Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greenhat
Just a reminder. The majority of Islam is not within the Middle-East.
|
Good point, but the most dramatic events of late involving Islam's followers sure have been.
You must pardon me for trying to stir the pot a bit. I have been thinking about one of President Bush's quotes on affrmative action lately - the one where he refers to the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Now before I get flamed or IP banned or sentenced to 6 months in confinement with an airsofter, let me underline that I am
not suggesting that anyone here is a bigot. But that turn of phrase has been ringing in my ears when I think of the Middle East and Russia and its former satellite states.
I cannot begin to count the number of times that I've heard the argument that Russia tends to grow authoritarian leaders like weeds because (a) the country is too big to manage any other way, or (b) Russians appreciate "strength" in their leaders and value "law and order" over individual rights and democracy. There may or may not be truth to those statements. I don't know. I'm not an expert on Russia and don't pretend to be. But neither are most of the people who repeat that party line on their way to absolving themselves of caring about what happens inside Russia. And when a half-held idea is repeated frequently enough, that, my friends, is what we call public opinion.
I've heard many similar arguments concerning the ME from "regional experts" over the past two years. They point out, perhaps correctly, that (a) factional conflict is a fixed element in the region, exacerbated by the Allies' meddling after WW2 and everyone's meddling since then, (b) that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of democracy, (c) that governments in the region are authoritarian or undemocratic because that is the only way to keep the wheels from coming off the whole thing. I understand the basis for each of these arguments, know that they each contain an element of truth, but am disturbed by the fact that when you sum them together the resulting conclusion is a bit convenient and, well, bigoted.
Which is why I think that this thread is so important. For the time being, we have a leader who is willing to take bold, inconvenient steps "to liberate the oppressed." But are we at war with Islam, or merely the Isamists? Is Islam really incompatible with democracy and, if so, how do we square that with the recent outpouring of civic emotion across the region? The answers are important. The act of answering is important. The alternatives are romanticism or the "soft bigotry of low expectations."