Norman Podhoretz's Second Life
Podhoretz has blundered badly. He confuses the arrangements made in the Peace of Augsburg (1555) with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which confirmed the principle of cuius regio and extended it to Calvinism. But what is a mere century to our learned author? But I am holding Podhoretz to an unfair standard. As he makes abundantly clear in this book, his field is not historical fact but rather fantasy and propaganda.
If Podhoretz is to be believed, millions of Muslims aim to destroy us. In a democracy, will these people not vote for governments that will endeavor to carry out their radical programs? Given their numbers (once more, if Podhoretz is right about them) they are often likely to have a decisive voice in elections. The effect of Podhoretz's democratic remedy is likely to be an intensification of the problem it is supposed to cure. Does Podhoretz think that the radical Islamic views he fears flourish only in undemocratic regimes? If so, he once again offers nothing to support his position. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (5)
Fundamentalist
How is a person to maintain one's sanity when the left is trying to scare us with end-of-the-world GW and peak oil scenarios, while the right is frightening us with "the Muslims are coming!"? The right has overblown the Islamic threat just as it did the communist threat during the cold war, and the result is the same--bigger government.
Published: October 3, 2007 12:27 PM
Roy Brown
What a steaming pile of droppings this assessment is. Read your Bible, Comrade.
Published: October 3, 2007 10:04 PM
Anthony
Well we all know that God rules the US of Freedom through Bush Jr.
Published: October 3, 2007 10:18 PM
Louie
David Gordon, are you an Isolationist, Liberal Internationalist, or from the Realpolitik?
What IF Podhoetz is right?
Other sources for you to consider: Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't by Robert Spencer and another of his books, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.
Two (2) DVD's you should view: (1)Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West and (2) Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
If that is not enough visit www.Jihadwatch.com.
Personally, I thought the book was insightful, especially, for me, the unveiling of the Bush Doctrine.
Published: October 3, 2007 10:26 PM
Alistair
You know, when you want to come across as witheringly sarcastic and superior, you have be on firm ground. You have to be, basically, right.
Gordon falls short here, posturing as oh so superior, but on uncertain claims.
He suggests, for example, that widespread in the Islamic world democracy would only increase the danger from Muslims who want to bring us down. His logic, if you can call it that, is that people would vote for governments that are even more hostile to us, thereby increasing the danger.
Of course, your average eleven year old would be able to see the holes in this line of reasoning, after perhaps 4 seconds of thought, so I won't explain in detail. It will suffice to observe that Islamofascists (not that I care for the term, but that's the term in play right now) don't have to be in an actual voting majority to still exist in sizeable numbers and pose a serious threat. Also, if an elected government declared itself hostile to us, then the electorate that voted it in can fairly reliable expect to see a US Navy battle group off the coast, and maybe some B-1 bombers in the sky as well.
t is far safer for Islamic populations, even if they, to a man, ALL hate us, to negate our vast military advantage by NOT having Islamofascism associated with any actual national government, as any such declared Islamofascist power would be deposed in short order without a whimper even from the UN, just as the Taliban of Aghanistan were.
Published: October 4, 2007 12:26 AM