Democracy Is Not the Answer

To understand how we got to the point that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support a government run by people who have been at war with us for almost a century is a policy that most foreign policy experts endorse, it helps to take a brief trip back in time.

In the last century, our big three wars, the two we fought and the one we didn’t, were against enemies who were seen as being distinguished by a lack of democracy, with the Kaiser, the Fuhrer and the Commissar embodying the antithesis of the American system.

The Democratic Party, which stood at the helm during both hot wars, was able to link its brand to the wars by defining them as struggles for democracy. The process of de-nationalizing war from a conflict between nations and ethnic groups was only partly realized in WW1, but was largely achieved in WW2, and made post-war reconstruction and alliance easier. National and ethnic grudges were replaced by ideological platforms. If the trouble was a lack of democracy, then all we needed to do was defeat the tyrant’s armies, inject democracy and stand back.

Democracy also made it easier to turn liberals against the Soviet Union. The liberals who had believed in a war for democracy in Europe had difficulty tossing it aside after the war was over. And that emphasis on democracy helped make a national defense coalition between conservatives and liberals possible.

This strategy was effective enough against existing totalitarian systems, but suffered from a major weakness because it could not account for a totalitarian ideology taking power through the ballot box.

The assumption that because the Nazis and the Communists rejected open elections that they could not win open elections was wrong. Democracy of that kind is populism and totalitarian movements can be quite popular. The Nazis did fairly well in the 1932 elections and the radical left gobbled up much of the Russian First Duma. The modern Russian Communist Party is the second largest party in the Duma today.

Democratic elections do not necessarily lead to democratic outcomes, but the linkage of democracy to progress made that hard to see. The assumption that democracy is progressive and leads to more progress had been adopted even by many conservatives. That fixed notion of history led to total disaster in the Arab Spring.

Cold War America knew better than to endorse universal democracy. Open elections everywhere would have given the Soviet Union more allies than the United States. The left attacked Eisenhower and Kennedy as hypocrites, but both men were correct in understanding that there was no virtue in overthrowing an authoritarian government only to replace it with an even more authoritarian government; whether through violence or the ballot box.

As time went on, Americans were assailed with two interrelated arguments. The left warned that the denial of democracy was fueling Third World rage against the United States. And on the right we heard that tyranny was warping Third World societies into malignant forms. The left’s version of the argument directed more blame at America, but both versions of the argument treated democracy as a cure for hostility.

The argument that democracy had made the Muslim world dysfunctional was always chancy. The best counterargument to it was that second and third-generation Muslims in Europe were often more radical than their immigrant parents. If democracy were a cure for Islamism, it was working very poorly in London, Oslo and Paris.

The assumption of the argument was that the tyranny that a people were living under was unnatural while the outcome of a democratic election would be natural. And yet, if a people have been warped for a thousand years by not living under a democracy, how could they be expected to choose a form of government that would not be warped? Was there any reason to expect that such efforts at democracy would not lead to tyranny?

The Arab Spring has taught us to question the idea that democracy is an absolute good. Initially the outcome of the Palestinian Arab elections that rewarded Hamas was thought not to apply to the wider region. That assumption proved to be wrong. We now know that Hamas’ victory foreshadowed the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory. And we know that Islamists have the inside track in elections because they represent a familiar ideology that has not been discredited in the minds of a majority of Muslims.

We can no longer afford to be bound by a Cold War argument against Communism that has outlived its usefulness, especially once liberals turned left and defected from a national security consensus. Universal democracy has proven to be about as universal a panacea as international law or the United Nations.

Classifying ideologies as democratic or undemocratic has blinded us to their content and gives our enemies an easy way to take power while leaving the champions of democracy voiceless. Too many Republicans were flailing after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in Egypt; unable to articulate a reason why the United States should not support a democratically elected government.

Democracy was once viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a form of American Exceptionalism. But reducing that exceptionalism to open elections misses the point. It isn’t open elections that make Americans special; it’s Americans who make open elections special. Instead of looking to systems, we should look to values. Instead of looking to governments, we should look to peoples.

The assumption that exporting democracy also exports our values is clearly wrong. It isn’t democracy that makes free people; it’s individual responsibility. Democracy with individual responsibility makes for a free nation. Democracy without individual responsibility is only another name for tyranny.

We have spent too much time looking at systems, when we should have been looking at values. We have wrongly assumed that all religions and all peoples share the same basic values that democracy can unleash for the betterment of all. That has clearly been proven to be wrong.

If we had looked instead at a poll which showed that 4 out of 5 Egyptians believe that adulterers should be stoned and thieves should have their hands cut off, we would have known how this democracy experiment was going to end and how much damage it would do to our national interests.

It’s time to stop putting our faith in democracy. Democracy for all is not the answer. Responsibility for all is. Our responsibility is not to agnostically empower other people to make the choices that will destroy our way of life, but to make those choices that will keep our way of life alive.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Chezwick

    I'll take Daniel's thesis a step further….it's not just foreign policy. Democracy is what got America $16.7 trillion in debt (and rising exponentially).

    I've been a lifelong proponent of human freedom….but this last election in particular has me closely re-examining all my beliefs and preconceptions. And though Barry has made things much worse, deficits were systemic long before he won the Presidency. Democracy may just have a shelf-life….and we may be nearing that point. I hope I'm wrong.

    I heard a pundit recently explain FNC's falling ratings by suggesting conservatives felt betrayed by Fox's pre-election predictions of a Romney victory….so many have stopped watching. I don't buy it for a minute. I think the fall in ratings at Fox is because many conservatives – myself included- are so cynical right now that they're just not interested in politics. It's too frigg'n depressing. I get my news from the Net, but on TV, I've consigned myself to sports, movies, and old episodes of 'Gunsmoke' and 'All in the Family'.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I've been a lifelong proponent of human freedom….but this last election in particular has me closely re-examining all my beliefs and preconceptions. And though Barry has made things much worse, deficits were systemic long before he won the Presidency. Democracy may just have a shelf-life….and we may be nearing that point. I hope I'm wrong. "

      Liberal democracy does not mix well with so-called "social democracy." Fraud and collectivism are not supposed to be part of liberal democracy.

      • Chezwick

        I appreciate your point. The counter-point would be, "democracy" is an expression of the will of the people….and the will of the people is, apparently, more entitlements and more debt.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "The counter-point would be, "democracy" is an expression of the will of the people…."

          I understand and this goes back to the point about indoctrination. We don't promote "any old democracy" but a specific kind of democracy. We often use shorthand in political discourse but in the end nobody really means that any pure democracy will do. Delusional liars that want to discredit the history of the USA will use almost any example of pure democracy as morally equivalent to what we've achieved in order to diminish our image and everything related to our historical successes. I heard PBS repeat the BS line that a Saudi royal claimed they have a "form of democracy." ANYONE can say that!

          Do facts matter? Nobody ever said that any democracy will do. Leftist cultural hegemony allows them to denigrate democracy by trying to control the discourse with distortions of definitions. They want to "perfect" it by "socializing" it without even understanding they've been indoctrinated by communists. Although some do understand they're just preaching stealth communism.

          Like almost every other problem with governance today, the biggest problems come from bogus leftist ideology enabling our enemies and squelching the voices of reason – while declaring that they have the reasonable realistic ideas.

          "…and the will of the people is, apparently, more entitlements and more debt."

          For the most part they don't have a right to that. That's not democracy. That's mob rule. Except the mobs stay at home and use the Internet and other media to terrorize most (but not all) of the time.

          • Chezwick

            Again, I appreciate everything you're postulating. I think Mary Sue sums it up by saying "we are a Republic, not a democracy."

            My point is that we're not dealing with what democracy SHOULD be, we're dealing with what it IS. Theoretical arguments about what is "true" democracy remind me of communists and Muslims who insist that all the corrupted earthly versions of their respective utopias are not representative of the real thing. It either works in practice or it doesn't! We're dealing with reality here. Almost everywhere in the world that democracy has taken root, the USA, Europe, Japan, it has resulted first in unparalleled progress, and ultimately, in the massive debt of the entitlement state….entitlements that the people wanted and voted for.

