thought that was an anti-empirical bad faith criticism intended to weaken support for our SOBs so they could become their SOBs? No?

Cairo is a fine choice. There are nothing but SOBs and serfs in the Middle East anyway, so why not stride in like a colossus, do your rhetorical duty, and then leave. Has anyone been listening to the NPR coverage of this upcoming “historic address”? They can’t *find* an Egyptian who believes this guy is what the Useful Idiots think he is. The discourse among the UI is so self-referential the palms of their minds must be rosy, hairy, chafed.

Or, to cop a criticism VS Naipaul had of james Joyce, “they simply are not interested in the world they live in.”

Jun 3, 2009 - 5:57 am 19. Quelle:

“There is scarcely a king (or would-be-king) in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh—get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and all their children slaves forever.” — Thomas Jefferson

Jun 3, 2009 - 8:50 am 20. Tom in CA:

So who is telling him ‘words don’t matter’?

Jun 3, 2009 - 9:03 am 21. buddy larsen:

18, 19; great posts, y’all –

Jun 3, 2009 - 9:20 am 22. Barry 0351:

Hmmmmm Time to renew some old Militia contacts maybe?
Wasn’t it Islam that said Freedom we hate, democracy we hate, life we hate, death we love.
Well…………………

Jun 3, 2009 - 9:23 am 23. El_Heffe:

@ cadmus #17

I think you are using the word democracy some what loosely. There is nothing inherent in democracy that would require respect for others. Democracy is all the people participating directly in a legislative process where the majority rules absolutely, full stop. Democracy is not composed of a constitution or laws, and when the middle easterners you mention say that “it means we get to do what we want” they are closer to the real (practical) meaning of democracy than you are, especially if they are part of the majority.

Perhaps the word you are looking for and the concept that you are trying to introduce is actually that of a republic. The concept of republic (especially the american flavor of it) carries with it a connotation of rule of law and respect for minority rights under the law (I’m, of course, talking about political minorities here, not racial minorities).

@ Quelle #19

right on … see also genesis chapter 47:13-20

13: And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
14: And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.
15: And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.
16: And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.
17: And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.
18: When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:
19: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.
20: And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s.

Keep in mind that Joseph was relatively benevolent… he gave the people back enough land and seed for them to then support them selves… and *only* took 20% off the top. The feds are taking more than that now and licking their chops for the rest.

Also the money in egypt “failed” more or less on accident… but we have people that almost seem to be driving us off a cliff on purpose. The example of pharoh indeed.

Heads up!

Jun 3, 2009 - 11:10 am 24. Cadmus:

El_Heffe

You are correct about majority rule. But, in a democratic system the majority still accepts and respects the right of the minority to have a different view, and its right to continue to promote its view and vie for gaining the majority. Whether they succeed or not depends on how many people they can convince, with words and examples, not force.

A Republic is a system that allows democracy to work on a larger scale, where all the people cannot gather in the Arena and vote on every issue. So people elect representatives who will then gather and vote on their behalf.

In a democratic/republican system, the majority does not oppress the minority and prevent it from ever speaking again. It does not deny the minority’s right to monitor the majority’s rule and point out where it has gone wrong and try to capitalize on that to win support.

This is not something you can simply put on paper and expect people to abide by. This kind of respect for differences must be inducted into people’s thoughts and culture before it can become a constitution. If not, the winners will become rulers for life and the democratic experience will end on the first run.

We have seen this so often in the Middle East, presidents get elected and then declare themselves presidents for life. Or, they conduct sham elections that in effect deny anyone from truly competing for office. Egypt is a prime example.

That is because they believe that democracy gave them the right to “do what they want”, and they have no obligation to respect and accept others.

The reason Lebanon succeeded where others failed, is due to the fact that the people have lived all their history in a mixed society, where differences are all around them. Having people with different views was natural and expected. It is these differences that gave birth to democratic principles in Phoenicia thousands of years ago, which then moved to Greece, Rome and the rest of the world.

The war does not deny that fact, but rather re-enforces this point. In spite of all the conflicts of the past 35 years, all the foreign interventions and fanatic movements, the Lebanese people continue to live in mixed communities and, on a personal basis, respect each other’s opinions. They continue to insist on a unified pluralistic country.

Even Hizbullah, which originally aimed at an Islamic state in Lebanon, has found it necessary to moderate its speech to remain accepted among its own Shiite constituency. It is not out the kindness of their hearts that they proclaim their respect for other Lebanese communities and their willingness to share power with them. And, it is not due to the opposing force that prevented them from doing it. They have the weapons and have had the cover to this for a long time.

This is purely due to the fact that the Shiites would not go along with their original objectives. The only reasons Hizbullah remains a viable force in Lebanon are, the ongoing conflict with Israel and the fact that the Shiites see that the world is not willing to provide the Lebanese Army with the necessary weapons to defend them, and the social support network it built during the war years when Government services mostly disappeared. Beyond that, Hizbullah’s support is limited to a very small minority.

Next Sunday, Lebanese go to the polls to elect the next Parliament. There are many Shiites running against Hizbullah and its right to bare its arms. They have not been killed or denied that right. Try that in any other country in the Middle East.

It is that kind of cultural acceptance and respect of the “different” others that allows democracy to exist. Without such acceptance and respect, the majority elected in the first elections will become the new dictatorship.

Two years ago a lone brave sole decided he wanted to run for President in Egypt against Mubarak. He has been in jail ever since. Washington and the international community protested briefly and then forgot about it. No one else dared run, and the elections were simply a “Yes” or “No” for Mubarak. Other countries are just as bad, or even worse.

