Does Power Moderate Radicals? Where’s the Proof?
Julius Caesar:
Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o’ nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Marc Antony:
Fear him not, Caesar; he’s not dangerous;
He is a noble Roman and well given.
– William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
Caesar, of course, was right in being suspicious and Marc Antony was wrong. Result: Caesar murdered; civil war; tens of thousands killed; Marc Antony dead. Makes you think. Or at least it should.
An interesting and important question about the Middle East (and one can treat it on a global level, too) is whether being in power or running in an election inevitably moderates those who are radicals. It is automatically accepted by many people that this is so. Yet an examination of evidence shows such behavior more rare than common.
Let’s begin by pointing out that some of the problem is the unthinking transference of things that might be true in private and personal life into the political sphere. As individuals mature and have experience, they often become more moderate. And there are many cases of individual politicians “selling out” and abandoning more militant ideas to become corrupt. Yet neither case necessarily applies to systems, movements, or ideologies.
Even more questionable is the view that the difficulties of having to make decisions in government forces leaders to become more responsible. For example, they learn that money is not unlimited and therefore priorities must be set. Supposedly, they say to themselves: Hey, collecting the garbage and fixing the potholes is what’s important, forget about all this silly stuff about fundamentally transforming society, imposing the Sharia, destroying Israel, or chasing America out of the Middle East.
A problem with this argument is that it leaves out the political advantages for rulers of using demagoguery, incitement, and populism. To stay in power, a politician — particularly in a non-democratic country — gains advantage from militancy, real or feigned.
Another simplistic argument is that anyone who runs in elections and wins is automatically moderate because they participated in a legalistic, democratic process. This argument is quite full of holes. One should not confuse tactical caution with moderation. For example: President Hafez al-Assad of Syria knew after 1973 that a direct confrontation with Israel was a losing proposition, so instead he backed terrorist groups and used Lebanon as a launching pad for the attacks. Being radical does not necessarily mean being suicidal.
Barry,
Its Islam – not Islamism that is problem. Islam can never be moderate or civilized. I keep thinking of the snuff video out of Afghanistan showing Islamic terrorists shoot a defenseless woman nine – that’s right – nine times! to death while cheering the brutal murder in the name of Allah.
As the Koran was written and following Mohammed’s example, the most extreme and brutal atavistic interpretation of Islam was adopted early on as the normative creed and remains central to Islamic thinking even today. For an ideology, this means the most literal, radical and horrific practices to advance are not only considered halal, they are considered mandatory; indeed, Islam is spread not by persuasion but by force. Islamic societies rest on the primary of force and this is almost manifested in their relations with the world around them as well as far from them.
What does it all mean? Three conclusions: Islam like Communism and Nazism before it is a totalitarian ideology, though with a vastly larger number of followers than either the Communist and Nazi movements had at the peak of their influence and brooks no free debate or dissent – try to leave Islam and you’re dead; Islam is a violent movement – the Islamic terrorist is not an oxymoron and jihad and terrorism are a fundamental part of Islamic doctrine and practice and Islam for the Jews, is the most potent anti-Semitic movement on earth today – with Jew-hatred the norm and attempted assaults and murders of Jews a permanent and on-going fact of life.
Islamism is a nonsense term coined to avoid discussing the real problem – the nature of Islam itself. And defined by the features that I have described above, its a serious threat to not only the Jews – its principal bete noire but more fundamentally, to the Western way of life and our freedoms. We cannot roll back Islam today but we can contain it and unfortunately political correctness, lethargy and intellectual and moral laziness prevents Jews and Westerners from coming to real grips with it. Its also a deadly cult that holds millions in a moral and intellectual prison and far more lethal to both its own people as well to the Jews and the Western than any other contemporary cult, which at best has a tiny number of followers. Islam’s huge number of adherents making fighting it effectively a very difficult proposition.
Victory over it is possible only when we know the nature of the enemy and recognize that peace with it is impossible. There can be no real settlement with Islam as long at it remains the barbaric creed it has always been since it burst out from the Arabian desert in the 7th Century. We must not fool ourselves into thinking Muslims can be reasoned with or that exposure to our culture will moderate or civilize them. We must never drop the sword in the face of this Enemy Of The Open Society that has in its sights the extinction of Israel and that threatens to deprive us in the West of centuries of hard-won freedoms we hold so dear. Islam is the enemy of our century as well as of those that will follow it.
We were so sure that God was dead and that Communism/fascism were the worst ideologies we’d faced that we forgot all about a very old enemy.
Great note, Norman. I agree the problem is Islam and anytime the followers of Islam imitate their prophet or his supposed words, we have trouble. Is the nazi party legal in the U.S.? Islam is against us, we should be against it. It is a cult that should be forbidden. And, I mean against the law. No more sugar coating…pc days are over. It is a political cult dressed in the garb of religion. Like an infestation, we need to wake up and respond before its too late. We need a new Winston Churchill who can see the devil, before the devil eats all of us.
