The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

David Horowitz’s Crisis of Political Faith

By on 3.23.11 @ 10:58PM

Jim Antle references David Horowitz’s remarkable assertion that, his past polemics to the contrary notwithstanding, he (Horowitz) never fully supported a robust and muscular U.S. foreign policy of democracy promotion.

“I allowed myself to get swept up in the Bush-led enthusiasm for a democratic revolution in the Middle East,” Horowitz writes.

Oh, brother. Is this the best Horowitz can do? The man is 72 years old! Yet he would have us believe that, when he was younger (in his 60s, mind you,) he got seduced by Bush’s enthusiasm for democracy. But now, presumably, he’s older, wiser and less susceptible to romance!

I disagree with Horowitz (and my friend and colleague, Jim Antle). I think democratization in the Middle East and North Africa is necessary and long overdue, and that it ultimately will redound to the benefit of the United States.

This doesn’t mean that democracy is an unalloyed good. Nor does it mean that democratization will proceed inexorably forward without difficulties and challenges. Democracy, after all, is a human and not divine institution.

But there should be no doubt but that self-rule is the ultimate solution to the myriad problems that now ail the Arab and Islamic worlds.

By giving people the right to chart their own destiny, democracy forces people to assume ownership of their future. Problems no longer can be blamed conspiratorially on others and used as a pretext for violence. Instead, problems must be forthrightly acknowledged and peaceably addressed.

“What we want to see happen in Arab lands and in Iran,” writes Reuel Marc Gerecht, “is real intellectual competition — the starting point for healthy evolution.” And such competition, Gerecht explains, can occur only in a more or less representative democracy.

Democracy-understood as a culture of respect for legitimate authority, free media, and individual freedom to work and to organize and assemble, not just the regular holding of elections-introduces competition into every corner of society.

It creates an unending ethical battle between opposing sides… [But] to matter, debate must carry the possibility of practical [real-world] consequences…

The citizenry, while neither saintly nor immune to passions, is broadly speaking “rational” in the West because there is daily demand for and tangible benefit from ratiocination.

This is not at all the case in the Muslim Middle East, where most men are powerless and most of society’s great concerns are decided behind closed doors, or as the Iranians more poetically put it, pusht-e pardeh, “behind the curtains.”

This, in fact, is the great thing about democracy: It gives the citizenry the right to discuss and debate issues. It gives them the right to try and change people’s minds. It gives them the opportunity to fix and remedy their mistakes.

Horowitz, sadly, seems to have become spooked because democratization in the Middle East and North Africa has resulted in some decidedly illiberal groups gaining political power.

But is this really that surprising? A liberal democratic culture develops over time; it does not materialize magically overnight. Success lies in building liberal democratic institutions and processes which will enable Arabs and Muslims to correct their mistakes and to achieve political progress over time.

In any case, what is the alternative? More repression? “Good” or supposedly benign dictators?

Democracy can and will take hold in the Middle East and North Africa, but only with the active assistance and good offices of the United States. Let us not abandon the effort and call it a failure when, in truth, it has only just begun.

Indeed, the only “illusion” that Horowitz should disabuse himself of is the illusion that Arabs and Muslims can’t “handle” democracy. They can and they will, but again, only with our help.

View all comments (39) |

NoLib| 3.24.11 @ 12:11AM

How is democratization workin' out in Iraq and Afghanistan right now? Just how many young Americans have to die and how many more trillions do we have to spend in the Middle East to "help" this process along?

I didn't know our Founders created an empire, but I do know our "empire" is dying.

You. are. crazy.

Rogue Elephant| 3.24.11 @ 8:24AM

I agree. By "democratization" the author means "expending American lives and treasure in order to bring about regime change in a region with no democratic traditions where the prevailing Islamic traditions are hostile to religious minorities and hostile to democratic government".

Is the author blind to what is actually occurring in the Middle East? In Egypt, "opposition leader" (so-called) El Baradei was stoned by an angry mob (discussing and debating the issues). The democratic government of Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a terror group. Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, an Iran-backed terror group. And there is evidence that the Libyan opposition included al Quaeda.

Is the author blind to the state of US government finances? We are broke and approaching insolvency. We have no treasure to squander on a Middle Eastern "democratization" crusade.

In short, the author has taken leaves of his senses. Say what you will about David Horowitz. But, at least Mr. Horowitz, is willing to see the world for what it is (rather than ideologically blinding himself) and has the intellectual honesty to confess his errors.

Alan Brooks| 3.24.11 @ 10:43AM

Could be Horowitz wants to be the first Jewish POTUS, and he is re-positioning himself. He hears Hail to The Chief playing in one ear, and Havah Negilah in the other.

simon templar| 3.24.11 @ 11:39AM

The guy is just facing reality and is humble enough to admit it and change his mind. What's with the sarcasm and jewish slurs?

