The Corner - RE BAD BOOKING [Cliff May]
Good points, Jonah.
I think Sharansky held his own (in what is still, after all, a very foreign language for him) but it was an odd pairing. More disturbingly, as you suggest, this match-up avoided the bigger story: the fact that so many liberals have adopted a Buchananite perspective, the fact that so many liberals have become post-democratic (they no longer believe in Kennedy’s vision of Americans “bearing any burden” to spread freedom and democracy), as well as post-humanitarian (they have little or no concern about Muslim-on-Muslim crimes, e.g. mass murders, torture and rape).
Also, as moderator, Russert should have guided the debate away from such digressions as what “democracy” in Gaza would mean for Israeli settlers. (His argument assumes the flawed premise that democracy means majority rule – when it actually means such institutions as minority rights, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a free press, etc.). Russert should have brought the debate back to the issue at hand: the Sharansky thesis that Bush is championing – the idea that spread of freedom and democracy furthers not just American values but also vital American interests.
Buchanan opposes this concept – a concept essential to the Bush Doctrine. Buchanan’s main argument is that “interventionism causes terrorism.” Which is like saying the injustice of the Versailles Treaty was responsible for Nazi aggression, or that anti-Communism caused Stalin to do terrible things.
Of course, radical Islamists want infidels off “their lands.” But radical Islamists have been refreshingly candid. They have made clear that such “progress” hardly represents all they seek. In their world view, there is the Dar al Islam – the world of peace, of submission to the one true faith; and then there is the Dar al Harb – the world of infidelity and war. Every nation and territory that is not part of the Dar al Islam is, by definition, part of Dar al Harb. |
