I went to a book launch yesterday for Irving Kristol’s posthumous collection of essays, The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays 1942-2009. On hand to discuss the book was William Kristol, the author’s son and (with his mother, Gertrude Himmelfarb) co-editor of the capacious gathering of essays by the “godfather of neoconservatism.” Irving Kristol was one of our most percipient commentators about politics and society. His signature style in later years, when I got to know him, was a certain wry, semi-detached irony: concerned with what was happening to American society but also generally calm, amused, twinkling.
There were exceptions to this posture in Irving’s previously published writings. I think, for example, of his masterly essay “My Cold War” from 1993. “There is,” Irving wrote towards the end of that essay:
[N]o “after the Cold War” for me. So far from having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers.
Advertisement
Good stuff, no?
Among Irving’s great talents as a social commentator were 1) a knack for compression — he could say more in a 1000 word op-ed piece than many writers manage in a book — and 2) a capacious, dialectical mind that could argue strongly for a particular point of view while at the same time accommodating or at least addressing contending perspectives.
I use the term “dialectical” advisedly. It belongs to the argot — how exciting it once seemed! — of Hegelian-Marxist thought, a species of which provided the fledgling Irving Kristol with an intellectual vocabulary and mode of argumentation. Kristol early on outgrew the dogmatism serious allegiance to Marxism demands but not the rhetorical nimbleness it inculcates.
I’ll have more to say about The Neoconservative Persuasion in a review. For now, I wish simply to recommend the book to my readers and, in a spirit that I hope Irving would endorse, say a few words about a conversation I had with another astute commentator on world affairs following the launch for The Neoconservative Persuasion. The subject was Islam, and my friend, responding to a couple of recent columns here (in particular, I suspect, Then and Now, Or, remember Iran as you think about Egypt, Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood & Oyster Stew, and maybe Alfred E. Neuman in the driver’s seat) cautioned me that “Islam is not just one thing.”
His point — may I say, “His point of course”? — is that like England’s Island Story, Islam forms a rich and varied tapestry. And it does so not only historically, but does so even now, today. It’s not only the case that not all Muslims are terrorists but also that the expression of “really existing Islam” differs widely from society to society. The “face” of Islam is widely different in Indonesia, say, from what it is in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran. Et, need I add?, cetera.
The question at issue today is Islam in Egypt. I have mentioned in a couple of columns the precedent of events in Iran in 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini strode into town brandishing his Koran in one hand, his sword in another. Is it legitimate to worry that something like what happened in Iran could happen in Egypt?
The countries are markedly different from each other and 2011 is not 1979. We’ve passed, as Samuel Goldwyn is said to have put it, a lot of water under the bridge since then. Perhaps what happened in Iran is not an illuminating precedent. I think the jury is still out on that. Time will tell. What we do not have to wait around to discern is the yeasty influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I have written about the MB in Egypt several times in this space, at some length in What Sauce Will Barack Obama Use When He Eats His Words?
The place of Egypt — the most populous Arab country — in the political metabolism of the Middle East is a complex affair. It has deep, if sometimes covert, relations with Israel, a fact that enrages the Muslim Brothers, for whom the destruction of Israel comes high on their list of desiderata. I suspect that my friend Andy McCarthy is right when he suggests that a more illuminating parallel to what might happen in Egypt is offered by Turkey — since Ataturk, the poster child for what a secular, modernized Islamic society might look like.
There was a young Paki-American student, American born and bred, who once gave me a ride home from classes. On the one hand he defended the odious Madonna from my sneers and jeers. On the other he admitted to feeling a kind of divided loyalty about the first Gulf War since he had been raised to feel solidarity with his fellow Muslims.
There are other, less personal, signs of this feeling of solidarity among otherwise decidedly “moderate” Muslims.
I wonder what the hundreds of thousands of muslims who have fought alongside the US Army both in Iraq and in Afghanistan would say to this slurring of their religion. What a stupid and conflict oriented view.
your answer is comment number 3, below.
After they say their piece, I would ask them if they believe that Muslims have a duty to kill Salman Rushdie. Then I would ask them why they belong to a religion that permits and even celebrates such beliefs and practices. Shall I continue? Oh yeah, time is finite.
All the comments so far (except this one) are about the Muslim religion versus Islamism, and whether there is such a thing as a “moderate Muslim.” But they offer no test for measuring westernizing or moderation. I tried to lay out the debate here: http://clarespark.com/2011/02/10/multiculturalism-cui-bono/. We are all too ready to see solidarity within a group rather than conflict and debate.
There are always those outside 3 s.d. It’s the fact the numbers are actually so small in comparison that’s bothersome.
Roger: as a former muslim I have to agree with you 100%. there moderate muslims and there is no moderate Islam. well said. one thing that the Media is not aware of liberal or conservative, is the Egytian military. just like Iran(my country of birth) serving in military is mandetory for everone(males) for two years. a lot of those solders have no loyalty to Mubarak and most likely they hate him as well.
I exaggerate to an extent, but I liken the moderate Muslims of today to the moderate Germans of the 1930s. Yes, they exist/existed and perhaps in large numbers, but being moderate may not be enough.
I would compare moderate Muslims to Sasquatch. Much is heard about them yet very little seen (relative to Islam’s numbers) and most of moderates held up as an example of the species turn out to be frauds.
There are moderate Muslims. So what, who cares? They are nothing but irrelevant bystanders in this struggle. Don’t ever expect any help from them.
KIS means keep it simple stupid.
Those who follow Mohammad are true followers of Islam, which means to submit. Any Muslim not following Mohammad is an Apostate. What did Mohammad do?
We already know. Therefore, any moderate Muslims are Apostate, or lying to your Infidel face.
Nail on the head LN. You may have listened or heard Allen West’s description. If not look him up on U tube.
As to the comment about “moderate Muslims vs Islam.
I think most everybody would accept that there are well meaning integrated moderates of the Muslim faith in Global societies who pose no threats. However, to the broader perspective of radical and mainstream Islam, the question is; how do we define and identify the two differing elements, one from another. Until we can work that little problem out one has to err on the side of national interests and safety.
A study of Trinidad comes to mind. Clearly identified radicals, moderates and non practicing Westernized Muslims.
Geert Wilders is unfortunately quite correct.
What most religious apologists overlook is that while Judaism and Christianity also have hateful things written in their religious texts, they take an interpretive view of the Bible. The core precepts of their religion are usually respected, while those who advocate punishments of anything other than excommunication are widely condemned.
However, such interpretive views are relatively rare among the various Islamic sects. They tend to take a strong fundamentalist view of their sacred texts.
This wasn’t much of an issue until oil wealth made them very mobile and capable of throwing their weight around. Now we see intolerance and hate being fomented in houses of worship. We are not equipped to deal with such anti-social behavior on such a massive scale.
Thus we’re left with some very rotten choices. There are too many to imprison, and many were actually born in the west and probably can assert some rights of citizenship.
So here is my modest proposal: I propose that we should monitor what their Imams teach. If the Imam is intolerant, get up and protest them. If they advocate, assist, or foment violence in any way, sue the mosque. We do no less for the Westboro “Baptist Church.”
If it is good enough for the rest of us, I see no reason we shouldn’t do it for our new immigrants. And if they don’t like it, they can bloody well go somewhere else.
Moderates in Egypt certainly do make a difference. Despite their wishes for freedom and democracy, the people I’ve talked to don’t in any way see that as excluding religion; to even moderates they are one in the same and are somewhat bemused when I talk about separating the two. You will see some talk and little else in Egypt about running religion out of government.
You cannot force a people to do such a thing. It took hundreds of years of bad experience in Europe before nascent Americans said, “Religion – great – not in the law, please, thank you.”
It is arguable to what extent European Christianity ever was viewed throughout historic Europe as at one time being something inseparable from government and unthinkable to separate out since government was often one man, sometimes not; Europe was a large quilt that in some places saw religious imperative hold sway over people in much the same way as sharia law does in Islam. Are there real parallels between the two situations?
Christianity was a middle eastern religion eventually laid over the framework of Europe and today we look back and see this as an example of somewhat unnatural bedfellows since Christianity in its worst forms tended to hold back what are now seen as “natural” aspirations of men to think freely.
Is sharia within Islam a somewhat different story or does it in the same way suppress the natural aspirations of men? Certainly the West sees it that way. Does sharia reflect the culture of the middle east or is it the culture of the middle east that is in fact sharia? It is hard to argue that any strict dogma is a natural outgrowth of the human condition but what is the default position of the human condition when it comes to governance. Is there one? Is the best compromise struggle but without violence?
Would it be more helpful to see a kind of default condition if restricted to the cultures of the middle east which are artificial constructs but at least more relevant to that area of the world?
What is less arguable is that Egypt will have to go through their own growing pains as regards religion and state and come to their own conclusions.