NoLib| 3.24.11 @ 11:44AM

Leftist cowards like Alan hurl slurs at Jews and Christians alike; Muslims are another matter altogether.

Spicy Joker| 3.24.11 @ 12:31AM

Democracy in the Middle East is doomed to failure because the people there are living in the Middle Ages. Instead of promoting democracy, we should drop a nuclear bomb on the Middle East once and for all.

Sam H| 3.24.11 @ 1:51AM

Hear, hear! I agree wholeheartedly.

Building civil institutions takes time.

And as far as how is democracy in Iraq going? All I can answer in rebuttal is a hell of lot better than a nation ruled by Mr. Hussein or his psychotic sons.

Free markets and representative governance is the Arab world's last, and only, chance.

Should we still be faced with the same sclerotic and dysfunctional societies in, say, 50 years, then perhaps the nuclear option described by spicy joker will come into play.

But for now, the Arabs have a chance to awaken themselves and their pathetic societies and countries.

Will they take this chance? I do not know. But I do know that in my lifetime I was lectured by Western "experts" who told us time and again that Communists could not be democrats.

There surely are a helluva lot of democratic former Communists walking around today.

Islam may not be compatible with democracy. I hold this view, just as Communism was not compatible with representative government.

But Muslims may be. We shall see.

Time will tell and people will die; it always does and they always do.

But the clock on the Arabs is ticking. One hopes they will hear it before the alarm rings.

NoLib| 3.24.11 @ 2:26AM

I wonder if we will hear the clock that's ticking on us.
A trillion here a trillion there, pretty soon you've got real money there.

Dear God, please bless and keep our armed forces; they and their families have borne the brunt of our leaders' policies in the Middle
East. These men and women are the best among us.

JmsA| 3.24.11 @ 8:13AM

That's absolutely true. Well said, NoLib.

All American American| 3.24.11 @ 9:26AM

Comparing communists to islamists is apples to rocks. For their part communists at least appreciated life (if only their own). When we ignore the "teachings" of mohammed/allah and just assume Abdullah the sheperd in Afghanistan has the same beliefs and core values as Igor in Moscow, well, that's how we end up getting involved in cluster***** all over the arab world.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.24.11 @ 9:31AM

R.I.P. Ed Hardy (2009-2010)

alice moore| 3.24.11 @ 7:51AM

This author mistakes democracy for representative government. Many forget that it took hundreds of years for the English societies to develop REPRESENTATIVE societies. Still, they are not perfect works.

As for democracy in the Middle East, it's already there. In Iraq the majority VOTED for Sharia Law. People speak of places such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Libya. Those governments are oppressive dictatorial and/or authoritarian. This is true. What is also true is that no regime can exist without the consent of the populace. Passive compliance is consent. When we excoriate the monsters of history such as Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, remember they needed and received mass compliance to implement their genocidal practices.

As for the revolution in Egypt; I'm afraid the US is for another hard lesson a la Iran.

Rogue Elephant| 3.24.11 @ 8:33AM

Right. Democracy is mob rule - two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There's nothing magical about it.

In fact, the history of democracy is the history of failure. Democracy is not new. Our democratic traditions date back to ancient Greece - where they failed, as democracy inevitably gave way to tyrants. The Roman republic likewise failed, giving way to Empire and collapse.

Our own republic is well on its way to failure. Our Constitution's checks on limited government are failing: federalism - failing, separation of powers - failing, enumerated powers - failing. Limited decentralized government has given way to overpowerful central government dominated by an imperial presidency.

What form of government do we have? "“A Republic, " said Ben Franklin, "If you can keep it.”

Jacobite| 3.24.11 @ 2:39PM

Probably the best form of government is an open aristocracy, as in England. England wasn't very democratic until the open voting in the mid-19th century, and probably until women got the vote in the early 20th Century. Within 50 years, England gave up freedom, although the people still vote. And England has given up its sovereignty within a century of mass-voting. In the US, freedom only lasted 70 or so years (I don't call living under a government imposed by an occupying army much freedom). As a native Missourian, I grew up listening to folks talk about life under Reconstruction, and it made the USSR or today's Zimbabwe seem perfectly familiar. O'bwana has made more serious effort that any Leftist predecessor to subordinate the US to the authority of the UN, just as European nation's sovereignty has been subordinated to the EU. The point ought to be made that the goal for a good society ought to be freedom, not democracy. I'd have much rather lived in Hong Kong in the 20th Century than most anywhere else. I certainly would've been freer than in the US. It's always been a puzzle that England would have governed HK better than they ran their own country. Finally, democracy or any other free government will be counter-productive where the people are Mohammedans. They don't believe in free government -- it's in the Koran.

Clint| 3.24.11 @ 7:53AM

These Middle East Countries can do the fighting & dying for themselves without so much of this resorting to The United States to supply Our Military & Our Treasure to prop them up.

Same goes for so much of Our Big Nanny Government Force Confiscating Our Taxpayer Money & Using It for Foreign Aid to Prop Up Middle East Countries.

martin j smith| 3.24.11 @ 8:09AM

Here is a unique perspective or National Security and foreign policy should be based on our national interests, not the UN or the EU or anyone. It is in our national interest to have allies who we can work with and who do not trash us. In addition, it is in our national interest to support the IDEA of FREEDOM and to OPPOSE OUR ENEMIES SUCH AS RADICAL ISLAM AND FRANKLY RUSSIA AND CHINA.
There should be a two pronged method: Strong National Defence--not meaning we are now war mongers, but we will not be bullied and are ready to respond if attacked or even provoked in certain circumstances. We should aim for quick showing of force if need be but full scale war ONLY WHEN WE ARE SERIOUSLY THREATENED
A 9/11 EQUIVALENT WOULD BE A VALID REASON FOR AN ATTACK BY OUR FORCES.
the second area would be one one information-propaganda or counter propaganda. We need to be more vocal and robust in our spreading thru information the benefits of DEMOCRACY. But in the end its up to the PEOPLE in those nations to decide. If the population supports 7th Century society let them have it. But, do not dare to drag us into your squaller. Among other things, we should let the middle east population know that
they have choice between better life style or poverty --and death. The choice is theirs.

As for humanitarian interventions: Darfur anyone, Zimbabwe ? Congo ? Iran ?

All American American| 3.24.11 @ 9:20AM

Thinking muslims in the ME and North Africa (or anywhere for that matter) want a say in their govt or want to "chart their own destiny" or whatever flowery nonsense this author dribbles every week underscores a fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING of islam.

Allah charted the path already. Allah purposefully turns folks away from islam so they can be doomed to hell. Its allah's will. EVERYTHING is allah's will. Allah charts the path, NOT the peon humans. The lowly humans are only ordered to SUBMIT to it.

Guardiano I ask you again, which muslim payroll are you on man? You taking money from the Saudis or CAIR? Because either you are ignorant of islam, in which case you can be sorta excused for spouting your nonsense--but not excused for failing to educate yourself. Or you know what islam is all about but continue to deliberately mislead the American people--in which case you are truly lower than scum.

ncatty| 3.24.11 @ 9:30AM

Mr. Guardiano, I would like to agree with you but do not see any evidence that democracy works in the Muslim M.E. Can you give me an example?

All American American| 3.24.11 @ 9:37AM

This is easy: No. There is no example. For all of the "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan, their "constitutions" are based on (wait for it) shariah law.

And Christians are still being raped, murdered, kidnapped, blown up, executed, etc in Iraq today. And in Pakistan. And in Afghanistan. Etc. Etc.

All American American| 3.24.11 @ 9:34AM

Al Qaeda is playing the USA folks.

Problem: AQ wants to establish a new muslim caliphate, but semi-secular strongmen/kings are standing in their way.

Solution: Rabble-rouse the local populace with delusions of "democracy" and protest in the streets. When American news cameras arrive, make sure you put your most Western-looking and best English-speaking "student" on camera saying "we just want democracy" (no beards, please). Then demand help from Washington. Voila, regime change! Then you can use "democracy" (mob rule) to vote in your new shariah law.

Bob Miller| 3.24.11 @ 9:36AM

What exactly do we expect radicalized Muslims to do with their votes? Would that be objectively good for themselves or for us, especially if they were a clear majority in a given country? For how long after taking over would they allow any semblance of democracy to continue? Hamas in Gaza, upon their election, set out to create a terrorist state in a permanent state of war with Israel.

All American American| 3.24.11 @ 9:44AM

This is what I don't understand. We're always being told by folks like Guardiano that the "extremists" only represent a "small percentage" of all muslims, maybe 10%. We're further told that "moderate muslims" only what the same kind of things we all want, that is to work, provide for their families, go to school, etc.

Then how come when there are these "democracy" movements in these muslim countries, how come the 90% "moderate muslims" never seem to vote in a secular Constitutional Republic? I mean they have the edge NINE TO ONE we're told. In a "democracy," the "extremists" (who are only 10% remember) would not stand a chance of getting ANYTHING in a vote, right?

So how come given a chance to democratically elect a, shall we say, "moderate" government or secular government, muslims always go for the shariah? Are the alleged 90% "moderate muslims" forgetting to vote? Maybe they forgot to register? Did they get their days mixed up? Get stuck in traffic? I dunno I don't get it???

