From Moscow to Tehran, a Crisis of Illiberalism

OPINION : ROSS DOUTHAT
THE NEW YORK TIMES: The worldview behind Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine assumed the following premises: The West and America are declining, decaying and internally divided. The globalized world is becoming multipolar, with “civilization-states” re-emerging and competing to claim their spheres of influence. And Russia and China in particular represent potent alternatives to Western liberalism that stand ready to contend for global dominance.

As badly as the war has gone for Putin, some of this analysis still holds up. The world has indeed responded to the Ukraine War along multipolar lines. Saudi Arabia’s snub of the Biden administration’s plea to pump more oil is just the latest example of how the anti-Russian coalition is essentially a Western coalition, with India, China and the Arab world playing more cynical and complicated parts.

Meanwhile, the West’s unity, while obviously more impressive than Putin expected, is still a thin netting flung over deeper vulnerabilities. There has been no sustained post-Covid boomtime, no new era of good feelings. The populist wave is not receding; since the war in Ukraine began the European establishment has suffered political disappointments and defeats in Sweden and Hungary and Italy. Two of the governments most committed to the defense of Ukraine, Joe Biden’s administration and Britain’s Tory government, are well underwater in approval polls. Europe has only just begun to feel the cost of its naïve energy policies, and Western economies are caught between measures that feed inflation and solutions that might induce recession. » | Ross Douthat, Opinion Columnist | Saturday, October 8, 2022

Liberalism Is in Trouble | Aaron Bastani Meets Francis Fukuyama | Downstream

Premiered Mar 27, 2022 • Few political thinkers exert such influence that their work becomes synonymous with a historic era and they find themselves in books, dissertations and speeches written and said by people who’ve not even read them. Aaron speaks to Francis Fukuyama, author of ‘Liberalism and it’s Discontents’.

Can Global Liberalism Defeat Putin? | Francis Fukuyama

Mar 26, 2022 • "I actually think that he could be defeated, I think the Ukrainians could actually force a withdrawal of the Russian army. If that happens, then I think the world looks a lot healthier."

Francis Fukuyama, political scientist and writer, talks to Hugo Rifkind about the effect of the war in Ukraine on liberalism.

The Enemies of Liberalism Are Showing Us What It Really Means

Ukraine has something to say about it, too. | Lynsey Addario for The New York Times
OPINION: EZRA KLEIN
THE NEW YORK TIMES: “After three decades of dominance, liberalism is losing its hold on Western minds,” Matthew Rose writes in his powerful new book, “A World After Liberalism.”

Rose does not mean liberalism in the way we typically use the word. This is not about supporting universal health care or disagreeing with Justice Samuel Alito. Rose means liberalism as in the shared assumptions of the West: a belief in human dignity, universal rights, individual flourishing and the consent of the governed.

That liberalism has been battered by financial crises, the climate crisis, checkered pandemic responses, right-wing populists and a rising China. It seems exhausted, ground down, defined by the contradictions and broken promises that follow victory rather than the creativity and aspiration that attend struggle.

At least, it did. Ukraine’s refusal to bend the knee to Vladimir Putin has reminded the West that, for those who have not yet learned to take it for granted, life under liberalism is worth fighting for. But true renewal will require more than horror at Russia’s invasion or paeans to Ukraine’s courage. It will mean grappling with liberalism’s deficiencies and rediscovering its core radicalism. » | Ezra Klein, Opinion Columnist | Sunday, April 3, 2022

The War in Ukraine Holds a Warning for the World Order

THE NEW YORK TIMES: The multinational response shows that liberalism has some life left. But the challenges posed by waning U.S. power and rising authoritarianism remain formidable.

The liberal world order has been on life support for a while. President Biden, in his inaugural address, called democracy “fragile.” President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said two years ago that “the liberal idea” had “outlived its purpose,” while China’s leader, Xi Jinping, has extolled the strength of an all-powerful state and, as he put it last March, “self-confidence in our system.”

The multinational response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shown that the demise of the global postwar rules-based order may not be inevitable. A month ago, no one predicted that Germany would reverse decades of military hesitancy and pour 100 billion euros into its defense budget, or that Switzerland would freeze the assets of Russian oligarchs, or that YouTube, World Cup soccer and global energy companies would all cut ties to Russia.

But the reappearance of war in Europe is also an omen. With toddlers sheltering in subway tunnels, and nuclear power plants under threat, it is a global air raid siren — a warning that the American-led system of internationalism needs to get itself back into gear, for the war at hand and for the struggle against authoritarianism to come. » | Damien Cave | Friday, March 4, 2022

Harken O Leaders of the West! Islam vs Liberalism - Kamil Ahmad

Kamil Ahmad »

Kamil Ahmad »

After the Oslo Massacre, an Assault on Free Speech
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Norway's left seeks to silence Islam's critics by linking them to a mass murderer.