You are spot on. Muslims cannot be reasoned with. Remember the scene in the movie, Last of the Mohicans, when Hawkeye and Cora were talking in the indian burial ground? Hawkeye said, “My father warned me about people like you. He said do not try to understand them, or try to make them understand you. For they are a breed apart and make no sense.” And so it is with the muslims. They are as dangerous as a rabid dog. If they cannot be “put down”, we should isolate them. Barter for their oil, no hard currency. We should not train them in our colleges, let them study their koran, practice pedophilia and play with their goats.
Well said, sir.
Islam makes me uncomfortably aware of how far one can go wrong following religion unquestioningly.
I don’t think my religion is like that. However, I am sure the Muslims think their bloodthirsty excesses are all justified executions.
St Augustin had it right. We are obliged to think for ourselves. Paradoxically we have to realize some theolgians know more than we do, and still we are on the hook to discern the truth for ourselves.
Extreme Islamists are the issue like the Taliban not those who are moderates. In every religion you should never follow every last word written in your religion’s holly book whether that be the bible or the Qur’an. On top of that there are different interpretations of Islam. Islam in Saudi Arabia and Libya are different for example. Islam is exactly like Christianity or Judaism they are different ways of worshiping god they all share the same roots. The same things applies to all of them you should not follow every word written in the bible, torah, or Qur’an. Extremist Christians and Jews are just as horrible as extremist Muslims.
You are ill-informed on the subject.
I suspect willfully so.
How am I ill-informed?
Perhaps you could show us your mastery of the subject by pointing out for us the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist groups who are just as murderous as the Taliban. You can’t.
The only ones that I can think of are godless Marxist, of various stripes and flavors, whose religion is government. They have a written word that blows to and fro with the wind. I don’t know why because no one in their click even claims to try to adhere to any of it. They seem to revel in seeing it forced on others though, just like Muslims. They have a historical body count that can soundly beat Islam’s, and all these other religions added in for good measure.
where’s the PROOF?
Mr. Rubin, I suggest a better question would be, “Where is there a scintilla of evidence?”
I seem to remember an old saying. Something about power corrupting, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
When those who are intrinsically corrupt attain power, good things do not spontaneously happen.
One might as well expect a flash flood rushing down a mountain canyon to suddenly reverse course when the canyon gets more steep.
May I suggest an example of a radical group becoming more moderate over time? I’m thinking of the various branches of the IRA in Northern Ireland. Mind you, it took well over 30 years for them to really moderate their violence and several additional years for the very gradual decommissioning of their weapons and violent attacks but it certainly appears as if The Troubles are over there. Martin McGuinness, apparently one of the most rabid of the IRA leaders, recently shook hands with the Queen in what was seen as a final, symbolic end to the animosity.
Of course some may deem this an inappropriate example. After all, the IRA wasn’t in government for much of that time.
The IRA never sought the destruction of the UK. Their ultimate objective was the uniting of all of Ireland. While the Irish Republic supported the concept of a united Ireland the overwhelming majority of the people did not support the IRA. The IRA moderated because they found out that they couldn’t defeat the British or Protestant majority in open warfare and lacking support from Catholic Ireland found that they only solution was political. The Irish problem is a unique situation.
I think the IRA is a good example of political reality leading to moderation. It was not the IRA or their militant loyalist counterparts who pushed for a political solution. It was the moderates. However, faced with the reality of the moderate cause gaining credence in the good friday agreemdent, stage managed incredibly well by Blair, the extremists had to rethink. Ideological support and even funding from various levels of American society based on a romantic view of the problem dried up after 9/11. The old IRA leadership wasn’t getting any younger and now saw there source of income and respect becoming outdated. Suddenly a leather chair and a pen is more appealing than the back of a van and a pistol. And so the political process was embraced.
I have watched the Arab Winter unfold in horror knowing from the beginning where it was going. The US and EU governments have been the enabling hand behind the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis. This is the biggest strategic blunder of the last five hundred years by the West. What follows will be an order of magnitude worse than Carter’s blunder in Iran. It’s said that the gods first make mad those they would destroy? The West is clearly stark raving mad and is on its death march.
“Those who believe in timeless, unchanging, monolithic Islam might note that Hasan’s own sister refused to wear a hijab.”
Well those of us who believe in a timeless, irredeemable, Islam which is incompatible with civilization in any form note that in nearly fourteen centuries Islam has made no progress in its ability to co-exist with the civilized world.
Why would any believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is about to change that.
Having power has moderated anyone? Not as a rule.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
The line “they (politicians) learn that money is not unlimited” is the exception , not the rule and does not apply at all to liberals.