            I have yet to read a coherent response to this problem from anyone…just the usual lamentations that "true" democracy has been subverted. So, I continue to advance the supposition that democracy possibly has a shelf-life…and once a free people become "enlightened" to the reality that they can vote themselves the purse strings of government, decline and insolvency become inevitable.

            I hope I'm wrong folks, but all the trends suggest I'm not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "My point is that we're not dealing with what democracy SHOULD be, we're dealing with what it IS. Theoretical arguments about what is "true" democracy remind me of communists and Muslims who insist that all the corrupted earthly versions of their respective utopias are not representative of the real thing. It either works in practice or it doesn't! We're dealing with reality here. Almost everywhere in the world that democracy has taken root, the USA, Europe, Japan, it has resulted first in unparalleled progress, and ultimately, in the massive debt of the entitlement state….entitlements that the people wanted and voted for. "

            I think I explained that though I admit not in great detail.

            "I hope I'm wrong folks, but all the trends suggest I'm not."

            We've got to win the battle of ideas, and we must first understand them before we use them to defeat leftism.

          • Chezwick

            You did fine, friend. Everything you wrote was true. But none of it refuted my basic point. Whatever our founders intended, whatever our "specific kind of democracy" that you mentioned, it has devolved into the same financial, bottom-less pit of debt that afflicts (almost?) every other established democracy on planet Earth.

            Your last sentence was gold.

            How do we prevail upon our people to go on a monetary "diet"….when they've been raised on metaphorical cookies and chips? How do we convince them to value the ethical worth of labor when they've been raised to be couch-potatoes? How do we teach them personal responsibility when they've been spoiled with victimization? Ultimately, how do we convince them that doing with less is in their interests?

            It's a tall frigg'n order.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You did fine, friend. Everything you wrote was true. But none of it refuted my basic point. Whatever our founders intended, whatever our "specific kind of democracy" that you mentioned, it has devolved into the same financial, bottom-less pit of debt that afflicts (almost?) every other established democracy on planet Earth. "

            My point in essence is that if we fail it won't reflect poorly on our democratic system but will reflect poorly on those who were to guard it.

          • Chezwick

            "My point in essence is that if we fail it won't reflect poorly on our democratic system but will reflect poorly on those who were to guard it."

            Interesting take. I believe in personal responsibility. I blame the participants themselves, the people, the voters who elected the entitlement-pushers..

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I believe in personal responsibility. I blame the participants themselves, the people, the voters who elected the entitlement-pushers."

            Precisely. But don't forget to trace back to the origins of the corruption when we allowed communists to take positions and preach their lies. It didn't begin when say, we elected Carter. The watershed moment of our history vis-a-vis communism was probably when McCarthy was destroyed politically.

          • JacksonPearson

            How often have you heard people refer to America as a Democracy? When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic, or better yet . . . a Constitutional Republic?

            There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic, and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do not even mentioned the word “democracy”.

            Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people’s freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life. Isn’t that where we are today?

            They knew very well the meaning of the word “democracy”, and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

            In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner — We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Again, I appreciate everything you're postulating. I think Mary Sue sums it up by saying "we are a Republic, not a democracy."

            We're a constitutional democratic republic. The constitution is supposed to matter more than it does lately. Our constitution is attacked most often by pointing out that it originally did not explicitly outlaw all forms of slavery. But the constitution does support that position implicitly and that is the law of the land. You don't eat bread the moment it goes in the oven.

    • truebearing

      Democracy worked here because of Judeo-Christian morality. It is that simple.

      Democracy doesn't have a shelf life…the morality of people does. It is the citizens of this nation that are failing, and no political ideology can compensate for that failing. Libertarians think more freedom will usher in some kind of utopia, forgetting that having more freedom necessarily requires greater moral rectitude from the citizens, since external restraint, also known as police, aren't going to be in sufficient numbers to maintain law and order. That moral discipline is wholly missing in this country and it doesn't emanate magically from political ideologies, or science. Marxism is rooted in lies and evil, needless to say.
      Humans are about to learn a lesson they have been taught since antiquity, but never collectively learned.

      We love 'Gunsmoke' too. I reckon it's the moral clarity…and the good guys winning.

      • Chezwick

        "We love 'Gunsmoke' too. I reckon it's the moral clarity…and the good guys winning."

        You ole scudder, you!

        • Gee

          I listen to the old Gunsmoke Radioshows – they were simply outstanding

        • defcon 4

          I read that Gunsmoke might have been the longest running TV show in history — all the way from the late 50's to early 70's.

    • maureen crowley

      I don't believe you're authentic for a minute. You're probably an Obama troll. Fox News ratings are fantastically high. It's the scumbag leftist mainstream homofascist media that is tanking. Ed Schultz got fired, Soledad O'Brien is out, and more to come, unless Soros writes out bigger checks.

      • Chezwick

        Yep, I'm an Obama troll….and you're very deep..

    • Drakken

      With that in mind Chezwick, perhaps Robert Henlein was right in his book Starship Troopers, only people who served in the military can be citizens, through service, comes citizenship. Perhaps this might be something that might come to bear with these troubling times.

      • KarshiKhanabad

        Or…..that only military veterans can be elected to Congress. Consider that the percentage of veterans in the new House & Senate is less than ten percent – continuing a decline that began post-Vietnam.

        • EarlyBird

          I love the idea of compulsory national service. Not all of it should have to be in the military. That's how democracies come to be dominated by the military.

          • Chezwick

            Drak, Karsh, Earlybird,

            All good points.

          • defcon 4

            Yeah some national service should be to madrassahs, mosques or the umma right?

          • KarshiKhanabad

            Early B, I see your point, but at the risk of sounding like (gasp) an American exceptionalist, our military tradition follows the Cincinnatian ideal – leave one's plow, fight for victory for the country's sake, then return to one's fields. It was good enough for G. Washington. Other U.S. generals who became President (Jackson, Taylor, Grant, & later Eisenhower) found that the military prestige that secured their election did not easily translate into the political skills needed to govern a turbulent American democracy.

          • EarlyBird

            You're describing the citizen army that grows during times of war, and then shrinks in peace time, with a core of professional soldiers running the thing. I am stating that by making military service compulsory (aside from a draft when needed), we are actually helping the military become dominant.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "That's how democracies come to be dominated by the military."

            For example?

          • EarlyBird

            For example Turkey, Israel and plenty of others.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "With that in mind Chezwick, perhaps Robert Henlein was right in his book Starship Troopers, only people who served in the military can be citizens, through service, comes citizenship."

        That would require radical changes to our constitution…but the idea is worth exploring just for the issues it would raise. I think we should have due process for every status change and I think criminals for example should lose their rights to vote as part of their sentencing. That would be a huge improvement. I also think that anyone accepting public funds (not counting Social Security or funds where the beneficiary contributed) should not be allowed to vote during that time and perhaps for a period afterwards. We could even make it policy where you waive the right to vote when you apply for "foodstamps" or other similar aid, or any deficit situation where you're asking taxpayers to bail you out and we could have a hearing process for those who believe they should still be allowed to vote.

        These changes alone would probably allow things to tilt back in the right direction regarding domestic policies. As far as foreign policy goes, never again shall any presidential candidate be allowed to skate in to office in empty promises and BS replacing a serious vetting. If it starts to happen again we start marching and railing against the supposed press corp assigned to cover the candidates.

        • Drakken

          All very good ideas and with things spinning out of control, may they come to pass.

        • kaz

          these are ideas that should already have been put into effect. they werent, and now they cannot be. we should be a republic in which only self supporting taxpayers are allowed to vote. we are not, and will not be, because the parasites already outnumber the workers. our fundamental problems cannot be addressed within the framework of our constitution and laws, leaving only continued profligacy, stupidity, and eventual national suicide. what remains to be determined is if, at the death of our nation, our current population is genocided by the enemies that our traitors are importing, or will our population survive to start another, hopefully more responsible, government. it is a terrible thing when a genocidal civil war is the best possible outcome for a nation. we are there. we either fight and win, or accept genocide.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "these are ideas that should already have been put into effect."

            Yes.

            "they werent, and now they cannot be."

            Not easily.