It is one thing for sharia to enter the West where an umbrella of more responsible governance leavens and somewhat masks any idiocy residing within the idea of sharia government and it is another to expect success from a sharia government that is incapable of addressing a desire for people to be free and constricts their intellectual movement; this suggests a gradual erosion of sharia where it holds sway unchallenged, unmasked for all to see without sharia being inside democracy in the West and so hiding its weakness as a social construct but exposing sharia for what it is by the West being a distant example.
In European history, first to take a backseat were kings and princes and then religion but almost from a gradual disinterest rather than a cold calculation from the ground up to occult the influence of religion in government as was the case in America. In Europe, part of this was a growing fascination with empirical science and philosophies of the human condition.
Islam will have to make its own way here but the Western template suggests that free your mind and your ass will follow or you’ll be riding an ass. If the house arrest of Galileo is a watershed moment, one can see that the stars were eventually free to aspire to but that the alternative was a turning one’s back on science and so progress. Progress in the middle east is muffled beneath a patchwork of social experiments consisting of mostly dictatorships but with religion always in the mix in unpredictable ways. The problem with success is that in fact it can never really be copied but must be innovated from the ground up and so what amounts to ‘cargo cult’ governance in the middle east in terms of democracy is probably not the best way to start but it’s what they’ve got, just as India did.
I think the obvious educational experiences of many muslims in the middle east in the sciences suggest they are not turning their back on science but struggling to reconcile the two in a manner that is quite different from what happened in Europe.
Islam loves many things about the West but are somewhat leery of strip clubs, free love, urban crime, abortion, birth control, state funded sex changes and a whole lot more.
Islam is no where near being as full of eccentric individualist’s as America is, or should I say was since they are dying off. This is a huge difference between the two cultures. Many within Islam love rock and roll but neither understand it nor have the ability to create it for themselves since, as an art form, rock and roll is dedicated to the idea of each individual creating their own traditions and life for themselves. Egyptians certainly understand and have the desire to want to freely express themselves outside an odious police state but what it is they ultimately want to express is the million dollar question.
James May’s next to last paragraph runs: “Islam loves many things about the West but are somewhat leery of strip clubs, free love, urban crime, abortion, birth control, state funded sex changes and a whole lot more.”
Islam is leery or Moslems are leery? There is the connection to Roger’s point of: who is moderate. Islam, like any respectable religion, is leery of lewd, criminal or modern western sexual behaviour. Moslem citizens practice all the above, at a rate at least comparable to the general population.
It doesn’t take long to detect a leftist and it takes even less time to detect a nimrod. Just listen to what they say and read what they write. As for leftist nimrods, which are usually interchangeable terms, they might as well carry a sign.
David Corn, a card-carrying leftist nimrod, is a case in point. Kevin Blackistone, a sports-writing nonentity, is another. The chief difference between them is that in Corn’s case he veritably oozes leftist venom through his pores and Blackistone is just a run-of-the-mill, America-hating liberal.
Like most leftists, Blackistone has issues with American traditions unless, of course, those traditions involve favored liberal causes, like flag-burning. Referring to Christina Aguilera’s botching of the national anthem at the Superbowl, he ragged on “The Star-Spangled-Banner” as not only irrelevant to sporting events when it is traditionally played or sung prior to the start of play, Blackistone also contended it has nothing to do with patriotism, either. Rather, it has “everything to do with war” and “the politics of militarism.”
His complaints are nothing more than a re-hash of anti-war rhetoric which is near and dear to the hearts of liberals and distinguishing them from us warmongering conservatives who absolutely love the idea of armies slaughtering other armies. That false, inflated sense of moral superiority is characteristic of the liberal mentality and is as flawed as everything else the left professes to believe.
“The Star-Spangled Banner” was composed by Francis Scott Key following the bombardment of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812 but is anything but a glorification of war. Adopted as the nation’s anthem in 1931, the song serves as a reminder of our country’s history and the glory of our flag. The rockets and bombs “Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there . . . that star-spangled banner yet wave[d] O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
We could adopt a new national anthem, one easier to sing, but why? To please people like Blackistone? We could instead choose “Hail, Columbia!” or “America the Beautiful,” or “God Bless America,” but why? Liberals despise those sentiments, as well. And would a different anthem give patriotic Americans the same lump in the throat as do the strains of “The Star-Spangled Banner”?
Blackistone also suggested “Ballad for Americans,” a song popularized by the black Communist, Paul Robeson: http://tiny.cc/iigvu
Blackistone is correct about one thing, however. Many Americans don’t know all the anthem lyrics and it is often disrespected by thoughtless sports fans when it is played. That, however, is just testimony to our schools’ failure to teach the song and to their failure to explain why audiences should demonstrate proper reverence for our flag.
David Corn is a leftist of a different color from David Blackistone, no racial pun intended.
Corn, a “progressive” author and commentator, like all “progressives” despises Glenn Beck as much as he despises Sarah Palin and thinks he has just the ticket for getting rid of one of the banes of his existence, Beck. Corn began an article on the “progressive” PoliticsDaily.com with an excussion into wishful thinking: “Glenn Beck is walking toward a cliff–or running, or skipping. The question is, will Fox News go flying over the edge with him, or give him a push?” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3597)
W.S. Gilbert is one of my favorite lyricists, which is why I am venturing the following not-really-off-topic comment. Roger, you’ll let me know if this passes the PJ moderators’ squad:
Those interested in lightening up about the very heavy subject of Western naivete about the Muslim world are invited to view my brand-new satirical song, “Egyptian Revolution Blues,” which has gotten 3.6K views on YouTube in the last two days alone. It’s available at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqiGmodx33A
I’m no expert on Islam but if the final authority for your value system is the Koran, and the Koran, as is claimed, commands unambiguously to oppress all dissenters, well, imagine how that would look as a Boolean statement ins source code regardless of how many cycles it takes to reach it.
Marv Knox, Liberal / Progressive editor of the “Baptist Standard,” in his article seen here asks the following questions:
(Ameritianity’s response is in parenthesis and at the end of the questions.)
So, what do we think about a democratically elected Islamic state? This raises several questions, some very closely related and some less so:
• If Americans historically and philosophically believe in democracy, what is our responsibility to help ensure democracy for others? (We must define Democracy)
• Specifically, what is our obligation to nurture democracy that could turn an ally into an enemy?
• Beyond that, what is our greater obligation: The U.S. national interest, or the good of other people as human beings? (A strong America is in the interest of all who seek to be free)
• Would Jesus compel us to preserve our national security, standard of living, borders and worldview if releasing or relaxing all of them would secure a higher standard of living and greater freedom for an even-greater number of people around the world? (Marv, those in this world who have a lower standard of living and less freedom are not in that position because America has excelled in these areas, any more than those who fail to attain Salvation and eternal life fail to do so because of those who do accept Christ by Faith. It is about CHOICES, of the individual and people groups. America today is the result of people making choices, many of which were very costly and which involved sacrifices for the greater good and the future of Americans and mankind. Americans have not always had a higher standard of living and greater freedom. They fought, died, and prayed for what we have. As we still are doing today. Interesting that many of the worlds wealthiest individuals and families live in the same countries that house some of the people with the lowest standards of living. Mexico. Egypt. Libya. Most of the oil producing countries in fact.)
• And what should we do when democracy and evangelism come to cross purposes? Imagine a strong leader who would repress his people but allow missionaries to minister with freedom and security (Where have you ever seen this?) , contrasted with a democratically established Islamic state that does not allow missionaries.
I don’t see these issues raised clearly in the secular media, but they’re important questions to be answered in Egypt and, perhaps, throughout the Middle East. (Marv, is this one of those days where you believe in your oft defended absolute separation of church and state? How about church and press, or press and state?)
Our response:
Once again, Mr. Knox, Liberal/Progressive editor of the Baptist Standard, leaves out the most important and obvious fact which is simply that what we mean by “DEMOCRACY” as defined by most Americans, and other free people in the world, is not compatible with Islam by definition or practice. Our “DEMOCRACY” goes beyond simply “MAJORITY RULE.” Americans and others believe that “DEMOCRACY” is based on something, a set of values, a set of standards, beyond majority / mob rule.
In the United States of America, we have a Democratic Constitutional Republic. Our Democracy is based upon our founding documents including the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Included within our Declaration of Independence is the belief in a Creator God from Whom we have attained Inalienable Rights, and under Whom our elected officials serve as Stewards.
Included within these Inalienable Rights are found our belief in Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Press, etc. Islam is therefore incompatible with what we view as “DEMOCRACY” because it does not accept the Rights and Freedoms that we as Americans view as essential to a true Democracy.
