Debate continues on freedom, democracy, and Islam

The debate at the Corner, initially triggered by Carol Iannone’s criticism of the neocon belief that freedom is the universal desire of every human heart and that Muslims will choose democracy if given the chance, and by Michael Rubin’s response to same, continues into its third day. (My earlier summary and discussion of this debate can be read here.) Iannone, who is not a Cornerite, but who contributes at another NRO blog, Phi Beta Cons, has the perfect explicator and ally in Andrew McCarthy.

Notice McCarthy’s refutation of Rubin’s claim that democracy is whatever people say it is, e.g., democracy plus sharia is still democracy. Ironically, this is exactly what Rubin’s publisher at the Mideast Quarterly, Daniel Pipes, says about Islam, that Islam can be whatever Muslims say it is. Such nominalism is the very essence of liberalism. Of course, liberals, being nominalists, deny that liberalism has an essence, and say that liberalism can be whatever liberals say it is.

- end of initial entry -

N. writes:

The debate at NRO, especially on The Corner between Andy McCarthy and everyone else reminds me, amazingly enough, of the liberal cheerleading for “decolonialization” in the 60’s through the final phase of the early 80’s. In country after country the pattern emerged that some strongman would be elected, usually via ballot box stuffing plus intimidation via various armed thugs, with the blessing of the U.N. and some European country … and that would be that. There would not be any more elections, except once in a while some kind of sham to please foreign aid demands.

This was seen by conservatives as proof of just how naive liberals could be. It was widely held that certain cultural features had to be in existence before a representative government could work. Widespread literacy, a common law system, free press and other artifacts of Western culture were held to be absolutely essential. Cynical conservatives spoke of “One man, one vote, one time” to sum up the liberal disaster in creating these ephemeral “democracies” in such places as Ghana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and other garden spots.

Now we have the spectacle of liberals at National Review Online basically arguing that “one man, one vote” is sufficient!

The kind of non-thought that once was lampooned in “The Week” and other sections of Buckley’s magazine, is being bandied about as if it were a serious argument, at the website of the same publication. This ought to be quite convincing for those who still don’t want to seriously examine neoconservatism …

Mark P. writes:

Isn’t there already a clear and established definition of “neoconservative” that would’ve foretold much of the problems with this movement? Neocons moved into the conservative movement in an attempt to improve and correct liberalism and to make it more consistent, not to advance any real conservatism. That is why “conservatives” seem to want nothing more than to point out the contradictions of liberalism. Neoconservatism is nothing more than a corrective program for liberalism.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 13, 2006 03:26 PM | Send