That is the kind of culture Obama will be addressing.

Cadmus

Jun 3, 2009 - 12:18 pm 25. El_Heffe:

Cadmus

“But, in a democratic system the majority still accepts and respects the right of the minority to have a different view, and its right to continue to promote its view and vie for gaining the majority. Whether they succeed or not depends on how many people they can convince, with words and examples, not force.”

I respectfully disagree, though i must admit that this is really just a matter of terminology. I know what you mean when you say “democracy”, but you are using the wrong word to convey your meaning. You are describing a republic but calling it a democracy.

By definition a “pure democracy” is essentially a temporary tyranny of the majority. This state is always captured by some other form of govennment, and often winds up as a dictatorship.

“But a pure democracy is not practical” you say… I agree… not only is it impractical, it is also undesirable and has rarely existed. Pure democracy only has a chance with relatively small groups of people and in relatively non-technical societies were issues are simple enough that literaly every one can understand all the details. less pure forms of democracy however have come about at various times and all of them have the traits of a pure democracy in proportion to their “purity”.

“A Republic is a system that allows democracy to work on a larger scale, where all the people cannot gather in the Arena and vote on every issue. So people elect representatives who will then gather and vote on their behalf.

In a democratic/republican system, the majority does not oppress the minority and prevent it from ever speaking again. It does not deny the minority’s right to monitor the majority’s rule and point out where it has gone wrong and try to capitalize on that to win support.”

You have got the scent of it here but you have missed the most significant part … you havent explained *why* the majority doesn’t oppress the minority under a republic… and that is a significant feature of a republic that is distinctly absent from a democracy (democracy nearly always devolves into a minority opressing the majority).

In a democracy the people directly excersize their political power (which is rightly their own as individuals). In a republic the people delegate their political power to their representative. In doing this they participate in an implicit collective agreement that others (or the representatives of others) will acknowledge their representative as legitimately weilding politcal power on behalf of them as the constituents. in exchange they agree to recognize the legitimacy of the representatives selected by other groups of constituents.

This is the foundational “unwritten law” if you will, that must be respected in order for any republic to exist (its really more like a question of legitimacy). If others refuse acknowledge that the representative weilds the power of his constituents then the system breaks down.

Because every one wants their representatave to be acknowledged, and be able to function on their behalf, they agree to allow the representatives of others to function on the behalf of their respective constituents. And thus all parties to this system implicity agree to respect the outcomes of the interactions between the representatives.

From this is born the concept of minority rights. Because if a constiteuncy were to just disavow their representative and “take back” their individual political power every time a decision didnt go their way then the whole system would lose legitimacy and break down… therefore it is in the interest of the majority to respect the rights of the minority (and not become abusive) in order to maintain the integrity of the whole system and thus prevent the situtaion from devolving into a democracy, which is at best cumbersome or at worst the path to some form of tyranny (in which case even the majority becomes oppressed – since all forms of tyranny basically amount to a minority with undue power using that power to stay in power).

See how this works? … See the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy? words mave meaning, words do indeed matter wether they are on paper or not.

I respectfully defer to your understanding of the Lebanese situation. I do not have significant experience with the peoples of any other nation than the United States, and likewise no experience to speak of with middle easterners. I just know the difference between a republic and a democracy.

best regards.

Jun 3, 2009 - 4:42 pm 26. El_Heffe:

PS. alot of this is in the declaration of independence … “disolve the political bands” etc. The colonists took back their political power thus claiming legitimacy for their political actions and delegitimising (for them any way) the political order in which they had previously been participating… and they did this because they were an oppressed minority.

This is how governments (and forms of government) die… loss of legitimacy. This is why “pure republics” can’t oppress their minorities.

However because in a democracy there is no one to take back your political power from (you are already weilding it direclty) majorities in a “pure democracy” dont have to worry about this, and can therefore oppress the minority all the day long… untill some one co-opts the democracy that is.

PPS. Monarchs and dictators don’t have legitimacy in todays world, the american experiment has seen to that. Monarchs are now almost universally figure heads, and dictators stay in power only by force.

Jun 3, 2009 - 4:57 pm 27. El_Heffe:

… or by realpolitik.

Jun 3, 2009 - 5:02 pm 28. Cadmus:

El_Heffe

We are not in disagreement here on the technical definition. I love the concise way you explained all this.

However, almost all of the history of “Democracy” has been technically about Republics. Even the earliest “Democracies” were effectively republics, as they elected “Elders” to conduct the daily business of the state or city. And, today when people say democracy they mean republic according to the technical definition of the words.

Words do matter, but also words have a tendency to take on new meanings as time goes on. This is one of them.

This all still boils down to the need to respect and accept others for the system to work.

That mutual respect is what I intended to focus attention on. And, that is what is missing in societies and cultures which have never experienced it. That ability to accept and respect others views, requires a lot of work to instill in people. Would you not agree?

Cadmus

Jun 3, 2009 - 5:49 pm 29. veracious:

19. Quelle:

That’s a keeper; thanks.

Jun 4, 2009 - 6:42 pm 30. Mad Fiddler:

Having begun to read the Bible in my middle age, realizing I’d only ever been exposed to selected bits by people with their own personal agenda, I began gradually to see patterns over the span of human history that continue to the present day.

We keep making the mistake of fancying that we are somehow more intelligent and sophisticated than humans who lived in ancient times.

Actual, we done backslud.

Jun 5, 2009 - 7:11 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.