Andrew Sullivan describes the Republican Party as divided between two types of conservatives: “conservatives of doubt and conservatives of faith.” While his terms may not get the divide right – liberty isn’t based on skepticism - his extensive description does raise a number of important points.
In passing, however, I was surprised to read that he believes the conservatives of faith understand the threat of fundamentalist Islam. He notes: “Both groups were passionately anti-communist, even if there were some disagreements on strategy and tactics. Today, both groups are just as hostile to Islamist terrorism and fundamentalism.”
I’ve pointed out that two big name conservatives are anything but hostile to Islamic fundamentalism: Dinesh D’Souza and Andrew Apostolou. Daniel Pipes points out that the current administration hopes Hezbollah becomes part of the next Lebanese election and government. Recent election results in Saudi Arabia shows the fundamentalists have won. My bet is that this will not worry conservatives close to the administration. Indeed, I argue they’ll praise the election. In that post I express my concern:
In passing, however, I was surprised to read that he believes the conservatives of faith understand the threat of fundamentalist Islam. He notes: “Both groups were passionately anti-communist, even if there were some disagreements on strategy and tactics. Today, both groups are just as hostile to Islamist terrorism and fundamentalism.”
I’ve pointed out that two big name conservatives are anything but hostile to Islamic fundamentalism: Dinesh D’Souza and Andrew Apostolou. Daniel Pipes points out that the current administration hopes Hezbollah becomes part of the next Lebanese election and government. Recent election results in Saudi Arabia shows the fundamentalists have won. My bet is that this will not worry conservatives close to the administration. Indeed, I argue they’ll praise the election. In that post I express my concern:
Apparently, some people believe that parliamentary institutions will change the way people think. This, of course, reverses cause and effect. History shows that a liberal democracy with constitutional protections for individual rights was a result of powerful ideas and cultural changes over a period of centuries. Now, we are told, the reverse is true. There is a “parliamentary dialectic” that holds that these institutions will create the acceptance of the ideas liberty and tolerance. The classic counter example is the Weimar Republic – which voted Hitler into power.
But why do conservatives believe this “parliamentary dialectic”? Marxists used to believe in “dialectical materialism” that holds that your relationship relative to the means of production determines your consciousness. Workers would have a revolutionary consciousness resulting in the overthrow the capitalist parasites, or something ridiculous as that. Closer to home, moderate leftists used to believe in the “housing dialectic” which holds that poor housing … causes poverty and crime. They built housing projects. Need I explain the morale of the story?
Conservatives have entered the fray with the latest version: hold elections and people will become humane and tolerant! If this policy was in place a decade ago, we’d have an Islamist government in Algeria …. We’d have criticized the military in Turkey for its role in that country’s “guided democracy” with the result of an Islamist regime years sooner. We’d have criticized Mubarack for cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood who, we’d say, should be running for office if not running the country.
Why are our conservative friends acting like utopian leftists of years past?
0 Comments