S. T. Karnick claims that it is perfectly consistent with conservatism to support the democratiztion project.
After all, if there is a universal human nature, as conservatives believe, mustn't we all want the same things, like democracy and freedom?
Several posts by Lawrence Auster: here, here, here, and here.
However, there is another important point to make:
Universal human nature refers mostly to such basic desires as sex, wealth, and power. It is not clear to me that such abstract and complex ideas such as universal rights and freedoms for all (as opposed to freedom for me and mine, screw everyone else) are part of human nature.
In the comments section of the FPM article, "Northern Steve" mentions Turkey as an example that you can too have an Islamic democracy. What he leaves out, though, is that to the extent that Turkey reflects liberal western values, it does so because Attaturk essentially suppressed Islam through the sword. Certain aspects of Islam, such as headscarves or females, were actually banned under Attaturk. So yes, if you force Muslims not to behave like Muslims through a police state, you can get a "Muslim" semi-democracy.
In any case, I think that Mr. Karnick is simply using wishful thinking to justify Bush's universal messianic democratism.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment