How conservatives will give up the liberal dream of non-discrimination

George writes:

It is extraordinarily aggravating to watch establishment conservatives such as those at National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and radio talk show hosts cling for dear life to the (rapidly diminishing) hope that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.

On the other hand, this may be a necessary evil to endure.

The only way to establish a true conservative movement capable of rolling back liberalism is if a large number of establishment conservatives abandon non-discrimination.

Of course, the establi-cons resist giving up on non-discrimination because the subsequent policy implications of doing so are too dire for them to contemplate—and anyway, they have reputations to worry about and superb restaurants to go to.

But because of the current clash of civilizations, the establishment is having a harder time denying the existence of the roaring Islamic Mastodon rampaging in the living room.

Eventually, one way or another, the “conservatives” will have to give up non-discrimination.

When this happens, we will have the 2000 election to thank, because it was Bush’s election that allowed the neocons to prove to ordinary Republican voters that the preferred Republican strategy of reforming Islam through military force and occupation is impossible.

Consider that if Gore had been elected, Limbaugh, Hannity, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, et al would all be chirping on the sidelines asserting, “The liberal Democrat strategies of multilateralism and police actions used by the Gore administration have failed. What we need is a tough, manly, extreme right-wing, liberal Republican strategy of unilaterally invading Middle Eastern nations to defeat the tiny number of Islamo-Neo Nazi skinhead concentration camp guards, and turn those countries into Colorado. After all, there is no real difference between white Americans and Arab Muslims, so we should have no trouble turning them into a civilized democracy just as we did Japan.”

After 911, the only strategy the establi-cons had that was superficially tough enough to satisfy ordinary GOP voters, while gentle enough to satisfy the principles of non-discrimination, was revolutionary neocon democratization.

But now that the liberal conservative’s preferred strategy against Islamic terrorism has demonstrably failed, the only remaining strategy to Islamic terrorism establi-cons and ordinary Republican voters will have the next time there is a major terrorist attack will be either some version of separationism/containment, or using Roman military tactics to terrorize Muslim populations.

In either scenario, ordinary conservatives will have to forced to let go of non-discrimination and then we can have an actual battle with the left.

Mark P. writes:

I strongly disagree with George’s assessment:

“After 911, the only strategy the establi-cons had that was superficially tough enough to satisfy ordinary GOP voters, while gentle enough to satisfy the principles of non-discrimination, was revolutionary neocon democratization. But now that the liberal conservative’s preferred strategy against Islamic terrorism has demonstrably failed, the only remaining strategy to Islamic terrorism establi-cons and ordinary Republican voters will have the next time there is a major terrorist attack will be either some version of separationism/containment, or using Roman military tactics to terrorize Muslim populations.”

If only that were true. The more likely scenario is that we will go through what George describes as the “liberal Democrat strategies of multilateralism and police actions.” We atill have another four years of Algoria reasoning before separationism becomes an option.

LA replies:

Even if there were a major terrorist attack?

Mark P. replies:

Yes…even after a terrorist attack.

George writes:

Mark P. says, “If only that were true. The more likely scenario is that we will go through what George describes as the ‘liberal Democrat strategies of multilateralism and police actions.’ We still have another four years of Algoria reasoning before separationism becomes an option.”

Well yes, should Clinton win the presidency, we will go back to a policy of police action and globalism to “fight” terrorism.

But my central point was that in the wake of the death of neocon democratization, (a) conventional Republican commentators and (b), most importantly, ordinary conservative voters will have no anti-terrorist strategy left that satisfies non discrimination and the national urge to retaliate against Islamic terrorism.

From the perspective of right liberals, they will have no non-discriminatory fig leaf policy to hide behind, they won’t have the completely mythical “Islamo Fascist” to blame; then they will have to confront the reality of Islam as Islam.

Conservative commentators will either embrace their conservative audience’s demand for more radical solutions to defend against Islam and Muslims, or be replaced by more radical voices, if the Hannitys and Ingrahams still refuse to wake up and smell the Muslim foot baths.

Of course, the diehard left liberals will never agree to discriminatory policies against Islam.

But so what? Let the Democrats insist that Muslims must be allowed into America, this will only hasten the end of the left. As you have said before, the only reason liberalism exists at all is because ordinary white Americans still tacitly agree to non-discrimination. If the left liberals continue to insist on promoting Muslim immigration the liberals will totally discredit non-discrimination.

LA writes:

Great answer.

