With popular uprisings spreading across the Middle East, believe it or not, far right conservatives have actually been split about the change, with voices like chicken little Glenn Beck and draft-dodging Dick Cheney showcasing their usual chicken-shit fear that regime change automatically means radical Islam states will rise in their wake.
As they have shown in their domestic demogaguery, democracy is only convenient when it advances your own ideology.
As I said in my previous post, radical Islam was clearly blindsided by these uprisings—indeed, as many have noted, the street-level-inspired uprisings are Al Quaeda's worst nightmare, rendering it irrelevant. The storyline given by simpletons like Beck and Cheney simply serve to underscore their ignorance of seeing Islam as an either/or proposition.
Of course, the possibility exists that should these nascent movements falter due to a lack of unity or organization, extremists may find a way to move into power. But I say in view of the alternative where we allow dictators to stay in power and continue oppressing its people which only stokes further resentment (particularly against the West), I say let change play out—the results cannot be any worse than what we have now. Even if extremists were to somehow gain total control over the state, they would no longer be working in the shadows and would be easier to fight. They also would need to govern and need to be more accountable both to their own people and the world community. At worst, they will simply remain the fringe, anarchic elements they already are today.
But, as usual, the GOP uses fear to stir the masses—whether it's the result of cynicism or a real fear of the world outside our borders, I can't tell.
In many ways, the very definition of conservativism means a fear of change. Rather, we should see hope and opportunity in this change. Only those who fear the future would begrudge the chance for others to pursue freedom by whatever means necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment