Hillary says that Muslim violence must not deter us from supporting Muslim democracy—you got a problem with that?
Hillary Clinton says :
‘US must ignore violence to boost ME democracies’The neocons agree! The Republicans agree! Romney and Ryan agree!
Does anyone in U.S. politics disagree? How could they? What alternative policy is there?
Any alternative policy would be based on the understanding that we should not support Muslim democracy because Muslim democracy must produce sharia-jihad governments oppressive to individual rights and hostile to ourselves. Which would mean that the vast Islamic world can never join the West in a global liberal democratic system. Which would mean that 1.5 billion humans follow a religion that makes them so different from us that they can never be part of our system. Which would also mean that Muslims do not belong in our societies and therefore that all Muslim immigration to the West should end. Which would mean that inherited differences between human beings matter politically and socially. Which would mean that liberalism is wrong.
So how can anyone in politics disagree with Hillary, Obama, the Democrats, George W. Bush, and the neocons? They can’t. They would have to break with our entire ruling ideology in order to do so. And notice that when mushy neocons like Daniel Pipes and dinosaur “realists” like Henry Kissinger (yes, there are still a few “realists” around) disagree with the Muslim democracy policy, they do it in the softest tones, in the manner of a merely personal dissent, a merely personal opinion, not in the manner of denouncing or challenging the Muslim democracy policy on basic principle.