            "…we should be a republic in which only self supporting taxpayers are allowed to vote. we are not, and will not be, because the parasites already outnumber the workers."

            You don't get the fact that no majority can vote away the rights of anyone. We need to find determined lawyers to start waging a war in the courts to win in that venue where republican values have their best chance to be heard fairly and without being exposed so much to mob rule. Not that judges are always unbiased but there is an appellate process and in the end no effort is really wasted in that venue.

            "our fundamental problems cannot be addressed within the framework of our constitution and laws, leaving only continued profligacy, stupidity, and eventual national suicide. what remains to be determined is if, at the death of our nation, our current population is genocided by the enemies that our traitors are importing, or will our population survive to start another, hopefully more responsible, government. it is a terrible thing when a genocidal civil war is the best possible outcome for a nation. we are there. we either fight and win, or accept genocide."

            We still have due process on our side but not enough energy is spent pursuing that route.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The most Fascist people today are Islamofascists and their socialist useful idiots.

        There is a reason why socialist hitlers mein kampf translation into Arabic is a Best Seller in the Arab/Muslim world. They share the same world view.

      • Drakken

        If that is all you got shortbus, your dumber than you look, it is folks like you that are draining the west and all it stands for, for a cultural landscape of 3rd world savagery. I for one believe our western way of life is worthpreserving, keeping and defending, one or the other has to reign supreme, it is that bloody simple, not all cultures and religions are equal period, and if that makes me a culturalist and realist? So damn be it. You and your ilk will push us too far and when you do, nobody is going to care what a nice little muzzy you are.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Western democracy is the anti-thesis to Islam, and Islamic doctrine is the pre-dominant underpinning of the entire region. One can wish it wasn't the case, but fantastical thinking doesn't make it so. In fact, Bush's naive insistence, of importing it into the region, was a grave error in strategic policy.

    This is the case because of the following – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/21/repeat-until-… …and so much more.

    Therefore, only a strongman can keep the region in check, and this is precisely why the dictate to Mubabrak – GO NOW – set the region on fire. The protests in Tahir Square were not spontaneous. Not at all. They were incited by handlers from Soros and others, under the "guidance" of Obama. All for the benefit of the rise of the Brotherhood Mafia – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/13/coming-full-c

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • EarlyBird

      Oh shut up.

      • defcon 4

        What did the idjit say?

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        EarlyTurd, What's the matter? You don't like Free Speech?

        What a surprise.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Oh shut up."

        Take your own advice for once.

    • Pkorman

      In fact, I'll provide a name. Do a search on Stanley Greenberg, who helped organize the original protest in Egypt, organized union support for the Occupy Wall Street movement here, and then went to Israel, for an attempt to destabilize the Netanyahu gov't. Greenberg was a Clinton WH strategist and has extremely close ties to Hillary Clinton, who presided over our official response during this period.

  • Larry

    The communists only won "open elections" where they were able to cheat, murder, and bribe.

    That's why the only honestly elected, if you can call it that, communist government was the short lived Italian coalition that the communists were a part of.

    They never won a fair election anywhere in the world.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The communists only won "open elections" where they were able to cheat, murder, and bribe. "

      Exactly. Lie, cheat, murder, and bribe. The same can be said for any coercive totalitarian ideology. Come on people. Think a bit more. The problem is not our democracy, it's the delusional criminals that want to corrupt it. And so far they've gotten away with way too much.

      Bill Ayers? Rashid Khalidi? That list could grow huge if I wanted to take the time. BHO as POTUS? We have been way too trusting and too tolerant of criminal activities and lunatic liars.

    • EarlyBird

      Larry.

      There is a reason we have a 40 hr work weeks, weekends, the ability to celebrate holidays, anti-child labor laws, basic job protections and safety regulations for workers, and other things we consider civilized. These grew out of organized labor, socialism and outright communist movements.

      Luckily, decency prevailed and laws granting these basic protections and decency were born, thereby defanging the commies. Our country had exploded into mass violence many time over these issues, and we'd be a very different country if we hadn't agreed to do some restraining of free markets in this regard.

      Of course, we're now living in a time where workers' rights have come to trump common sense, and we're hurting the ability of businesses to make jobs, but that's for another discussion.

      • reader

        As usual, completely incoherent cherry picking, twisting and flipping cause and effect. Do you follow Alinsky's playbook literally or intuitively?

        • defcon 4

          He's as slippery as a worm, which is practically a requirement when defending islamofascism.

        • EarlyBird

          What in the world do you disagree with in my post? What "cherry picking"? "Incoherent"? for someone with a learning disability perhaps.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "There is a reason we have a 40 hr work weeks, weekends, the ability to celebrate holidays, anti-child labor laws, basic job protections and safety regulations for workers, and other things we consider civilized. These grew out of organized labor, socialism and outright communist movements. "

        This validates communism because communists were there at the start of American organized labor movements?

        • EarlyBird

          "This validates communism because communists were there at the start of American organized labor movements?"

          Validates communism? You got that from my post? Did you even read this part?

          "Luckily, decency prevailed and laws granting these basic protections and decency were born, thereby defanging the commies…."

          And:

          "Of course, we're now living in a time where workers' rights have come to trump common sense, and we're hurting the ability of businesses to make jobs, but that's for another discussion."

          I can't do your reading and thinking for you, OFM.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Second try (admin deleted with no changes made by me)

        "There is a reason we have a 40 hr work weeks, weekends, the ability to celebrate holidays, anti-child labor laws, basic job protections and safety regulations for workers, and other things we consider civilized. These grew out of organized labor, socialism and outright communist movements.

        Please explain how this justifies communism or socialism. Organized labor in and of itself is perfectly consistent with unrestrained capitalism. It's the fact that communists and including the stealth communist "socialists" got involved and hijacked the movements that led to the problems we do have. I don't care how long anyone works. Some labor laws are good for society as a whole and that should be the question asked each time one is proposed. The government itself should NOT be "pro labor" as if management and owners have no sweat to endure for their respective roles. It's all negotiable.

        "Of course, we're now living in a time where workers' rights have come to trump common sense, and we're hurting the ability of businesses to make jobs, but that's for another discussion."

        That is the salient point that you seem not interested in discussing because you want to show us that communists are useful somehow?

        • EarlyBird

          Dude, you are truly stupid. My post celebrated the fact that labor laws, etc. "defanged the commies." That means I don't like commies. See?

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    Macchiavelli said it best:

    "It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to enslave a people that wants to remain free."

    • BS77

      Excellent quote.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    We need constitutional democracies and a lot more input in the constitution. Once they meet our objectives they can then drive their own changes after passing enough time to prove they have truly implemented democracy without denial of fundamental rights of the individual, and without fraud.

    It's not a simple answer and would be doable if we in the West were not fighting internal communists since WWII ended and even before that. The left gives plenty of propaganda victories to anyone that wants to distract us from teaching how to implement true liberal democracy.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Democracy Is Not the Answer"

    Simple Democracy Is Not the immediate Answer for regime change, that's for sure. Especially with the propaganda wars that have defeated the truth in so many parts of the world.

  • truebearing

    The problem that Mr. Greenfield so deftly points out brings up the ugly truth that most Americans don't have the slightest understanding of the role morality played in making our democratic republic so successful. When I read comments by people identifying themselves as "fiscal conservatives" I know that they have never understood why this nation became great, or why it is failing now. Many libertarians are evn more clueless.

    Democracy* fails when the majority are uneducated and immoral. That maxim explains why democracy fails before it gets started in places like Egypt, and why it will NEVER succeed in the Muslim Middle East. it also explains our nation's downfall.
    * And so does every other ideology. Morality is the human survival code, which doesn't bode well for the survival of humans.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Democracy* fails when the majority are uneducated and immoral."

      That's why (since Judeo Christian ideology does not teach coercion of faith) it's important to teach all children the morality of our constitution. Instead they are told now that it was a device to enable elites to gain independence from a king so that they could keep all the spoils of the tyranny of capitalism and so forth.

      We should never have been so lax about our treatment of treason and traitors. Now they've infiltrated all levels of our society.

      • truebearing

        Perfect.

  • Mary Sue

    Yeah people seem to forget that it's a Republic, not a Democracy, that works. Democracy is one woman and two men, and the two men voting to rape the woman.

