The Blogosphere's Fascist Apologists
Dean
I love it when so-called "liberals" make themselves the enemies of human rights.
Case in point: Iraqi human rights activist Ali of Iraq the Model has some choice words for Professor Juan Cole. Patterico has some thoughts on some of Cole's online compatriots you should read.
Meanwhile, Armed Liberal over at Winds of Change notes that Juan Cole is playing numbers games with Iraqi opinion polls in order to back his claim that most Iraqis don't care about democracy or pluralism or human rights or any of that touchy-feel crap we're trying to help bring to the Iraqis. Cole actually refers to an opinion poll by the International Republican Institute to back that up.
The IRI, however, released this recent poll, which shows things that Cole doesn't mention at all. What doesn't he mention?
* A majority of Iraqis today feel their country is headed in the right direction, and those who think it's headed in the wrong direction have shrunk dramatically.
* The current interim Prime Minister and President both enjoy approval ratings well over 60%.
* 87% of Iraqis plan to vote in January
* 77% of Iraqis feel that "regular, fair elections" are crucial to their nation's future.
* 67% of Iraqis feel that preserving a single, unified state of Iraq is important.
There are some things to be concerned about in that polling data. A majority of Iraqis say they want Sharia incorporated into the new government. But anyone who reads much about Sharia (beyond right-wing attacks) knows that there are multiple schools of interpretation of Sharia, and multiple Sharia traditions just within Iraq itself. This means any new government is going to have to concentrate on areas of Sharia where there's broad agreement--probably much like the way a broad Christian consensus (rather than radical Christian sect interpretations)informed most of American government in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
The fact that 64% of Iraqis say they prefer "modern" candidates while only 18% say they want "traditional" candidates should help underscore that point I'd think. So should the fact that at least a quarter of the government's seats will be held by women.
Want my predictions for January? To the anguish of both the Islamo-fascists and the WCLs of the world, election turnout will be higher in Iraq than in most Western countries on election day, and very few Iraqis will be deterred by violence. There maybe some incidents of violence but far less than the WCLs of the world are hoping for.
Think I'm overoptimistic? I don't. I think I just have a pretty good understanding of human nature. Especially the nature of human beings who have a decent education (as most Iraqis do) and who already have at least one foot in the modern world (as most Iraqis do)
I made my other predictions in the linked articles below. We'll see how well I do.
But here's my message to Armed Liberal: Isn't it time we stopped referring to people like Juan Cole as liberals? The proper term for them is REACTIONARIES.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- No More "Insurgents"
- Victory
- Turnout In Iraq...
- Human Rights Advancements
- The Blogosphere's Fascist Apologists
- Women's Rights
- Meetings With Iraqi Bloggers, Breaking My Own Rules, And Related Thoughts
This is not unlike some feminist groups, who complained for years about the Taliban, but basically shrugged their shoulders when the Taliban was overthrown because Bush didn't do it "for the right reasons." It kind of goes back to Type M vs. Type C arguments.
"Reactionary", "reactionist", "extreme conservative", "ultraconservative", "extreme right-winger", "far-right", "opposed to progress" -- those are are all words I use to describe myself [and holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma]. The _style_!
But, what an irony it is for Dean to fling those words back at the totalitarian Left. Excellent! They are fascists or fascist apologists, too. As H. L. "Bill" Richardson put it: "Communism is Red Fascism, bigoted and extreme, warmongering, hate mongering, corrupt, and ultra reactionary."
By contrast, here is a description of Dean and the Queen:
"...one who loves his country and its institutions, opposes totalitarianism, believes in individual freedom, is not selfish or bigoted, embraces other people's interests, and advocates greater freedom of thought and action."
"Don't get 'shook,' but I've just given you Webster's Dictionary's definition of 'liberal'. If you don't believe me, look it up."
This strategy of recapturing our words and calling things and people what they are has interesting uses. Myself, I also call my enemies on the Right, those such as Bork, Santorum, Lou Sheldon, Robert Knight, Paul Cameron, etc., who are out to change the Constitution, who want Big Brother in our bedrooms, who want to eradicate homosexuality and make everybody the same, etc. -- I call them what they are: radicals, subversives, egalitarians, socialists, statists, collectivists, totalitarians, Communists, One Worlders.
Some would say that my regime on Communism is too stringent. That's the way I am.
But it was pretty clear that he was cherry-picking numbers (not to mention glossing over potential methodological problems that we are not able to veryify using his post).
Sad, really.
There were three options open to us on 9/12/01 -
1. Law enforcement plus a few bombs; hardly likely to be effect.
2. Massive, exterminating war against all of Islam.
3. Belief that the Islamic peoples are just like everyone else and if given a genuine free choice, they'll choose to live and build rather than die and destroy.
It could be that after all is said and done that Number 2 is an actual requirement - but I'm willing to give the President's plan all the time we need to prove conclusively one way or the other that it doesn't work.
Glad I'm not the only one.
I refer to people like myself, Jon Pearce and even Dean as "classical liberals".