Last July 22, a powerful explosion rocked a government building in downtown Oslo, killing eight people. Later that day, 69 people, mostly teenagers, were shot to death by a lone gunman at a Labor Party camp on the nearby island of Utøya. By nightfall, police had a suspect in custody: a 32-year-old Norwegian named Anders Behring Breivik, who had apparently carried out both attacks on his own.

Contrary to nearly everyone's original assumption that Islamic terrorists were behind the Oslo attack, a 1,500-page "manifesto" by Breivik showed that he opposed the mass immigration of Muslims into Norway and had targeted the Labor Party gathering because of the party's role in shaping the country's multicultural immigration policy.

As an American who had lived in Oslo since 1999, I was deeply distressed by the atrocities of July 22. But when I learned that they were the work of a native Norwegian who claimed to have acted in opposition to Norwegian multiculturalism, I was even more devastated. For I saw at once what this would mean.

Consider this: Criticizing Islam is now a punishable offense in several European countries. In the past few months alone, a Danish court fined writer Lars Hedegaard for talking about Islam's treatment of women in his own home, and activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was found guilty of lecturing about Muhammad's marital history in what an Austrian court considered an inappropriate tone.

Critics of Islam have yet to be put on trial in Norway. But as I watched Norwegian TV's coverage of the massacre in Oslo and at Utøya, it was clear to me that such critics—who were already used to being labeled racists and "Islamophobes"—would have an even rougher time after July 22.

"In Norway," I wrote in these pages on July 25, "to speak negatively about any aspect of the Muslim faith has always been a touchy matter . . . . It will, I fear, be a great deal more difficult to broach these issues now that this murderous madman has become the poster boy for the criticism of Islam."

This statement was harshly criticized by Norway's multicultural left. How dare anyone speak of such issues at a time like this! It was as if the concerns I had raised were abstract or narrowly political.

On the contrary, Islam's rise in the West is a subject that needs to be discussed frankly, without euphemism or disinformation. The survival of secular democracy, individual liberty and women's rights depends upon it. » | Bruce Bawer *| Tuesday, February 07, 2012

• Mr. Bawer's e-book about the aftermath of the July 22 atrocities in Norway, "The New Quislings," has just been published by Broadside Books, an imprint of HarperCollins.

WIKI: Bruce Bawer »

Tony Blair: Support Liberals in Middle East or Face Islamist Regimes
THE GUARDIAN: Special envoy warns religious groups are focused and organised while progressives need support and unity

Tony Blair has called on the west to do more to help "liberal and democratic" elements in the Middle East and north Africa following the Arab spring – or risk the formation of new Islamist governments that are not "genuine" democracies.

Admitting countries such as Britain and the US had previously been "too reluctant to push dictatorships on a path to democracy", the former prime minister said they now had to be clearer on their view of democracy "because the trouble really in the region is the more religious and extreme elements are very well organised and the liberal and democratic types basically aren't".

Blair, the special envoy for the Quartet on the Middle East (the UN, US, EU and Russia), regretted previous failures to promote "a concept of evolutionary change", predicting the recent revolutions would cause quite a lot of difficulty, citing, as an example, Egyptian growth rates and tourism difficulties. » | James Melkie | Thursday, December 29, 2011

Blair on the Mid East 'Battle for Democracy'
BBC: Sir Victor Blank has taken a keen interest in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians for many years.

The Today programme's Sarah Montague met with former prime minister and current envoy to the Middle East, Tony Blair to talk about the role that political leadership could, or should, play in the region's conflict resolution. Listen to BBC audio » | BBC Today | Thursday, December 29, 2011

Liberalism's Surrender of America to Radical Islam
at Ground Zero
WORLD TRIBUNE: America is surrendering in the war against radical Islam. This is the real meaning behind the decision to build a 13-story mosque and Muslim cultural center 600 feet from the site of ground zero. A New York City panel gave the green light Tuesday for the project — despite intense resistance from many families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Most New Yorkers and Americans do not want this mosque erected: It will be a symbolic monument to the triumph of Islamism in the United States.

Ground zero is more than where the World Trade Center came crashing down. It is not simply where an immense crime took place. Rather, it is the site of an act of war, hallowed ground that contains the blood of 3,000 human beings, mostly Americans, murdered on that fateful day. Like Pearl Harbor, it is a national shrine that should be dedicated to honor the memory of the victims — an eternal reminder of the atrocity perpetrated by Islamic fascism on U.S. soil.

