The Thin White Line

[Black Dog]

A little while ago I wrote:

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the line between people expressing the sentiment above (that western society is too soft and liberal to stand up to islamic fundamentalism) and the people they say are the enemy is very thin. Both groups hate western liberal democracy and pluralism. Both seem to long for a strong, authoritarian hand to guide them and keep them safe. And neither seems to have much faith that our overwhelming superiority in every category that matters is enough. In short: both hate our societies ad want them destroyed. What's most terrifying is that its the one's who claim to be defending our society who have the best chance of destroying it.

I diodn't know it at the time, but conservative writer and ex-REagan lackey Dinesh D'Souza is about to put out a book that pretty much proves my point.

In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America’s cultural left.

D’Souza shows that liberals—people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore—are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy—including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror—contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

The cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D’Souza shows that they are one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries.

There you have it: the key to defeating radical Islamists is to unite in common hatred of women, gays and sex on the telly. Now, me, I'm having ahard time seeing how stricter censorship and eroding women's rights and people's sexual freedom will appeal to Muslims who get plenty of that in their own countries. It certainly won't dissuade those who, we're told, want to supplant our way of life with sharia law (accept no substitutes). And frankly, even if becoming more like the people were suppossedly fighting was possible and useful, the question is: is this desirable? I'm curious to hear from some of the conservative-minded types on this.

[Wilber]

The guy sounds more like a Liberal to me, he blames the victim.

[M.Dancer]

I agree. Aside from the nationalism espoused by the Conservative christians, the two groups, fundamental islamics and fundamentalist xtians have a lot in common, notably their intolerance of opposing viewpoints and a desire to subvert what they can't oppress.

[Black Dog]

The guy sounds more like a Liberal to me, he blames the victim.

That's the point, innit? Since 9-11, anyone of the left who attempts to tie terrorism with western policies WRT to the Arab/Islamic world is quickly labeled a "blame America-firster" or terrorist sympathizer. However, according to D'Souza, it's okay to blame America, provided the America you are blaming is the one that allows women access to birth control and abortions and treats gays like human beings: in other words, liberal America. If, as the hypothesis states, it is the "abuse of our freedoms" that "enrages our enemies", then the war isn't about east versus west, or Judeo/Christian values versus Muslim ones, but of conservative (and religious) ideologies versus liberal ones. Essentially, D'Souza is copping to the fact that western social conservatives and their Mulsim counterparts are on the same side.

[M.Dancer]

And we know that according to the giant brains like Pat Robertson, it is the decline of our morals that caused God to allow the US to be attacked.....Now whether the Islamic Militants believe it is the decline of their morals that caused God to allow them to be attacked is anyone's guess......ersonally, the sooner they get some arab porn into their hands, the sooner they will be holding something other than an ak 47....

[Wilber]

The guy sounds more like a Liberal to me, he blames the victim.

That's the point, innit? Since 9-11, anyone of the left who attempts to tie terrorism with western policies WRT to the Arab/Islamic world is quickly labeled a "blame America-firster" or terrorist sympathizer. However, according to D'Souza, it's okay to blame America, provided the America you are blaming is the one that allows women access to birth control and abortions and treats gays like human beings: in other words, liberal America. If, as the hypothesis states, it is the "abuse of our freedoms" that "enrages our enemies", then the war isn't about east versus west, or Judeo/Christian values versus Muslim ones, but of conservative (and religious) ideologies versus liberal ones. Essentially, D'Souza is copping to the fact that western social conservatives and their Mulsim counterparts are on the same side.

I don't agree with label "conservative". It's like calling all liberals commies. We didn't attack them because of their beliefs or their customs but because they attacked us. He's blaming the victim.

Conservatism generally means less government involvement in society, not more.

[Black Dog]

I don't agree with label "conservative". It's like calling all liberals commies. We didn't attack them because of their beliefs or their customs but because they attacked us. He's blaming the victim.

Conservatism generally means less government involvement in society, not more.

That's one facet of political conservatism, the part that's focused on economics. But what about social conservatism, which seems to be more about upholding select traditions and instiutions? That's the paradox of modern conservatism. Political Islam resolves it by simply adopting an authoritarian political approach. Most western conservatives (many of whom have at least some socon leanings) just skip over it.

[Wilber]

I don't agree with label "conservative". It's like calling all liberals commies. We didn't attack them because of their beliefs or their customs but because they attacked us. He's blaming the victim.

Conservatism generally means less government involvement in society, not more.

That's one facet of political conservatism, the part that's focused on economics. But what about social conservatism, which seems to be more about upholding select traditions and instiutions? That's the paradox of modern conservatism. Political Islam resolves it by simply adopting an authoritarian political approach. Most western conservatives (many of whom have at least some socon leanings) just skip over it.

What is the matter with upholding traditions and institutions? They are what makes a country. You don't just abandon them to accommodate the flavour of the day. As far as being selective goes, you can make the same argument about those who choose to abandon them.

No, its not just economics but that is certainly a part of it. It's anti nanny state, its a belief that there are consequences to ones actions that can't be blamed on others and those consequences should be proportional to those actions. Yes there are economic repercussions to those beliefs just as there are to liberal social beliefs but they are social beliefs that have nothing to do with religion. There are a lot of things that have to do with being conservative which have nothing to do with religion.

I'm a westerner and consider myself much more in line with conservatism than any other political bent but I am not religious and a firm believer in the separation of religion and state. I think that is true of most people out west who vote Conservative and you are deceiving yourself if you label the majority of us as something other than that.

So far from what I have seen, the present government has not acted in any meaningful way to apply a particular religious doctrine in the manner it governs, despite those attempting to give them that label.

[Black Dog]

What is the matter with upholding traditions and institutions? They are what makes a country. You don't just abandon them to accommodate the flavour of the day. As far as being selective goes, you can make the same argument about those who choose to abandon them.

There's nothing inherently wrong with upholding traditions, provided you have a good reason for it. And, from a truely conservative stanpoint, if an institution requires the intervention of the state to survive, it probably ain't worth keeping.

No, its not just economics but that is certainly a part of it. It's anti nanny state, its a belief that there are consequences to ones actions that can't be blamed on others and those consequences should be proportional to those actions. Yes there are economic repercussions to those beliefs just as there are to liberal social beliefs but they are social beliefs that have nothing to do with religion. There are a lot of things that have to do with being conservative which have nothing to do with religion.

So you're saying there are social conservative arguments against, for example, gay marriage and abortion, that don't depend on religion?

Here's another question: how do you square belief in small government with such social conservative policies? After all, how do you prevent abortion without enlisting the coercive power of the state?

I'm a westerner and consider myself much more in line with conservatism than any other political bent but I am not religious and a firm believer in the separation of religion and state. I think that is true of most people out west who vote Conservative and you are deceiving yourself if you label the majority of us as something other than that.

And as a westerner, I'm inclined to disagree. If religious socons are indeed the minority among conservatives, as you say, they are certainly a very, very vocal minority.

So far from what I have seen, the present government has not acted in any meaningful way to apply a particular religious doctrine in the manner it governs, despite those attempting to give them that label.

That's fine. But what of the thesis: " It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries."

Do you think they hate us for how we use our freedoms?

[Michael Hardner]

What is the matter with upholding traditions and institutions? They are what makes a country. You don't just abandon them to accommodate the flavour of the day. As far as being selective goes, you can make the same argument about those who choose to abandon them.

No, its not just economics but that is certainly a part of it. It's anti nanny state, ...

The contradiction there is how do you uphold traditions without being a nanny ? At best the state can influence culture but can't control it, and that goes for left-based initiatives (multiculturalism, for example) as well as right-based initiatives.

Fundamentalists of every stripe are fighting a losing battle...

[Wilber]

There's nothing inherently wrong with upholding traditions, provided you have a good reason for it. And, from a truely conservative stanpoint, if an institution requires the intervention of the state to survive, it probably ain't worth keeping.

Tell that to the Liberals or doesn't that apply to institutions they created like multiculturalism, the official languages act, the gun registry, the list goes on. How about Medicare, should we dump that because it requires government intervention?

So you're saying there are social conservative arguments against, for example, gay marriage and abortion, that don't depend on religion?

Here's another question: how do you square belief in small government with such social conservative policies? After all, how do you prevent abortion without enlisting the coercive power of the state?

Of course, you don't have to be religious to believe that abortion constitutes taking a life. I just depends on when you think life begins. Religious people tend to believe that more strongly but they are not the only ones who do. They also see "marriage" as a union between a man and a women. So do many others. They just refuse to rationalize their beliefs. You think they should, therefore you think they should believe the same things you do. What makes you different from them? I believe in freedom of choice but that doesn't mean I approve of some peoples choices or don't have the right to say so.

And as a westerner, I'm inclined to disagree. If religious socons are indeed the minority among conservatives, as you say, they are certainly a very, very vocal minority.

I agree, they can be vocal. Carolyn Parrish isn't vocal? She calls herself a liberal and got elected as one several times but that doesn't make her typical of all liberals.

That's fine. But what of the thesis: " It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries."

What thesis is that and why do you think it reflects the views of a majority of conservatives, whoever wrote it?