    • KarshiKhanabad

      And it is a Republic, backed by the Bill of Rights, which is an armed woman saying to the two men, "Thus far and no further. Majority rule has its limits!"

    • WhateverMan

      Unless that woman is you…In that case we have a definition a gay male couple.
      Homosexuality is one woman and two men, and the woman is mary sue.

      • Drakken

        Whatsathe matter? Your goat getting lonely again?

  • UCSPanther

    The Arab world has never had its version of the Magna Carta, nor long-standing law and order that even made that concept possible. Until they develop those two concepts, democracy will never work in the Middle East.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The Arab world has never had its version of the Magna Carta, nor long-standing law and order that even made that concept possible."

      Neither did the "Christian world." Christians went back to the Bible and Muslims went back to the Koran. That's the trouble. The fundamentals are totally in opposition.

      "Until they develop those two concepts, democracy will never work in the Middle East."

      Things won't just work out organically through "evolution." Even though the king saw himself as an agent of God, in effect the Christian reformation eventually mooted the Magna Carta other than for inspiration and precedent set. Constitutional Monarchies might think it's important but democratic republics don't need it.

      I think your point is valid but implying that it ever could have such a moment is leading the discussion astray. Islam is a totalitarian "religion" and political system. Christianity was illicitly used to create such a system for some time but could not justify it with the fundamental texts. If Islam was in theory able to have such a moment it would have happened when the majority of its subjects got access to the texts and challenged the "fraudulent" rule. It would have happened a long time ago.

  • sebyandrew

    Great discussion!

  • tecC41

    The Founding Fathers damned democracy as unfit for a free people. That is why they went to the trouble of discovering a new form of government: a doctrine and system of government in which the governing powers are limited by enforceable rules of law and in which the concentration of power is prevented by a system of various checks and balances, to protect the rights of individuals. The concept is "Constitutionalism." As Ben Franklin said when asked the result of the Constitutional Congress, "a Constitutional Republic, if you can keep it."

    For generations conmen have been saying that we have a democracy. In the 1920s and 1930s Russia went to a lot of trouble to promote the idea that the US was a democracy. Once you have a democracy then it is only a matter of a battle for power.

    Democracy is a form of collectivism. There is nothing that Obama has done that is undemocratic. There is nothing that Hugo Chavez has done that is undemocratic.

    If you keep promoting democracy, continue to lose.

    • BS77

      Good post. Hitler was elected in a democratic election…..so was Morsi and that evil lunatic Achmedinijad. Or Jim Jones and his horrible Jonestown "People's Temple" ..Democracy is a close cousin to Mob rule…..it cannot be easily managed without
      classical education and moral underpinnings….with a rational, well educated public…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The Founding Fathers damned democracy as unfit for a free people. That is why they went to the trouble of discovering a new form of government: a doctrine and system of government in which the governing powers are limited by enforceable rules of law and in which the concentration of power is prevented by a system of various checks and balances, to protect the rights of individuals. The concept is "Constitutionalism." As Ben Franklin said when asked the result of the Constitutional Congress, "a Constitutional Republic, if you can keep it.""

      The USA is a constitutional democratic republic. And no, not just any constitution will do.

      "Democracy is a form of collectivism."

      "Democracy" without limits can lead to the kind of exploitation that mimics collectivism. I guess you could say that pure democracy is the most crude form of collectivism. But if you have to say that, nobody will know what your point is.

      "There is nothing that Obama has done that is undemocratic. There is nothing that Hugo Chavez has done that is undemocratic."

      That's true literally, but 0'Bama is not allowed to ignore our constitution in the name of pure democracy. Pure democracy truly is as evil as Marx claimed capitalism to be. Pure democracy is mob rule. In fact it guarantees nothing.

      "If you keep promoting democracy, continue to lose."

      There was once a time not that long ago when one spoke about America promoting democracy that virtually everyone understood it was promoting constitutional democratic republic sovereigns. Maybe because we saw that Britain found what seemed like an acceptable alternative, we didn't get too fussy about enough of the details. Our mistake.

  • john

    Constitutional Republic – What America started With . What No Longer is even remotely understood .

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Constitutional Republic – What America started With . What No Longer is even remotely understood ."

      It's a constitutional democratic republic and the emphasis is on "democracy" to soothe the masses when they feel "disenfranchised."

      The fact that so few understand this today is more evidence of the damage done by early communist infiltration in our government and learning institutions.

  • Very Clarifying

    This really resonates with me and helps clarify my thoughts around democracy. Democracy is only as good as the base it is built upon. A strong moral base constrains and encourages beneficial results from the democratic process. Perhaps any system that started with a good base (a people who possess beneficial values) would remain good only as long as those values continue to dominate in society. This beneficial base aligns well with the Judeo Christian values and poorly with Islam, moral relativism, multiculturalism, forced income redistribution, many other liberal socialist concepts. When most people in western societies cherish the same beneficial values, one vote per person works well. When the majority of people are immoral or have mailable, shifting, questionable, unformed values systems, all bets, that democracy and the democratic process will produce better outcomes, are off. Democracy is a process. If the democratic process starts with good inputs, the opportunity to produce good outputs increases. Garbage in garbage out. Democracy is not the answer, the base democracy is built upon, the inputs that democracy has to work with determine whether it produces beneficial results.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Indeed. The base matters. The process just works with that base.

      • KarshiKhanabad

        This thread is one of the best discussions about democracy I have read on FPM. Thank you for your direct participation. Your columns are as though the Federalist Papers could be accessed in their time by today's digital media. We all need to be roaring cheering fans of the U.S. Constitution.

  • BS77

    Interesting that one of the leftist TV shows is called Democracy Now.

    • KarshiKhanabad

      What's that line about direct democracy consisting of two wolves & a sheep voting on what to have for lunch, and the Bill of Rights changing that to an armed sheep disagreeing with the majority?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      If they were honest they would call it Socialism Now.

  • elishawah

    Behold,I look out into the mist of the sea of the desert and lo there he is the fiery flying serpent.Who comes under a banner and mark:to fill the earth with it's poison.it has seven rivers and the waters are the waters of sihor,if you drink of the waters you will go blind,and deaf,and your mind will be sheared with a hot iron.and you will be turn over to the curse.and you will look apon the one that caused the nations to fall

  • Cathy

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  • Omar

    "Open elections everywhere would have given the Soviet Union more allies than the United States."
    Why would people who support universal democracy and open elections ally themselves with a monstrous regime that doesn't allow elections in the country at all? Those countries have ignorant leaders who would rather side with a dictatorship over a democracy. If the French Revolution (which created Communist totalitarianism) had failed, countries with universal democracies and open elections would always side with the United States.

  • EarlyBird

    Bush's entire post-9/11 vision was to overturn the many decades-long status quo, whereby the US propped up tyrants we prefered, to keep other would-be tyrants (pro-Soviet or Islamist) at bay. He realized, yes, this had resulted in "blowback," an oppressed Middle East which had given up on the notion of modern governance entirely, blamed the West for it's predicament, and embraced radical Islam.

    Sadly, Bush went about his transformation with the most disastrous foreign policy effort since Vietnam. But at least he understood it.

    Danny Greenfield's latest propaganda may sound like "hands off!," but he's been blaming Obama for "allowing" the Arab Spring to occur, and for not doubling down on support of Mubarak, Gadaffi – and perhaps now Assad – simply because their resulting demise has not turned the Arab world into Switzerland. He pretends to be against "tyranny," but is just fine with the kind of (unsustainable) tyranny imposed on people he doesnt' trust.

    • defcon 4

      And you seem to be just fine w/any tyranny of the islamofascist type — the more extreme the better.

      • defcon 4

        YOU were the one praising the Egyptians for "democratically electing" (LOL) Morsi and the MB into office in Egypt. Strangely enough the slaughter and persecution of Coptic Christians has been on the upswing ever since Mubarak was ousted "democratically".

      • Chezwick

        Believe it or not Sherlock, not all autocracies are equal. I'll take Mubarak over Morsi any day.