Guardiano, can YOU explain this apparent phenomenon???

martin j smith| 3.24.11 @ 9:58AM

"giving people rights" is a LEFT LIBERAL CONCEPT... not inaliable rights as we know them but "we will give you rights" that is socialism not Freedom --even the "right" do decide on democracy is socialism. My view to educate call it propaganda but let the people decide for themselves. 7th Century or 21 st century.

David T| 3.24.11 @ 11:20AM

Mr. Guardiano--Yes, present day Iraq is better than Hussein-era Iraq, but look at the cost, not only in lives and money, but also in wear and tear on our national psyche. We can't continue this course, even if, ultimately, it might redound to our benefit. We have to step back and take the cold, hard, realist approach to foreign policy adumbrated by the Founders.

simon templar| 3.24.11 @ 11:25AM

I have even more respect for Horowitz because unlike the author he seems to be able to adjust his thinking when he is faced with reality and new information that does not fit a philosophy or application of a philosophy. The title of this article sounds a bit over the top as well.
I am sure David H. wishes that"democracy" would take hold in the ME but he also realizes that a culture and people may actually reject it and seek something else instead.

simon templar| 3.24.11 @ 11:35AM

What really surprises me is this notion that what is happening in the ME right now has something to do with democracy and is a democratic movement. Where is this crap coming from? Every report, every optic, and every indication seems to scream Islamic revolution. Before you start attacking David H, perhaps you could explain to us in specific examples who and where these democratic freedom fighters are, what ideas of democracy do they hold, and what types of reforms and government are they proposing?

simon templar| 3.24.11 @ 11:42AM

"But now, presumably, he's older, wiser and less susceptible to romance!"
Yeah, exactly...I hope the same will happen to you..John G.

All American American| 3.24.11 @ 12:09PM

Hey thar John you gonna tell us which payroll you're on? From Jan 29th - Feb 17th, a mere 20 days, you wrote SIXTEEN articles about Egypt. (I think my personal fav was the one comparing the Egyptian protesters to the Tea Party).

Since March 19th you've written 5 on Libya. What gives man?

Who ya gonna write about next? Yemen or Syria?

John Guardiano | 3.24.11 @ 12:39PM

Not sure yet. I have to meet first with my paymasters in Mecca. They always have very clear and detailed instructions about what I must and must not write about.

All American American| 3.24.11 @ 4:21PM

Don't forget to bow to them, dhimmi.

Funny you don't answer any other questions huh? Or for as much as you wrote about Egypt, you sure got mum when the "pro-democracy protesters" started getting all churchy-burny-downy.

Like I said earlier, an American who would deliberately mislead others on the true intentions of islam is scum.

timmah| 3.24.11 @ 1:22PM

If we could Marshall Plan the whole M.E. that would be great, but we cannot. The competition between "rational" Western ideals and Islamic philosophy is difficult because committed Muslims will effectively end any debate by killing you for your "unbelief". The only way to really give freedom a chance in the Middle East is to kill all the "faithful servants" who would not allow anyone else to consider a different path. That, of course, would be tricky...

RWinks| 3.24.11 @ 2:24PM

"democracy forces people to assume ownership of their future." Except it doesn't. The people of Gaza elected Hamas. Hamas attacks Israel. Israel is told retaliation must not kill "civilians" and they must continue to supply water and other services to Gaza. If the people of Gaza were to accept responsibility for their part in supporting Hamas, they should be bearing the full brunt of any retaliation. The people of Germany and Japan did---with exemplary results.

B. McElhone| 3.24.11 @ 2:55PM

Guardiano's happy-talk internationalism is distressing, not because he blahs on in that way but because his work appears in what would otherwise be a skeptical conservative journal.

The literature on democratic institutions is clear: they develop over centuries, and are not delivered from the belly of a B-1. The traditions of the Arab world (particularly the Shiite portion) have not prepared the population for democracy. To put our large, expensive thumb on the scale in opposition to that world's current crop of thug-rulers promises nothing but the arrival of the next crop. As Bernard Lewis wrote some years back, Islamic democracy means one man, one vote -- one time.

Conservatives (you too, Guardiano) must try to recover our natural humility. The world is not our special ed student, waiting to be coaxed and muscled into good behavior. Its religious and philosophic traditions are different from the ones that produced our secular governmental models. Leave it to its own devices and their attendant costs.

In the meantime, we should be building our own free economy and a strong representative government. If we do so, the US will be the City on the Hill, influencing the world as a model of prosperity and freedom.

NoLib| 3.24.11 @ 3:51PM

Some of us Conservatives have retained our humility; alas, not all. Thanks for your well reasoned post.

More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/23/david-horowitzs-crisis-of-poli

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|126 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|114 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|72 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|21 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn't Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.