[Black Dog]

Tell that to the Liberals or doesn't that apply to institutions they created like multiculturalism, the official languages act, the gun registry, the list goes on. How about Medicare, should we dump that because it requires government intervention?

I said "from a conservative standpoint". A "big government liberal" can hold the views above without any contradiction. But for a small government conservative to demand some kind of state intervention to oppose social change (such as, for example, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage), that's a paradox, dig?

Of course, you don't have to be religious to believe that abortion constitutes taking a life. I just depends on when you think life begins. Religious people tend to believe that more strongly but they are not the only ones who do. They also see "marriage" as a union between a man and a women. So do many others. They just refuse to rationalize their beliefs. You think they should, therefore you think they should believe the same things you do. What makes you different from them? I believe in freedom of choice but that doesn't mean I approve of some peoples choices or don't have the right to say so.

So a real social conservative says "I opppose abortion." Great. I oppose eating shrimp. What we're talking about is what are you going to do about it? If you're a small government so-con who opposes same sex marriage or abortion, don't get an abortion or marry someone of the same sex.

I agree, they can be vocal. Carolyn Parrish isn't vocal? She calls herself a liberal and got elected as one several times but that doesn't make her typical of all liberals.

See, IMO, hey aren't avocal minority. They are the base.

What thesis is that and why do you think it reflects the views of a majority of conservatives, whoever wrote it?

Read the first post.

[Wilber]

I said "from a conservative standpoint". A "big government liberal" can hold the views above without any contradiction. But for a small government conservative to demand some kind of state intervention to oppose social change (such as, for example, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage), that's a paradox, dig?

You say it is from a conservative standpoint. I don't. You may call him a conservative. He may call himself a conservative. That doesn't make him one in my book. He's just another guy with an opinion like you and I. We all have different ideas of what constitutes social change and what change is desirable. Abortion is legal and covered under Medicare, Has been for quite some time. Gay marriage is legal. By your own argument if you oppose abolishing them, you oppose social change.

So a real social conservative says "I oppose abortion." Great. I oppose eating shrimp. What we're talking about is what are you going to do about it? If you're a small government so-con who opposes same sex marriage or abortion, don't get an abortion or marry someone of the same sex.

And what has been done about it other than promising a free vote in Parliament which as it happened was part of the platform this government ran on in the last election? The last sentence I agree with but then you are insinuating that everyone who is not a conservative is in favour of legalized abortion. I doubt it very much although it seems a majority of people are. That's one thing that bugs me about many in the so called "pro choice" crowd. It's not enough that you believe in free choice, they want you to be pro abortion. Are they that insecure that they need everyones approval?

Read the first post.

I read it. The link went to Random House when I tried it and came up "page not found".

[Argus]

That's fine. But what of the thesis: " It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries."

Do you think they hate us for how we use our freedoms?

No, it's a dumb thesis. Oh, you can certainly make a case that when Muslim wackos are pointing at how evil western society is the things liberals love make up the leading edge of the "evil" they see here. But those Saudi loonies didn't fly airplanes into the WTC because they hated the thought of gay men holding hands in New York.

[BubberMiley]

But those Saudi loonies didn't fly airplanes into the WTC because they hated the thought of gay men holding hands in New York.

No, that was exactly why: to commence jihad with the infidels.

[yam]

That's fine. But what of the thesis: " It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries."

Do you think they hate us for how we use our freedoms?

No, it's a dumb thesis. Oh, you can certainly make a case that when Muslim wackos are pointing at how evil western society is the things liberals love make up the leading edge of the "evil" they see here. But those Saudi loonies didn't fly airplanes into the WTC because they hated the thought of gay men holding hands in New York.

Vallium anybody?

[jbg]

There you have it: the key to defeating radical Islamists is to unite in common hatred of women, gays and sex on the telly.

If this book is the way you present it, I'm agreeing with you for probably the first time since I've joined. This is loopy.

[jbg]

I agree. Aside from the nationalism espoused by the Conservative christians, the two groups, fundamental islamics and fundamentalist xtians have a lot in common, notably their intolerance of opposing viewpoints and a desire to subvert what they can't oppress.

Since when do fundamentalist Christians (stop using the offensive contraction, please) regularly blow themselves up to cause indiscriminate death. I am not Christian, but your comparison is vile.

[sharkman]

I agree. Aside from the nationalism espoused by the Conservative christians, the two groups, fundamental islamics and fundamentalist xtians have a lot in common, notably their intolerance of opposing viewpoints and a desire to subvert what they can't oppress.

Since when do fundamentalist Christians (stop using the offensive contraction, please) regularly blow themselves up to cause indiscriminate death. I am not Christian, but your comparison is vile.