        • EarlyBird

          It's not about what autocracies "we" prefer. That's my whole point: we need to get out of the business of choosing peoples' autocrats for them.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Danny Greenfield's latest propaganda may sound like "hands off!,""

      That's because you create false dichotomies about everything you object to.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "…may sound like "hands off!," but he's been blaming Obama for "allowing" the Arab Spring to occur…"

      For his handling of it, and possibly for fomenting it with his speech in Cairo. Don't let any of the facts interrupt your rants.

      "…and for not doubling down on support of Mubarak, Gadaffi – and perhaps now Assad…"

      There are usually more than 2 choices available in the real world we are discussing. And "doubling down" still would have been better than what he did. This even ignores the fact that he started it all.

      "…simply because their resulting demise has not turned the Arab world into Switzerland."

      'Give us Switzerland in the ME or we'll nuke them.' That's what you read between the lines because you're psychotic.

      "He pretends to be against "tyranny," but is just fine with the kind of (unsustainable) tyranny imposed on people he doesnt' trust."

      We want our political leaders to make the best choices among those actually available in the real world. It's over your head, just to inform you yet again.

    • Drakken

      Silly lefty, the only way a muslim nation can funtion is by either a theocracy or a dictatorship, I prefer a dictatorship that is at least on friendly terms with the west versus the islamist that want to go full jihad.

    • Omar

      EarlyBird, quit repeating Stalinist/Maoist propaganda about America's foreign policy. Are you aware that the Castro dictatorship has tried to prop up regimes friendly to its interests too? In Grenada, the Soviet-backed dictator Maurice Bishop was a Castro regime puppet. In Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro became the new Castro regime puppet after Chavez's death. The Castro regime and its allies are all evil tyrants.

      • EarlyBird

        Omar, your response is ridiculous, and a non-sequitor.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Omar, your response is ridiculous, and a non-sequitor."

          No it's not. You're simply following the model of Soviet propaganda. You're an extreme (and lame) polemist who imagines or seems to imagine that we're the ones that don't get it. You do this by taking a few words (or imagining statements never made) completely out of context and then with ridiculous paraphrasing you then "summarize" our supposed radical views.

          It's flattery to say you are repeating communist propaganda because they were a lot more clever than you. You fool nobody but yourself.

  • Glennd1

    My goodness, what a tirade for such a trite insight. For a better source of insight for what makes a classically liberal governing system work, one need look no further then our founding for a deep consideration about how to create legitimacy via consent and popular will, but in a way that is tempered dramatically and limited absolutely in the sphere of how it can constrain individuals natural rights.

    As well our founders were deeply consumed by the question of whether people would restrain themselves from voting themselves privileges and the abrogating the rights of others. One way to understand our system from top to bottom is that its designed from top to bottom to constrain mob rule, to prevent democracy from running amok.

    What Greenfield seems to miss in this meandering screed is how the left sees democracy. Socialism can rightly be seen as the most radical form of democracy imaginable. The Marxists lay claim to the very mantle of liberty by claiming that classical liberals and capitalists have a very circumscribed view of democracy and liberty, and that in fact by removing property from the control of democratic institutions we are not really free. Their promotion of democracy in this sense is completely compatible with their collectivist agendas, and they do so very intentionally. The idea I've just laid out in this paragraph is well known to "democracy activists" around the world.

    In fact, our State Dept spends lots of time and money promoting this kind of view of democracy overtly. This is why the left always acts kind of shocked when people speak as Greenfield has here. It's as though he has no idea what people are being taught in our universities. His description of the democrats taking up the mantle of democracy isn't a lie to them, doesn't he get that? They would say they simply view democracy different from him.

    This persistent ignorance of the oppositions ideas on the right makes right wingers say and do very stupid things. One would think a site run by Horowitz would be capable of a more sophisticated understanding of the left. The last thing that I want to laugh at is his presumptuous assertion about the "the third war" we didn't fight but should have. Let me guess, we were supposed to make the mideast safe for Zionism, right? Lol. Yeah, two world wars were quite enough – and one of them we never should have fought either. How obtuse and hamhanded.

    • reader

      "Yeah, two world wars were quite enough – and one of them we never should have fought either."

      Which one of them exactly and why?

      • Glennd1

        WWI. We had no pressing strategic need to join in. The Brits begged us in, and then we were suckered in by Wilson over the Zimmerman telegram that urged the Mexicans to attack our southern border – which Mexico rejected utterly. There as no clear moral high ground – remember this was not Nazi Germany, it was a modern state with a parliament and many aspects of modern, free societies. It was ultimately a battle for disputed land in Europe that we had very little interest in the outcome of.

        This embroiling of the U.S. into the affairs of Europe ended our stated doctrine of staying out of such entanglements. In fact, Wilson was elected on a promise to keep us out of war. Many ignorant people think we entered because of the sinking of the Lusitania, but in fact, the Lusitania was carrying munitions, was armed and had orders to ram any submarine it could. The Brits took their chances and lost – but it wan't a vicious attack on civilians, it was more like how Hama fights – using civilians as shields and then complaining when they got killed.

        Without us delivering the drubbing to Germany, a negotiated end to the war would not have resulted in crippling of Germany economically and politically and likely would have taken a different course from what happened with the emergence of the Nazis, and all the death that followed from that. We probably wouldn't have had WWII either. However, these are hypotheticals so one can't really say. But I don't see how the U.S. entering WWI helped us as a nation at all.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          National Socialist Germany couldn't have done so much damage to the world if the world stood up to it sooner.

          But the FAKE anti-war and isolationist elements in the 1940's wanted the US out of the fight and letting National Socialist Germany rearm and attack many nations.

          Plus the hitler / stalin pact of 1939 was an abomination and exemplifies the criminality of the left and socialism in general.

          • Glennd1

            The Nationalist Socialist movement didn't even form until the early '20s, so what are you even talking about?

          • defcon 4

            Your reply is a Non sequitur.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Glennd1,

            How DUMB can you be?

            If national SOCIALIST Germany was stopped in 1930's, a lot of lives would have been saved.

          • EarlyBird

            What would the cassus belli be? You're suggesting that the Allies started WWII ahead of Germany making any belligerent moves on other countries.

          • reader

            You really have issues with comprehension and memory. Just days ago I've tried to educate you on this very subject. I guess, repetition is the mother of all learning. Keitel and other Hitler's brass testified that Hitler had been fully prepared to back off of his demands for Sudeten land in case the British and French decided to take a stand. Keitel went on to say that Hitler would get increasingly cocky every time the Euros acquiesced to his demands. Read up.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You really have issues with comprehension and memory…I guess, repetition is the mother of all learning."

            In humans yes, but in talking birds vocabulary is limited and comprehension is nil.

        • defcon 4

          I had thought the US entry into WW1 was prompted by a German submarine sinking a passenger liner (the Lusitania)? Or are you re-writing history to suit your leftist narrative?

          • Glennd1

            The Lusitania as used as the immediate rallying cry – I mentioned in my comment right above yours, yes? But in fact, the Lusitania was carrying munitions, was armed and had orders to ram an submarine that it could. This is the maritime equivalent of what Hamas does, fighting among civilians to create human shields. Fyi, if you ever get aboard a vessel that is shipping munitions to one side of an war, don't be surprised to find out that the ship is a legitimate target under the laws of war.

            We really joined the war because the Brtis begged us to and France was losing. The result was going to be decidedly bad for France and Britain – but I guess my view about that is so what? Why should we have cared? You should also know that mine is not an unheard of view by historians/analysts of this sort of thing.

          • defcon 4

            NO ONE knew at the time that munitions were on-board the Lusitania (a million rounds of .303 ammo, big deal). It's not like the German submarine stopped the boat and searched it before torpedoing it and killing a thousand civilians in the process.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Great point!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "We really joined the war because the Brtis begged us to and France was losing."

            Is it your position that America had no stake in the outcome of the war?

          • EarlyBird

            Defcon, your post is proof that you're a troll. Glen explicitly takes on the issue of the Lusitania. You don't read, you just write stupid things.

        • reader

          "Without us delivering the drubbing to Germany, a negotiated end to the war would not have resulted in crippling of Germany economically and politically"

          I'm not sure I understand. Are you contending that without US sending troops to Europe Germany would have not lost or are you contending that without US sending troops to Europe there would not be Versailles Treaty?

