Why the Left Hates Democracy

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Why the Left Hates Democracy

Posted Dec 28th 2007 1:32PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Breaking News, Iraq, Cultural Left, Islamic Radicals, Controversy

In response to my blog yesterday noting that the cultural left opposes democracy in the Muslim world, several people expressed indignation. One challenged me to provide a single example. Others lugubriously noted that they favored the idea of democracy but alas it wasn't succeeding in Iraq. Certainly it does seem odd that a left which is always calling for "more democracy" in America would resist democracy in Muslim countries.

Yet it's true, and my book The Enemy at Home provides chapter and verse. For instance, the leftist author Robert Fisk resolutely opposed America's attempt to introduce democracy in Afghanistan. Incredibly Fisk said that the Taliban government should be kept in power because it had nothing to do with 9/11. Leftist Howard Zinn also equated America's displacement of the Taliban and holding of free elections with the 9/11 attacks themselves, as though both were equivalent crimes. Leftist legal scholar Richard Falk called for a "negotiated settlement" with the Taliban in order to protect the country's "sovereign rights." If leading leftists such as Edward Said, Toni Morison, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jane Fonda and Jim McDermott had their way, the U.S. would not have overthrown the Taliban government and Afghanistan would not have had free elections.

Immediately following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, leftist philanthropist George Soros warned that "I would consider Iraq the last place to choose for a demonstration project" in democracy. Why the Iraqis were ineligible to rule themselves, Soros did not say. When Iraq had its first free election, columnist Bob Herbert said it meant nothing because "a real democracy requires an informed electorate" while the Iraqi people were "woefully uninformed," apparently because they didn't make the choices that Herbert wanted. Leftist columnist Robert Dreyfuss said the Iraqi elections were invalid because "the Sunni community was tricked into voting" and moreover the elected Sunnis "do not represent the resistance." Apparently Dreyfuss thinks car bombers need representation too! Ivan Eland wrote in The American Prospect, "Spreading democracy doesn't reduce terrorism and, if anything, actually makes it worse." How democracy promotes terrorism, Eland neglected to explain.

Notice how the cultural left routinely condemns Bush for "hypocrisy" in using the rhetoric of democracy while the U.S. is allied with secular despots, but very rarely do leftists call for free elections in countries like Syria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia. There was even some cheering on the left when Turkish generals threatened a coup to subvert the elected government from holding free elections a few months ago. So why does the left hate democracy in the Muslim world? The reason is simple. Muslims are socially conservative and generally want a greater role for Islam in their private and public lives. Consequently Muslim democracies are likely to be more conservative socially than they are when secular despots rule them. The left fears Muslim democracy because it is terrified of Muslim values, especially sharia or Muslim holy law. Feminists and gays are not likely to fare very well under Muslim holy law.

When Iraqis rejected secular candidates and voted for a party that pledged to have sharia, at least in some forms of domestic law, the New York TImes howled that democracy could be "consigning Iraqi women to a life of subjugation." Columnist Maureen Dowd warned that "the Iraqi election may actually be making things worse" because "it is going to expand the control of the Shia theocrats." These complaints might have some plausibility if women or Sunnis were not permitted to vote. But women and men both voted for the Dawa party, and so essentially the Times and Dowd were arguing that if Iraqis don't want equal roles for men and women, their democracy is a sham.

Bush's attempt to introduce democracy to Iraq, and to expand the role of democracy in Egypt, Lebanon and Pakistan, is a brave and noble experiment. It might fail, and past historical experience is not promising. But if Bush succeeds we could see the beginning of an historical transformation no less significant than the transformation of the old Soviet Union. No wonder the left, not usually given to supplication, is praying very ardently this Christmas season that Bush does not succeed. If democracy fails, in Iraq and elsewhere, there is the added benefit that Democrats will have a better chance to take the White House in 2008.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [393]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 27)

Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

46. In countries led by cruel tyranny, most of the citizens would prefer Democracy, but their hands are tied. They don't even get to express their wishes in public, since speech is not free. They are held captive by cruel forces that control their political future.

When Democracy ventures into a country that has been traditionally held captive by tyrannical rule, the citizens rejoice at their newfound freedom. It's a choice that many of them wish to make, if only they could.

America is trying not only to set us free from future threats of terrorism, but also to set the Iraqis free from the forces that create that terrorism in the first place. We're pulling up terrorism by the roots. It's a responsible choice.

Renee Marie Vetter at 5:52PM on Dec 28th 2007

47. D'evil says, "If democracy fails, in Iraq and elsewhere..."

According to DD's new definition of democracy, there needs to be a foreign standing army and private army 'trying' to keep the peace...

Democracy isn't government of the people(of Iraq) by the President of the United States!

Democracy isn't government by presidential signing statement either.

pboyfloyd at 5:56PM on Dec 28th 2007

48. .if you believe 2000elction stolen then list verifiable facts to support.your position. i didnot call anyone a liar only stated the FACT that it is a lie to say bush stole election. you, on the otherhand, resorted to name calling. this is something that people on the wrong end of the truth often do.

felix at 4:51PM on Dec 28th 2007
xxxx

The elections were stolen. You are a liar if you say otherwise and you certainly can't demonstrate honesty without revising history.

The supreme court violated Florida's state's rights and had no authority to do so. Their written decision was probably the most puzzling and non sequitor in its history. there was no lawyer even close to buies' capability on that court.

During the Libby trial, Goodling admitted the AG's office was involved in caging. The recounts ALL showed gore won. Buies' argument was literally unassailable since the basis for calling the eleciton violated Florida constitution.

I'd say it should have been subject to summary judgment, but I doubt you read it.

And to boot diebold publicly promised the republicans the election!

You're full of crap and you know it and blow smoke by demanding proof that's been on every television network in the U.S.

You have some obligation to educate yourself as well. I have no duty to derive pi every time I have to show one of you how one slices up.

Clif Kuplen at 5:57PM on Dec 28th 2007

49. When the G8 Summit met in St. Petersburg, Russia, Bush foolishly expressed his desire to see in Russia the kind of democracy that exists in Iraq. President Putin's response that he would not wish for such a democracy caused a roar of laughter among foreign reporters that were in the hall. And that's the problem with Bush's agenda. He simply doesn't realize how fragile democracy is and how much it depends on the existence of stability and civil society. Bush's approach of spreading democracy through military occupation will always fail, and its failure undermines the cause of indigeneous democratic initiatives. Yes, liberals support democracy, but they realize that military invasions are the last thing you would want to undertake to spread genuine democracy around the world.

Konstantin at 6:00PM on Dec 28th 2007

50. Here's what this guy...

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/4358f1f6-2a20-42a9-ba23-bda2d69af0ef

... thinks of DD's book...

First, a disclaimer – I love making fun of lefties. As a matter of fact, the interests I list on my MySpace.com homepage are extreme sports, getting ink done and slagging on liberals. So you might think that Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, “The Enemy at Home” would be right up my alley. Quite the contrary, I found “The Enemy at Home” to be intellectually obtuse, poorly informed and, most importantly, an irresponsible exercise in putatively conservative bomb-throwing.

pboyfloyd at 6:10PM on Dec 28th 2007

51. DO YOU MEAN THE RECOUNTS THAT CCAME AFTER TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ABSENTIE MILITARY VOTES (OVERWHEMINGLY IN FAVOR OF BUSH) WERE IN VALIDATED ON DUBIOUS TECHNOCALITIES .I think you do. ifbush stole election why does military support him so strongly. you keep calling me aliar even tho iamstill the only one citing VERIFIABLE FACTS(see post 9).you of course say your not obligated to provide me with facts.funny how that works.

felix at 6:14PM on Dec 28th 2007

52. I feel a gauntlet has been cast down.

Let us look at Dinesh's greatest presumptions, shall we?: Is democracy inherently good? Does democracy inherently induce benevolence in its members? And what is democracy's relationship with liberalism?

Dinesh's first argument is that democracy is superior to any form of government. A typical bold faced and general statement, presuming that all democracies are infact equal. By that same presumption, Saddam's 'elections' were just as democratic as, say, Canada's. After all there was an election. Is that not the cusp of democratic principle?

Benjamin Franklin once refered to unrestrained democracy as the rule of the mob. And unrestrained democracy is just that. A tool turned into a weapon. A prize that can be used to bludgeon one's opponents to death. And without explicit exemptions from government and protections for individual rights, there would be nothing saying that it couldn't be illegal to kill gays. Or illegal immigrants. Or black. Or Jews.

This leads us to Dinesh's second presumption... that democracy makes people better. That, if the Taliban had been elected into power, there wouldn't have been a problem in Afganistan because the Taliban would have been too busy pandering for votes. This sad and dangerous assumption overlooks the fact that in some societies there are individuals and groups that can trump political process for the national good. He seems to have forgotten the horrific results of the last palistinian election which elevated members of Hamas into positions of legitimate authority. Or that not even a century ago Hitler was elected to a position of absolute authority.

And this leads to his most audacious claim of all... that liberals and 'those on the left' oppose democratic principle. Liberalism is the point of democracy; the idea that the individual matters enough that they not only have an inalienable right to participate in the political process but that they are born with protections from the government and from the express will of the majority should it turn against them. That all human beings, regardless of the circumstance of their birth, their economic background, their genetic lineage, their sexual preference, or their religious belief is equal under the eyes of the law. That is the heart of liberalism. The boiled essense of liberalism. And when it is expressed politically with wisdom and sobriety it becomes true democracy.

So yes, Dinesh, I am opposed to democracies like Irans, which utterly refuse to protect the members of its citizens who are gay. I am opposed to democracies like Hamas, which exist only to spread death and pain for their own glorification. I am opposed to democracies like Hitler's germany, which used the democratic principle as a whorish viel to justify the annihilation of it's undesirables. And I will oppose any and all democracies that fail to uphold the protection of all its nations citizens, not merely the ones the majority has deemed acceptable.

Will I oppose the Iraq democracy? That remains for the Iraqis to decide, as they will settle for a government of one form or another. If it reflects that of Iran, I will with certainty. Just as I opposed Saddam's for its illegitimacy, despite its progressive and western attitudes towards women.

Regardless, whether Iraq's democracy is successful or not, it does not negate nor justify Bush's perfidious actions as president. It does not excuse the means he utilitized and continues to exploit. It doesn't not lessen the damage that he has inflicted to our own constitutional virtue, and it does not absolve him of responsibility for the crimes that have been committed by his administration, with his approval.

So do not breathe the venomous insinuation that it is liberals and leftists who are opposed to freedom, Denish D'Souza. It is we who cherish and who understand the implications of liberty's lack far better than you can ever appriciate.

Somber at 6:16PM on Dec 28th 2007

53. Here's another review...

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_12_20

pboyfloyd at 6:21PM on Dec 28th 2007

54. I'm a Republocrat. The Eagle, our collective national spirit, needs two wings to fly.

Renee Marie at 6:24PM on Dec 28th 2007

55. Here's the bottom line for the Amazon.com reviews...

"D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies. (Jan. 16)"

"Contrary to President Bush's assertions that terrorists and their supporters hate American freedom, D'Souza asserts that what they really hate is our licentious culture. He notes that American conservatives have more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists than with American liberals."

Well, I agree with my 'good buddy' Dinesh on that last one... American conservatives DO have more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists than with American liberals!"...

... I don't agree that that is somehow a GOOD thing though.

pboyfloyd at 6:28PM on Dec 28th 2007

56. 5. We don't have democracy at home to export. The last two presidential elections were stolen.
>>>

And you know all this how ... by osmosis? Do you have a gift for reading tea leaves? Are all Lefty indoctrinates issued crystal balls, or do you just listen to that evil lefty voice in your moronic head?
You freaks chant lies like some god cursed Jihadi ... until you convince your lunatic self. Somehow, in that tortured Lefty near brain, you knuckle draggers just KNOW it's true. Do you realize just how insane you sound?

I bet there is a long Latin word for your type of mental disease.

Thomas J Gassett at 6:33PM on Dec 28th 2007

57. DD, as usual, is displaying ignorance and setting up straw man after straw man argument. At least he has gotten off of his shameless promotion of his book which displays his incredible ignorance of Christianity and world religions.

1). The left is not against "democracy." What progressives are against is the use of American force to overthrow governments, elected or not. Progressives believe that the military is to be used to defend our country, not cram our values down the throats of others in the world with the butt of a rifle.

2). Progressives believe that American values might be fine..for Americans. But that others must be allowed to have their own values, even if those values conflict with American interests abroad. The CIA, on the other hand, is in the business of subverting sovereign nations to conform to the interests of American corporations. Progressives see this as immoral and unethical.