Yes, even if these sentiments are repeated around here againandagainandagain, the two fundamentalists are not the same. But go ahead, believe Christians are blowing themselves up to kill others and get virgins, but those who can see with objectivity will keep smiling up their sleeves.

[jbg]

Yes, even if these sentiments are repeated around here againandagainandagain, the two fundamentalists are not the same. But go ahead, believe Christians are blowing themselves up to kill others and get virgins, but those who can see with objectivity will keep smiling up their sleeves.

I did not say "Christians are blowing themselves up to kill others and get virgins". I asked why MSM doesn't distinguish between Christians and radical Islam, and indeed on the difference between right and wrong.

Sharkman, why are you attacking me?

[kimmy]

He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

Well, for those who have bought into the "they hate us for our freedoms!" dogma, I guess the logical conclusion is that "they" would hate us less if we weren't as free. But I thought fighting for those freedoms, whether they're being used or abused, was supposed to be the big selling point of the "they hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric.

Like Black Dog, I tend to see a fair big of similarity between the two groups. Unlike Black Dog, I tend to feel there's a big difference in the degree of senselessness between the two groups. The stupidest, most intolerant ideas that Christian wackos come up with about gays or women or media and art and culture still seem fairly tame compared to what we have seen under strict Muslim regimes.

But that's kind of beside the point. The point is that if you call upon people to fight to protect their freedoms with one breath, and criticize them for using their freedoms in the next, you're a hypocrite. And, a guy who used to date Ann Coulter complaining about women's sexual freedom seems like a bit of a hypocrite as well. Dinesh D'Souza can go do a backflip into an empty pool.

-k

[August1991]

A little while ago I wrote:

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the line between people expressing the sentiment above (that western society is too soft and liberal to stand up to islamic fundamentalism) and the people they say are the enemy is very thin. Both groups hate western liberal democracy and pluralism. Both seem to long for a strong, authoritarian hand to guide them and keep them safe. And neither seems to have much faith that our overwhelming superiority in every category that matters is enough. In short: both hate our societies ad want them destroyed. What's most terrifying is that its the one's who claim to be defending our society who have the best chance of destroying it.

Your original premise makes more sense than D'Souza's argument (which can be found here), assuming that I understand either clearly.

D'Souza seems to be saying that American leftists either insult foreigners (and give America a bad name) or else that they hate America (and give foreigners a reason to blame America). I'm not certain.

There is a streak of puritanical Calvinism in American conservatism but that shouldn't be confused with traditionalism. I think D'Souza will not find much support for his argument, if I've got it right. Support? To follow up Kimmy's analogy, he may discover a hard fall when he goes crowd surfing.

BD, you on the other hand, make a point that I have thought of too. There's something irritating about "the social democratic, government pension, multi-culti west is weak" argument and it's this Fifth Column that will do in Europe and maybe us.

It seems to me we shouldn't confuse two different questions: first, the endless, shifting debate between left and right in western societies. And second, the threat of radical Islamics who fly planes into our buildings. As to the second question, there is a legitimate debate about how serious the threat is and how best to deal with it.

Maybe I'm being naive. There are far too many Westerners who still blame themselves for these terrorist attacks - as if the West and the US provoked some Muslims.

[Black Dog]

BD, you on the other hand, make a point that I have thought of too. There's something irritating about "the social democratic, government pension, multi-culti west is weak" argument and it's this Fifth Column that will do in Europe and maybe us.

I look at it this way: western liberalism triumphed over feudalism. It outlasted the two most advanced and pervasive totalitarian ideologies of the 20th Century. So, I have to questiion the intestinal fortitude of those who think we're going to fold up our tents when confronted with a backwards and primitive ideology like radical Islam. For all the talk of the west's "self-hatred" it seems to me that those who proclaim the ludest about the danger of radical Islam are those who doubt our way of life. Oh, some might not go as far as D'Souza in blaming the west's excesses, but you'l find similar thoughts from people like Mark Steyn and David Horowitz.

[jbg]

So, I have to questiion the intestinal fortitude of those who think we're going to fold up our tents when confronted with a backwards and primitive ideology like radical Islam. For all the talk of the west's "self-hatred" it seems to me that those who proclaim the ludest about the danger of radical Islam are those who doubt our way of life.

I'm not so sure. Else, why the expansion of immigration quotas from countries whose peoples' skillsets add nothing to Canada (or for that matter the US). Also, why the "Sharia near-miss" in Ontario?

[Black Dog]

I'm not so sure. Else, why the expansion of immigration quotas from countries whose peoples' skillsets add nothing to Canada (or for that matter the US). Also, why the "Sharia near-miss" in Ontario?

Sorry, but what are you asking? Are you saying these are examples of how we are bing threatened? Or?