Email to Dennis Prager
Submitted by Dave on Tue, 2006-01-31 10:05.
Islam | Israel | Politics | Stupidity
I sent the following email to Dennis Prager, in response to his latest column:
Mr. Prager,
As I read your latest column, I found myself in agreement with your moral assessment of the Palestinians, and your criticism of the left. However, I find your support of the "Bush doctrine," and of democracy in general, to be flawed.
You reveal a fundamental flaw of democracy in your column, and it is illustrated by the recent Palestinian election. Those elected by popular vote must (and should) reflect the beliefs and morality of the people casting the votes. If the Palestinian people support the destruction of Israel -- and you and I agree that they do -- then it should come as no surprise that they voted Hamas into power.
John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." If the Constitution, which establishes not a democracy but a republic, with checks and balances to limit the power of any one branch or individual, requires the support of a "moral and religious people," then what must be the fate of a democracy implemented by a morally crippled society such as the Palestinians?
Given your awareness of Palestinian "morality," and the glaring example of their recent election, I am at a loss to understand your support for the "Bush doctrine," expressed (by you) as the "need to spread democracy everywhere possible, including, or even especially, in the Arab world." Is it not obvious, even inevitable, that democratic elections "in the Arab world" would put anti-Israeli regimes in power? Would the result of the Palestinian election have been different if Bush had "spread democracy" there prior to the votes being cast? It seems to me that from a standpoint of protecting Israel, democratic elections would not improve matters; and from a standpoint of American politics, it would weaken our position by legitimizing the governments that we would, inadvertently, help elect.
Ultimately, a belief that bringing democracy to a country or region will result in a moral government requires the same faith in the voting populace that is expressed by the left, and that you (rightly) criticize. It is this inconsistency in your position that I wish to emphasize. You can either support Israel, or support Arab democracy, but not both.
Sincerely,
Dave Ford
dave [at] palisadecove [dot] net
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/286
Fred gets it
Submitted by Dave on Tue, 2006-03-07 08:22.
From Fred's latest column (which I highly recommend reading in its entirety
The president’s virtuous plan to spread democracy like bird flu goes apace.... The rascal is imposing democracy right and left, though mostly left as it turns out.
It is working. Well, it is having an effect. In Venezuela democracy brought about Hugo Chavez, who hates the United States. In Bolivia it produced Evo Morales, who hates the United States. In Iran it empowered Ahmawhatsispelling, who hates the United States. So does the elected government in Iraq. In Palestine Mr. Bush’s righteousness elected Hamas, which hates the United States, perhaps as much as does the Muslim Brotherhood, which keeps getting more elected in Egypt.
Chuck doesn't get it
Submitted by Dave on Mon, 2007-10-15 17:13.
Why do otherwise intelligent people (and there is no question that Chuck Colson is highly intelligent) hold to this childlike and easily disproven fantasy that voting somehow equates to freedom and "American" values? Whence comes this myth that the founding fathers set out to create a democracy, with the implication that a libertarian form of government would be the inevitable result? The historical truth is that the founding fathers set out to create a government that was all but powerless to interfere with the natural rights of the people it governed. The form of this government was to be the most expedient means to the end of libertarianism. Democracy as a form of government was explicitly rejected, as it was known to lead to mob rule and fiscal irresponsibility. Measures were put into place that insulated the people from the governmental machinery to guard against these specific problems.
And yet, Mr. Colson finds himself scratching his head as he notes that democracy may fail to prevent the state-sanctioned execution of a man whose sole crime is his conversion to Christianity. If a democratic system is enacted in a country where the majority of voters support such persecution, wouldn't this be the logical, expected result? If Mr. Rahman is executed, it will be a tragedy -- just not an unexpected one, despite what Chuck Colson may think.
Here is the column where Colson expresses his bewilderment.
Pat gets it
Submitted by Dave on Tue, 2006-03-28 08:03.
Pat Buchanan questions the value of democracy in Islamic societies.
Keyes gets it
Submitted by Dave on Tue, 2006-03-28 08:14.
Alan Keyes explains the consequences of democracy in Islamic society, and takes it further. In this excellent (though somewhat lengthy) essay, Mr. Keyes explains that the fundamental issue is not democracy, but inalienable human rights. He demonstrates that Islam denies the most basic of these rights, the right to act on one's conscience, due to the threat of violence against anyone who does not accept Islam. He then shows (it's not much of a leap) that democracy in a society that denies human rights will produce a government that (guess what?) denies human rights.
Pat gets it (again)
Submitted by Dave on Fri, 2006-06-02 07:55.
In his latest column, Pat Buchanan provides more arguments and examples of why democracy, in itself, is inadequate for bringing about a government that adheres to its proper role.
As I reflected on the article, it occurred to me that democracy may be not only inadequate, but outright useless in producing such a government. (Please understand that by "democracy," I mean true democracy, where all matters of government are resolved by popular election -- not the watered-down representational republic that we in America refer to, wrongly, as a "democracy.") Show me a society that can, through the democratic process, produce and maintain a government that stays its proper course, protecting the rights of the citizens without infringing on them (and here I am talking about institutionalized violations of rights, rather than the actions of the odd immoral government official), and I will show you a society that could function just as well with no government at all.
Vox gets it
Submitted by Dave on Tue, 2006-08-01 12:06.
Vox explains the inevitable results of democracy.
I marvel that we still have a number of seemingly intelligent fellows (Colson, Prager) who watch as a bunch of apples are peeled, cored, thrown into a vat, and mashed -- and then act surprised when they find applesauce.
Ilana gets it
Submitted by Dave on Fri, 2006-12-15 15:19.
Williams gets it
Walter Williams' latest column echoes the point I made to Mr. Prager about democracy in the Middle East (or any country without a completely homogenized populace).
FWIW, I never did hear from Mr. Prager -- though I didn't really expect to.