3). OF COURSE Progressives do not cheer when governments are elected which are aggressively Islamic fundamentalist (or Christian fundamentalist, etc.) And it is true that some Progressives have stated that minorities were better protected and women given more opportunity under authoritarian rule. This does not mean that Progressives are against "democracy." It means that we are against oppression in whatever political system happens to exist. And it is true that sometimes things are better under a tyrant than under the tyranny of the majority. Example: Christians have been all but wiped out in Iraq, brutally and with Americans standing by watching. We were protected and even served in the Cabinet under Saddam. There is now civil war and genocide in Iraq. This was kept under control under Saddam. And look at the ethnic wars in the former Soviet Union. Under Communism these ancient hatreds were managed. Things are never black and white DD, although your very infantile worldview tries to make them so.

4). Certainly Progressives were not thrilled at the introduction of another American puppet government in Iraq. These tend to fail, producing extremism. Example: Iraq.

5). "Conservatives" do not hesitate to overthrow democratically elected governments which oppose the U.S. Example: Allende in Chile, the Sandanistas, etc. "Conservatives" (who conserve nothing but the power of American corporations) LOVE "Democracy" ...as long as it is not opposed to American values in any way and cooperates with the corporate masters and money people.

6). DD --- you are simply producing faleshoods with your contention that Progressives have not called for free and fair elections in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. We call for that all the time, and are constantly exposing the repression of the Islamic governments the U.S. supports there. At LEAST try to be intellectually honest, even if ignorant.

7). Progressives do not so much object to freely elected governments in the Mid-East as to the excesses of fundamentalist Islam. "Conservatives" do not support freely elected Islamic governments either...example: Iran and our continual attempt to overthrow their freely elected Islamic government, because it doesn't slavishly adopt American values.

8). Umm...YOU, DD, are one of the people most vocal against Islamic "sharia" law. And any sensible person would be. It is barbaric. So, it is OK for you, because you're "conservative" to hate this barbarism, but not for the left. Hypocrisy at its highest.

9). In saying that fundamentalist Islam is "socially conservative" and that is why "the Left" hates it, you have adopted a new profession --- comedian. Or perhaps you are betraying the true agenda of "social conservatives" -- the oppression of everyone who doesn't agree with their narrow and flatheaded way of looking at life.

Please tell me again WHY they chose you to represent right wing conservatism on this blog? I know (and disagree with) many highly intelligent and well-spoken right wing conservatives. There are some real arguments that have validity that have been brought up by several of my right wingnut friends...and we have lots of fun dealing with both sides. Unfortunately, you are a TERRIBLE representative of the right wing, as well as of Christianity. You would do both the right wing and Christians a real favor by turning this blog over to someone with a brain, intellectual honesty and skill in writing. There are many on the right wing with all of the above. You aren't one of them.

Father John at 8:17PM on Dec 28th 2007

58. Contrary to President Bush's assertions that terrorists and their supporters hate American freedom, D'Souza asserts that what they really hate is our licentious culture. >>>

Instead of somehow just knowing he's wrong ... why not educate yourself?

Try reading "The Looming Tower" by
Lawrence Wright. This is the definitive history of radical Islam. The people and writings that most influenced Bin Laden are there to seen and understood.
If you want to just spew ingorantly and lierally ... take it to the petulant fools board, please.

Thomas J Gassett at 6:42PM on Dec 28th 2007

59. Ok, I want to be sure I understand where you are coming from. You stated:

"So why does the left hate democracy in the Muslim world? The reason is simple. Muslims are socially conservative and generally want a greater role for Islam in their private and public lives. Consequently Muslim democracies are likely to be more conservative socially than they are when secular despots rule them. The left fears Muslim democracy because it is terrified of Muslim values, especially sharia or Muslim holy law. Feminists and gays are not likely to fare very well under Muslim holy law."

I have read about some pretty barbaric practices due to sharia law. Are you implying that the left is wrong for being cautious against such a society embracing it? Does it really make a difference if women as well as men vote it into place? Also, I don't think that you are getting to the real point. Can we really bring American ideals to a place like the Middle East? (considering the "track record" there)

lemon at 6:43PM on Dec 28th 2007

60. Unrestrained capitalism is synonomous with fascism. Libertarianism is unrestrained capitalism.
>>>>

What a pile of horse shit!

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
-- Adolf Hitler

Thomas J Gassett at 6:47PM on Dec 28th 2007

Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.

Mo's Video

The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...

Coming Soon

Most Commented On

Coming Soon

Mo's Bio

Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.