(1) We should assist other people who seek Democracy when what they seek is in agreement with what we view as real Democracy. Unfortunately Presidents Carter and Obama have ignored the plea from the people of Iran, and others, in the past;
(2) Our primary interest should be the survival of the USA, which we do believe serves the good of all human beings. “Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor” – Marv, you have previously stated that you do not believe that Christianity has a special place in America. Nor do you agree with our Founding Fathers regarding “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” Thank God most Americans have not in the past and do not now agree with you. We are not called to be fools or to be self-destructive. The USA has been the source of assets and power FOR Freedom and Democracy, and their Defender, in the world for many years. If we fail, who will fill the void? Compassion is not required to be weak. Weak compassion will lose its ability to show compassion;
(3) We are not called by God to be self-destructive nor to ignore and belittle God’s Blessings upon America. You can feel guilty for success, for God blessing America, but hopefully other Americans will not be so foolish. There has never been a people in the history of the world who have sacrificed and given as much for the freedom of others, for work in the Great Commission, as have Americans. Most Americans who understand our history, and who have had family members serve in the military of our Nation on foreign soil, know this. Weak believers in true Democracy will lose their freedom, just as those who trivialize God’s Purpose and Blessings He so richly pours out upon His People, His Children.
Definitions have consequences – as do elections. Democracy and Freedom do not have the same meanings to all people. Some Muslims believe that “Freedom” comes through absolute rule of Sharia Law which they may believe protects their followers from the “Evils” of “Freedom” as seen in the West. Democracy and Freedom also differ in the minds and philosophy of some relative to how they should relate to and interact with others on the planet. For some, Democratically elected or not, their goal is to “DESTROY” those who they see as “EVIL” or who stand against themselves. “Free Choice” is a Christian principle. It seems not to be an Islamic principle.
For example, the USA does not generally state that our national objective is to destroy nations and people who do not agree with us … even though we are the one nation that actually has the power to do so. When we are confronted by another nation or people whose stated objective is the destruction of America, and what we view as Democracy and Freedom, we begin to deal with self-preservation and self-defense, whether our enemy was Democratically elected or not.
Ever hear of the term ENABLERS????? Thats what MOST ALL Moslems are. 75% of Moslems SUPPORT sharia law. Virtully EVERY Moslem advocacy group(not only CAIR) tells the moslem community not to co-operate with the FBI and other civilain police agencies. Most TERRORISTS , like Ayman Al Zawahari, Al Awaki or Malik Nidal Hassan, are either born or educated in the west. Ive said it MANY TIMES. ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM. ISLAM WAS NOT HIJACKED BY TERRORISM. ISLAM ADOPTED TERRORIST TACTICS AFTER LEARNING THEM FROM THE SOVIETS IN THE 70S. Do you think for one minute the Saudis couldnt find Bin Laden or the Egyptians Al Zawahari if they really wanted to?
BTW Roger-Id suggest you re-think about Turkey. Turkey since Erdogan is swinging towards the Iran model(autocratic). Erdogan is not Ataruk in any sense. Erdogan is viruently anti-western.
I don’t care what ANYONE says there is no such thing as a moderate, only a wishy washy over the fence confused dove.
Some comments and questions for you to ponder.
U.S. moslem soldiers served us well in Iraq (OIF). My son’s unit has several such fine young men and they helped get their unit out of some sticky spots by talking to Iraqis in Arabic. This helped defused some misunderstood situations.
There are moderate Moslems. The further they get away from their home culture/region/geography, and exposed to the “good” in western civilization, the getter the chances are that they develop tolerance of other religions unseen in their native lands.
I’m not saying that all Moslems in western countries do this. We know that they don’t, esp. in England and Malmo, Sweden.
There is a “Silent Majority” of non-violent Moslems, but can they exert a voice for tolerant and brotherhood under the covert and overt threats of violence/death by the “true believers”. This is the case in “honor killings” as well as in the case of few moderate Moslems speaking up in strong voices, esp. in the U.S.
A question no one is asking is whether American “Black Muslims” fall into the group of “true-believers” in the Koran’s violence instructions. WIll they follow some nutcase Mullah in Iran (as did Daoud in assassinating Iranian exile Ali Tabatabai) in killing people, or will they remain non-violent? Will they/some follow Rev. Louis Farrakhan into violence if he tells them to “defend” Islam by any means necessary? To me, Farrakhan is more of a cult leader than a religious leader (like the marxist poseur Rev. James Jones of Jonestown infamy), and they are often more dangerous than religious leaders.
We pray for moderate Moslems to speak up and take the lead in preaching tolerance, and I’m talking about millions of them, not just a brave handful like Jaffir, Roni Dawish,etc.
I’m waiting, but I’m not hearing much.
Does anyone CARE to oppose CAIR?
PM Erdogan: The Term “Moderate Islam” Is Ugly And Offensive; There Is No Moderate Islam; Islam Is Islam
Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007
Source: http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/2595.htm
Roger -
Egypt HAD an Attaturk, his name was Anwar Sadat. The MB Killed Him. Case Closed.
Dr. Shalit