          • Glennd1

            Certainly the former, and perhaps the latter.

          • reader

            I think you have absolutely no basis to contend that Germany would have won the war without the US troops being in Europe. Germany lost the war not on the battlefield but economically, even after the Bolsheviks pumped it up for a few months. In fact, it would be more effective for Wilson to send no troops to France and more troops to Arkhangelsk – as Lockhart had asked him to do. In that case we would have already forgotten who Lenin was.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The US and UK and commies bombed the crap out of national socialist Germany.

            If nazi Germany didn’t surrender unconditionally, they would have gotten the Hiroshima treatment too.

          • reader

            These several posts are about the first world war.

          • EarlyBird

            Pay attention, Screw Up. Read the posts you're responding to.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Certainly the former, and perhaps the latter."

            I take it then that Germany winning WWI would have been either neutral or beneficial to America?

  • Anonymous

    "Culture and Conflict in the Middle East" by Philip Carl Salzman (a Montreal anthropology professor) offers a number of reasons why the rule of law, civil rights (as understood by Westerners), and democracy will not work. Largely due to the clan/tribal structure of organizing their societies — group orientation based on kinship and a requirement to put kinship above other considerations — makes a "rule of law" society virtually impossible. (So one sees "capturing" govt resources, not to improve society as a whole, but as looting and redistribution to family members.)

    • objectivefactsmatter

      ""Culture and Conflict in the Middle East" by Philip Carl Salzman (a Montreal anthropology professor) offers a number of reasons why the rule of law, civil rights (as understood by Westerners), and democracy will not work. Largely due to the clan/tribal structure of organizing their societies — group orientation based on kinship and a requirement to put kinship above other considerations — makes a "rule of law" society virtually impossible."

      The same arguments applied to many other cultures, not the least of which would be Japan before they were reorganized following the end of WWII in 1945. Ever heard of the samurai class? Shinto? Islam is worse because it's international and has a more complex set of lies with a long history of getting away with those lies. So it's a bigger problem for sure, but culturally not all that different. Oh yeah, in Japan it wasn't against their cultural values to try to be productive. Thieves were punished rather than lionized for stealing from members outside of the ruling class. The real differences are too uncomfortable for people to actually discuss so we look for more palatable explanations.

      "(So one sees "capturing" govt resources, not to improve society as a whole, but as looting and redistribution to family members.)"

      Because it's encoded in their theological texts. That goes beyond mere tradition.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        I think the appelation "Organized Crime", fits quite well……………….William

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I think the appelation "Organized Crime", fits quite well"

          If the Italian Mafia or the Japanese Yakuza also prayed to the moon 5 times a day and started political action groups to complain about the police investigating them, and had religious texts to support their positions, then we'd see something like Islam other than what Mo came up with.

          But Islam would STILL be a lot worse.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            Islam may mean 'I slaughter all men' this being the devil, even Satan who is
            denied by leftists who love the dark side and deny it's existence…..while
            claiming to be the light in thier falsity…………………..William

      • Anonymous

        Much of the Middle East (Arab cultures) are organized tribally. A tribal organization of society is not inherently "evil". In fact, if you read Salzman, "balanced opposition" (as he terms it) offers a number of advantages (especially in a desert environment.) (Japan was never organized by "tribal" affiliations).
        Anyway, a tribal organization is not (as I'm sure you are aware) unique to the Middle East. But it does pose enormous difficulties for democracies (there are non-Islamic countries in Africa who are also tribal societies and which suffer similar problems — ie, their parliaments become subsets of the tribal divisions found at large.) there have also been attempts in Africa to de-tribalize (meeting with mixed success).

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Much of the Middle East (Arab cultures) are organized tribally. A tribal organization of society is not inherently "evil"."

          I didn't assert that tribal cultures were inherently anything. I was focusing on ideology.

          "In fact, if you read Salzman, "balanced opposition" (as he terms it) offers a number of advantages (especially in a desert environment.) (Japan was never organized by "tribal" affiliations)."

          Whether that is true or not is not relevant to my point. But you could argue that it was. We don't know if it was ever purely tribal because in the history I am familiar with the classes were more important than "tribal" affiliation much of the time. But loyalties and affiliations were also very similar to what we see in other tribal cultures as well. The politics were also more sophisticated so we don't see the similarities right away.

          "Anyway, a tribal organization is not (as I'm sure you are aware) unique to the Middle East. But it does pose enormous difficulties for democracies (there are non-Islamic countries in Africa who are also tribal societies and which suffer similar problems — ie, their parliaments become subsets of the tribal divisions found at large.) there have also been attempts in Africa to de-tribalize (meeting with mixed success)."

          Any time one has a loyalty that is more important than the laws of the sovereign, this creates conflict. Whether that conflict is due to ideology or to loyalty to other groups, the conflict still exists. But deciding which conflicts are important requires analysis of the detailed facts.

          After you do that you see why jihad is the critical problem of today and leftist liars as the enablers are culpable as much as the jihadis if we're speaking collectively. Given all of the other problems these leftists cause it should be easy to see why I conclude that ideology is the most important focal point.

          • Anonymous

            If you go to Amazon and look up "Culture and Conflict in the Middle East" by Salzman, you can read a brief synopsis of his work. In the text he suggested that there are ever expanding, concentric circles (ever larger groups) — but each group is pitted against a similarly sized "enemy" group (thus, "balanced opposition"). Due to this constant orientation toward "the group", you never get universal principles or abstractions (it is particular and partisan). That is how their culture is structured. (I don't think it entails ideology).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "That is how their culture is structured. (I don't think it entails ideology)."

            Culture often drives ideology or provides a fundamental set of values, and ideology is layered on top of that. What I mean to say is that our struggle is not against tribal culture, but the ideological layers that lead to conflict with our laws and the values those laws are derived from.

            I'm not arguing that you're wrong nor that the information is useless, it's just not the most salient information about Islamic ideology and culture, which sprang from Arab Paganism and tribal culture.

            As long as people can participate in our democratic society and obey our laws, we should not have a problem with other trivial differences. But knowing those differences helps us better understand the conflicts. Placing those differences in the most useful context is even closer to ideal. That's why the conversation is useful. I'm not trying to correct you but to flesh out the most useful contextual explanations that I can muster.

  • NAHALKIDES

    The answer is to understand the real political goal is freedom, not democracy, and that democracy is only a tool to be used in promoting freedom. The power of the majority must be limited, as we can see here in the U.S. every time the Democrats win an election and conclude that everyone's life, liberty, and property becomes theirs to dispose of.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    In Islam Western style democracy and freedom are abominations that must be destroyed. So in the Islamic world they have elections under the pretense of having democracy without freedom and then use that phenomenon as a vehicle in which to consolidate power.

    Moreover, terrorism and jihad are two very different and distinct things. For instance, terrorism is extreme violence perpetrated primarily against non-combatants in facilitation of various political causes and all societies are guilty of producing terrorists. While, jihad, on the other hand, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme and it comprises both extreme violence directed against both non-combatants and combatants and also non-violence pursued via stealth and deception. In stark contrast to terrorism, jihad is also only pursued by Islamic society alone. Thus, it is extremely important to understand the differences and to differentiate between the two very different manifestations.

    In addition, astronomically far more jihad in the world today takes place via non-violence relative to violence. Further, there are also astronomically far more non-violent jihadists in the world relative to violent jihadists.

    An example of violent jihad would be the 9/11 violent jihad attacks, which were perpetrated by violent jihadists in the cause of Allah. An example of non-violent jihad would be mass Muslim immigration to the West, as Muslims never ever migrate to assimilate and integrate, because that would be blasphemous, but instead to eventually dominate and subjugate via the eventual imposition of sharia to make Islam supreme in the cause of Allah. Which is also why, by the way, there are thousands of Muslim no-go zones ruled by sharia as tiny Islamic statelets within the larger host states today sprinkled throughout Western Europe and also why there will eventually be Muslim no-go zones sprinkled throughout the USA as well.

    Indeed, when it comes to understanding the threat of Islam the conservative movement is just as blind and incompetent as the radical left. Of course, anyone who espouses this truth in the conservative movement is ostracized as I often am.

    • Chezwick

      Nope. you're ostracized because you're an egomaniac with a God-complex…and you're totally devoid of social skills.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Not at all….I'm just not a fake conservative like you and a moronic ignoramus at the same time. Not to mention that I also don't arrange for true conservatives who won't compromise their beliefs and values for closet leftists to be ganged up upon, but apparently you want to be run off permanently. Nevertheless, I still think it hilarious that you believe Saddam Hussein with his antiquated 50's era military represented a superpower threat and a threat to freedom on a par with Islam today. I'll never forget that one and I won't let you either.

        • Chezwick

          Take it easy, Skippy, you're all in a lather.

          But thanks for reminding me of your brilliant plan to defeat Islam….the US arming the likes of Saddam Hussein and helping him conquer the Arabian peninsula. You're a true visionary.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But thanks for reminding me of your brilliant plan to defeat Islam….the US arming the likes of Saddam Hussein and helping him conquer the Arabian peninsula. You're a true visionary."

            They didn't envision defeating Islam but "terror." Islam is a key reason why it didn't work as planned.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            But thanks for reminding me of your brilliant plan to defeat Islam….the US arming the likes of Saddam Hussein and helping him conquer the Arabian peninsula. You're a true visionary.

            It never was a plan. It was hindsight. Had GHWB, who was about as conservative as you and also about as dumb as well, that is he really was/is a closet liberal like you, not been a useful idiot of the Saudi Royal Family and the Gulf State Emirs and understood that the aforementioned were facilitating a stealth jihad to eventually take over the EU and now also the USA since the end of the Yom Kippur War, he would have used Saddam Hussein as an unwitting pawn to destroy Islam or to at least issue it a very devastating blow. Unfortunately that was a missed opportunity. His son was an incompetent chip off the ole block too.

            Your problem is that your inherent liberalism and strict adherence to political correctness that you can't shake prevents you from seeing and ever learning the truth, especially when it's obvious you have a closed mind exactly like the liberal you are. Of course, you would think the above ridiculous, but that's obviously because when it comes to the reality of Islam and also true conservatism you are a bona fide unhinged loon. Indeed, that's also why exactly like the liberal you are you also resort to arranging for true conservatives that won't compromise on their own values for you like me to be ostracized, especially since that's the greatest fear of you liberals, that is being ostracized right out of your silly leftwing groups. Indeed, it's also why liberals never admit the truth even when the truth has more than become obvious. Their fear of being ostracized and ran right out of their leftwing groups overrides all else. Nonetheless, the fear of being ostracized right out of my group doesn't faze me in the least, especially since I'm an independent thinking conservative unlike you and not influenced by any groups. You got a lot to learn there…moonbat!

            completely oblivious that his writing skills are akin to a high-school sophomore…

            Oh…please forgive me…I had no idea that this was a creative writing class and that you had somehow self-anointed yourself the creative writing instructor. Whatever makes you feel more secure and superior…I guess. Apparently, since you are so insecure and also to stroke your own ego you have now resorted to attacking my writing style, which is always very deliberately never politically correct and always extremely blunt on purpose. Meanwhile, conspicuously I'm also your only student. Oh wow, how adolescent! Indeed, how lucky can I be and how superior it must make you feel? Can we say leftwing politically correct nerd! How about attacking me on substance you moonbat so I can blow you away.

          • Chezwick

            Substance? Is that what you call your bizarre postulations? Unifying all the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf, creating a super-polity uniting Iraq with the Arabian peninsula, a polity with literally $trillions in annual income, and all to be ruled by a megalomaniac like Saddam!!!???

            5000 years of developed statecraft based on a simple premise, divide-and-conquer, all undone in a paragraph by Skippy, the boy wonder. Yea, that's "substance".

            The saddest thing is, you actually believe that you possess wisdom,…that you're some kind of guru…when in fact, you're nothing but a boy pretending to be man.

          • Chezwick

            Skippy, I can't be bothered reading your turgid screed.

            All I can suggest is therapy.

      • defcon 4

        Are you sure you didn't mean to write Allah complex?

        • Chezwick

          Check out his original post….

          "Moreover"…."For instance"…."In addition"…."Further"….

          He fancies himself a school-master, tutoring all us poor unfortunates….completely oblivious that his writing skills are akin to a high-school sophomore….(as is his conceptual understanding of complex issues).

          • Chezwick

            I forgot the best one of all….which he uses with stunning regularity….

            "thus"

            What a literary giant.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    The only way to tame Islam is to outlaw it, keep it out of our Nation, do everything possible
    to stop it's spread in the World and deem it anti-human, anti-life and an abomination in the
    sight of God and Man….which it is except for it's demonic adherents…………………….William

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "How are you going to outlaw it and enforce the ban?"

      Enforce existing laws equally with regard to treason, fraud and sedition.

      "Put the people that you suspect in jail?"

      No changes needed in our judicial process except throwing out leftists who treat supposed "oppressed" classes like they aren't accountable.

      What victim class do you belong to?

      • WhateverMan

        I belong to the victim class of people who try to get an intelligent answer out of you.
        Can you provide concrete examples? Just one or two, maybe?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I belong to the victim class of people who try to get an intelligent answer out of you."

          Keep reading, stop taking drugs and stop blaming all of your problems on others.

          "Can you provide concrete examples?"

          Examples of what, traitors? Frauds? Leftists frauds and traitors? Take your pick. I hardly know where to start. You think this is difficult? LOL! How old are you?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Can you provide concrete examples? Just one or two, maybe?"

          Investigate visa and citizen applications and hold them accountable for lies. That's just one fruitful area. Actually I can come up with dozens of individual policy suggestions that even on their own might be enough to signal that their stealth jihad failed. That's why you hand-wringers are jihad enablers.

          Paraphrasing people like you: "We just can't do it. We can't resist. I just can't imagine it so we shouldn't do anything."

          Imagine the audacious suggestion that we enforce our laws. I'm some kind of radical lunatic, huh?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Can you provide concrete examples? Just one or two, maybe?"

          Just recently illegal immigrants were released from custody due to budget constraints. OK, let's just say that was unavoidable (absurd but I'll stipulate in order to make a point).

          Where were they released? To the nearest border? No. They were released to the public where we wouldn't even save much money, and we expose ourselves to more criminal behavior along with signaling that when it comes to immigrants we don't really care about enforcing our existing laws. Not only to we lack the political will, but one of the two major parties. the one in power federally, actually signals that they want aliens to defy our citizenship laws, not to mention our voting laws.

          Law and order is all about power for leftists. It's not about law and order for the sake of society but for the sake of power for the party.

          And it'a all justified by lies about supposed victims from the past and present. In our society, victims get their day in court. The leftists don't want that kind of justice. They want "class justice" based on the imagination of Marxists. This is a direct attack on our constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            Leftists like Obama, (that part of his split persona) see the Constitution and
            the Bill of Rights as annoyances to be ignored, as a socialist something to
            be against, as a Communist something to be despised and as and Islamist
            material to be subverted…………………William

    • WilliamJamesWard

      As we are speaking about people that ultimately want us enslaved or dead I think the answer
      is obvious, deportation or the only outcome outside of bowing down to Islamic masters,
      war to the death, good over evil that is on it's way unless stopped……………….William

      • Drakken

        We have reached the point of no return where deportation is concerned, there are too many of them, they will leave of their own accord once they see that staying is going to be rather unhealthy if they do.

        • WilliamJamesWard

          By force or by thier will, they must go in order to avoid what will befall Americans
          in the future. As far as there being to many, Eisenhower after WWII forced the
          deportation in the same way, leave on your own or be sent packing for over
          ten million people who were working in America. It can be done, it was done in
          the past but with people less damaged than the Islamists, we shall see……..William

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Send 'em to Mexico.

            Let the Mexican Drug Lords take care of 'em.

    • defcon 4

      Deportation to any of the wonderful islamofascist theocracies which infest the globe, of which there are no shortage?