Hannon writes (9-28):

Interesting discussion. George has some thought-provoking points but I wonder exactly what he means by “ordinary conservative voters”? It seems obvious that the Bush electorate is comprised of a large percentage of non-intellectuals, or ordinary Americans, who were rather easily deceived by the thinly cloaked liberal tenets of the neoconservatives. Many of them remain deceived. Whatever new strategies the Republican Party might come up with I find it difficult to believe they will not enjoy similar success with that same electorate, an electorate that tends toward certain predictable sentiment on “key issues”. Islam is not one of those emotive issues at this point. In other words, staving off facing the true nature of the threat from Islam will not be a tremendous challenge for either party because of any voter demands, at least in the near term, attack or no attack.

George wrote: “After 911, the only strategy the establi-cons had that was superficially tough enough to satisfy ordinary GOP voters, while gentle enough to satisfy the principles of non-discrimination, was revolutionary neocon democratization.”

I think this is a good, concise view of exactly what was foisted upon us, even if this “better” reason for opposing our excursion into Iraq is lost on most people. Knowing the spin abilities of the likes of Rove, an unaware or complicit media and the seemingly unstoppable, evil cabal that is Globalism, I am not as sure as George that the yoke of non-discrimination can be broken by additional acts of terrorism. “When must we act, and how?” is forever an open question.

While Americans generally abhor war we can be periodically cajoled into various “police actions” or episodes of “democracy building” because they always sound measured and controllable in the beginning stages. For a campaign broader in scope, though, will it not take a substantial and violent alteration of the current geopolitical landscape to allow—or force—sober proposals stating “Islam is our common enemy” to come forward and have them met with knowing sighs rather than bitter opposition? Such motions, provided they are acted upon, will almost certainly be required to beat Islam back into place at some point and prevent its adherents from inflicting global mayhem on their way to outright dominance. It appears unavoidable now that Europe will serve as the experimental station in this regard. In the meantime it seems likely that the humane separationist tactic delineated by Lawrence must await the chance to augment military exploits later rather than act more sensibly as a prophylactic measure today.

LA replies:

Everyone is making such good arguments in this thread that, frankly, I’m swayed by each of them in turn. So I’m going to have to go back and read the whole discussion to decide what I think.

LA writes:

Hannon writes: “Islam is not one of those emotive issues at this point.”

This is amazing because just the other day I saw a poll, I think from Pew, which said that negative views of Islam were increasing, and one of the data was that in 1995 something like 33 percent of Americans thought Islam was more violent than other religions, and that has gone up to something like 44 percent today. What struck me was, “In 2005, four years after the 9/11 attack, and all we’ve learned of Islam since then, and only one third of Americans believed that Islam is more violent than other religions?”

That’s by way of (unhappy) support for Hannon’s comment that Islam is not an emotive issue at this point, though perhaps that is changing.

George writes:

Hannon writes:

“Whatever new strategies the Republican Party might come up with I find it difficult to believe they will not enjoy similar success with that same electorate, an electorate that tends toward certain predictable sentiment on “key issues.” Islam is not one of those emotive issues at this point. In other words, staving off facing the true nature of the threat from Islam will not be a tremendous challenge for either party because of any voter demands, at least in the near term, attack or no attack.”

I believe Hannon is saying that the public does not view Islam itself as a threat, and is instead more focussed on the non-existent “Islamo Fascism” boogeyman.

That is a good point which I had not considered.

My thinking right now, is that even if people blame another terrorist attack on “Islamo-Fascism” rather than Islam (increasingly less likely as the U.S. sees Muslims up close, but I’ll play Devil’s Advocate), then Wilsonian democratization of the Middle East still will not be a viable strategy because the costs involved in truly reforming the Muslim world, in terms of blood and treasure, are so enormous.

And yet, the Republicans need to have some strategy to fight terrorists; they can’t go to the public in the wake of an attack and say “Sorry guys, we have no clue how to fight Islamo-Fascism,” right?

The public will demand tougher action, and democratization will not be viewed by citizens as viable anymore.

With Westernization a bust, the GOP will have to choose either separationism, total war, or come up with some non-discriminatory strategy that:

a) is superficially tough enough on Islamo-Fascism/Islam to satisfy the national demand for revenge.

and,

b) still satisfies the core pillars of non-discrimination.

I can’t think of any alternative strategy the neocons could embrace which would satisfy both of those two seemingly contradictory requirements. This must be why the Neocons are still circling the wagons around “The Surge.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 25, 2007 02:34 PM | Send