  • mlcblog

    A Democratic Republic. That is what they gave us, if we could keep it, but it depended on moral men who could be public servants. Unfortunately, we have been corrupted by corrupt politicians and we were too unwise or somehow unwilling to stop it forcefully enough. Thus, a stolen election with the irons in the fire for the next one.

    • pierce

      I agree with you 100%.
      Apparently we no longer have moral men, at least in this President's administration no morals period.
      He does not listen, because of his devotion to Saul Alinsky's principals.
      You have said what I wanted to say, only much better.

    • defcon 4

      I'm thinking the plans are already in motion for more voter fraud on the part of the Democrats and their islamofascist masters.

  • WhateverMan

    A casual observation of History would tell you that the road to democracy is long.

    The US declared itself a democracy in 1776, but did not extend that right to Black people and women until much, much later. The French Revolution had to go through the era of Robespierre, the Terror, the Guillotine the second revolution of 1848 until what you see today. The British, from the beheading of Charles I, the reign of the puritan (wahabi) Cromwell. I won't even mention German and its passage through the lowest form barbarism to get to what they are today.

    To expect Muslims to hasten the process while western democracies took their to get to the point they are in now is either hypocritical or FPM, I believe it is a perfect blend of both.

    • reader

      The US declared itself a republic, not a democracy. As for the muslims, they seem to be marching back to the 7th century pretty fast. Follow along, troll.

      • EarlyBird

        The US is a republic, which is a form of democracy, moron. It's both.

        • reader

          When you clearly demonstrate ignorance with respect to, say, John Locke and Edmund Burke, call those who know their writings morons. That will make a good sense… to a real moron.

    • UCSPanther

      May 1 000 000 Dresdens befall you…

  • WhateverMan

    Drakken,
    Of all the people on this site, the one that should have more introspection should be you.
    You are Austro-German, like a certain someone. Your people are responsible for the most barbarous act in recorded human history. We are told, nothing can rival the sheer savagery and lack of humanity your people have visited upon their enemies.
    You come here daily to utter the most hateful things about people who have not even done a fraction of what your people did. That is the contribution of your people to civilization: better and more efficient way to wipe out entire people. You wail and moan about many things, but what your people have done stand apart as the most uncivilized act of all Humanity.
    From the lowliest kaffir to the most retrograde muzzie, none can rival with the barbarism of your people. Your Grossvater must have been ecstatic at the news of the Anschluss. He was euphoric when the prodigal son and former corporal returned to visit his homeland. He must have, with million others, raised his had in that famous salute. He must have volunteered to join the SS change the world and recreated in his image by getting rid of the Subhumans.
    Based on your criteria today, should your people have been given a chance ? Shouldn't they have have been wiped out, man, woman and child, for what they did?
    A couple of generation later you still haven't learn. You still talk of Subhuman, purity, etc…
    You just substituted race with culture.
    In summary, your a transparent imbecile.

    • defcon 4

      Glass houses, stones. The Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist population of India and Afghanistan decreased by over 80 million over the course of the islamic invasions there. The great muslime hero Tamerlane (Timurlane) bragged about how many kafirs he had beheaded and enslaved. The latest addition to the muslime body count in the Indian sub-continent is the ~2.5 million Hindus slaughtered in Bangladesh in the 1970's:
      http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hind

      • Drakken

        Nice try at moraol equivilancy when there is none, you can thank us westerners for bringing everything you enjoy in the modern world today, where you 3rd world savages bring misery and pestulance. We came, we saw and we conquered and yet you whine over it, need a tissue?

      • defcon 4

        An islamofascist calling someone a nazi, a concept rank w/hypocrisy. Especially considering the active role of muslims in the Holocaust.

        • Drakken

          You seem to bring up a lot of what the nazis did, but you fail to bring up what you muslims or the communist did, which where far worse than whatever the Germans did.

    • Drakken

      I make no opologizes for my people, for that generation paid for their mistakes, let me make myself very clear, Israel is part of the western world, if Israel goes, we are next, and yes I use very blatent and unopologetic languge in describing our enemies, if it hurts your sensibilities tough sh*t ! My western culture is worth saving and defending against those who want to destroy what we have taken a milenia to build. Flooding the west with 3rd world turns us into the 3rd world for whence they came, so conflict is all but enevitable because one must reign supreme over the other, it is the human condition no matter how you try to civilize it. If you hate the west and our ideas so much? Bloody crawl back to the 3rd world cesspool your ancestors crawled out of because we will not change to your ways, but you change to ours. For all of our faults, you islamaniacs have done more to drag humanity to the dark ages than anything we of the west have done. So continue to to call me names as a good little self hating, self loathing, leftist islamic enabler, that you are.

      • defcon 4

        Dirty Bird could be merely a more urbane, polished, mendacious islamofascist.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Drakken AKBAR!

        • WhateverMan

          (warning: this post might be deleted by the admin)
          You mean Heil Drakken!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You must mean Heil Socialism.

    • WhateverMan

      (warning: this post might be deleted by the admin)

      Funny. One of the poster wrote about the death toll due to Muslim Conquest. I replied in kind by sharing the numbers of death caused by western expansion: my post is deleted.

      • defcon 4

        Maybe because your argument was fallacious, as is your defense of islamofascism.

  • defcon 4

    Hiroshima was carried out in the context of a declared war fool. The people of Hiroshima were warned before the bomb fell by the US.

    Why don't you have anything to say about the estimated 250 million people who have been victims of islamofascist jihad over the course of islam's long and continuing bloody history of death and destruction?

    • Drakken

      You call it war crimes, I call it warfare, and has been such since man picked up a rock to kill another. So if it hurts your little precious feelings? Too bloody bad.

    • EarlyBird

      No, you infant, the people of Hiroshima were not "warned" about the bombing before hand.

      I understand the use of the bomb(s) and believe they were justified. But we don't have to be stupid about it.

  • WhateverMan

    (BTW this is the second time I am posting this. The Admin simply removed it. I don't think I say here anything worse that what Drakken says. Hey Admin, this says more about you than about me )
    Drakken,
    The fact that you believe that your people have paid for the attempted genocide of the Jewish people, among other things, demonstrates that you don't understand the scope of the crime. The Holocaust is the template. The fact that the people perpetuating the murder of innocents women and children, pushing them into ovens , had great taste in painting and loved to listen to Strauss, does not make them in any way civilized. You and your people will always be the barometer for savagery. Your people will never pay enough for what they have done. Your people elected an SS for president. You voted in a man who said that Hitler was just misunderstood. You can come on this site every day and try to kiss israel's ass, still makes you the descendent of a people who committed one of the worst genocide in Human History.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Do not forget that today Islamofascists hail national socialist hitler, his policies, his acts and made the Arabic translation of mein kampf a Best Seller.

  • Drakken

    To front page admin,
    Let whatever man spew his leftist islamic nonsense for all to see, folks must see what and who they are dealing with, no matter how vile or wrong it is. This is the enemy that must be fought or we will all perish.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      I agree 100%.

  • Drakken

    To whatever idiot, I make no mistake about my direct ancestors crimes upon the Jews, that is their responsibility, not ours, and a lesson to be learned for sure. The jewsish people are to us as we are to them, without each other we as westerners will not survive, period! You bring up savagery, but you absolutely fail to mention communism or the muslim drive to the dark ages that makes the nazi's pale in comparrison. Your advocation of the multicultural diversity nonsense has no longer made it a melting pot, but a boiling pot ready to boil over, and make no mistake in your little pointy islamist head, it will boil over, and if you want a view as to what it will look like, look no further than the Balkans.Just because you call me a nazi in typical liberal/progressive fashion, it doesn't make it so.

  • Pkorman

    Adherence to, and respect for laws that protect all citizens is what made our country great. When the laws, or enforcement thereof, of other nations do not reflect our values, we should not stand in support. Our domestic problems also stem from the proliferation of overly complex laws and regulations, as well as mass segments of our society that seem immune to enforcement. The current regime is perpetuating and accelerating a breakdown in common values by swamping the population with new laws, and ignoring and selectively enforcing that are inconvenient for their political goals. IMO.

  • Jerry Person

    quit supporting the republican or shall I say the BUSH party and all wars will end. as the hoover files sow Hitler could not have had a war without Prescott Bush giving him the money.