The Sept. 11 attacks were committed by Muslim extremists in the name of holy war against the West. They used the Koran and Islamic principles to justify their actions. Their goal was to bring jihad to America, unleashing a clash of civilizations. Across the world, Islamists seek to impose a world Muslim empire based on Shariah law. Ground zero is where the war came home to America.

Hence, the building of this mosque is a sacrilegious act — a deliberate slap in the face to the victims, their families and all Americans. It also is why the sponsors of this project refuse to back down. They realize what is at stake: The mosque will cast a giant, dark shadow over ground zero, serving as a testament to the Islamist conquest of America. If Islamism can impose its will near the site of Sept. 11, then it can impose its will anywhere. >>> Jeffrey T. Kuhner* | Wednesday, August 11, 2010

*Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a radio talk show host (570 am WTNT, 5 to 7 pm daily) and a columnist at The Washington Times and WorldTribune.com.

Opinion Journal: The Angry Left

Tragically Flawed Guardian of the Liberal Flame
TIMES ONLINE: Brilliant orator, radical champion . . . but Edward Kennedy’s weaknesses conspired to stop him reaching the White House

In many ways Teddy Kennedy was the most politically gifted of the three Kennedy brothers. The Benjamin of the family (born 15 years after his brother, the President), he was gregarious where his brother Bobby tended to be reclusive and on his day, as each would willingly testify, could outshine them both as an orator. Yet, despite his 47 years in the US Senate, he never rose any higher than holding the essentially backroom job of Majority Whip — and that only for two years between 1969 and 1971.

Why? The easy answer, of course, lies in the one Native American word, Chappaquiddick. Before the disastrous episode there in July 1969 — when the Democratic senator from Massachusetts drove his Oldsmobile off a bridge, drowning his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, in the process — little, it seemed, could stand between the sole surviving heir to the Kennedy legend and his destiny in the White House. But how he behaved on that occasion, not least his callous delay in reporting the accident and the cold-hearted way in which he went about defending his conduct on television, destroyed that dream for ever. When he eventually did stand for the presidency he was humiliated by Jimmy Carter who beat him in 24 out of 34 primaries and in 20 of the 25 caucuses.

Yet even that defeat, far worse than Ronald Reagan’s when he ran against Gerald Ford four years earlier, did nothing to destroy his status as the keeper of the liberal conscience of the Democratic Party. The possessor of a better voting record on issues such as healthcare, welfare provision and workers’ rights, he regularly topped the ratings awarded by such organisations as Americans for Democratic Action. Untainted by his brothers’ earlier records over Vietnam, he was also recognised as a liberal internationalist, though with some reservations in this country provoked by the green tinge of his views on Northern Ireland. >>> Anthony Howard* | Thursday, August 27, 2009

*Anthony Howard was Washington correspondent of The Observer in the 1960s

The Straight Talk On Islam
TOWNHALL.COM: I suspect that because George Bush and Condoleezza Rice were so respectful of Muslims, constantly telling us that theirs is a religion of peace, some otherwise sensible Americans actually began to believe it. Now we have a president who not only kowtows to a Saudi prince [sic], but carries on as if Israeli homes are more threatening than Iranian nukes.

What is wrong with our leaders? Are they worried that they won’t be invited to those cool Ramadan parties? The Islamics have been actively at war with us for 30 years and generally at war with western civilization for well over a thousand years, and still we pay lip service to these people in a way we never did with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. Is it because the Muslims commit sadism and murder in the name of religion and not country? If anything, I would think that would make their evil acts all the more contemptible.

Still, I would contend that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are not as dangerous as America’s liberals. The Islamic terrorists can only kill so many people, but those on the Left are doing everything in their power to eviscerate America. Cap and Trade can destroy our industrial might; Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus programs combined with his delusional health care plan will not only bankrupt our nation, but lead inevitably to a rate of inflation that will impress even Jimmy Carter; and the budget cuts directed at our military and our missile defense system will make us increasingly vulnerable to our various enemies. >>> Burt Prelutsky | Monday, August 10, 2009

A Must Read: Melanie Phillips’ Extremely Insightful Article - Liberalism v Islamism
MELANIE PHILLIPS: First of all, let me define my terms and say what I mean by Islamism and liberalism. Islamism is the politicised version of Islam which mandates jihad, or holy war against the infidel and conquest of the non-Islamic world for Islam. I’m well aware of the argument that there’s no difference between Islamism and Islam: that’s a theological argument for others to have.

By liberalism I mean the commitment to a free society, founded above all on the separation of secular government from religious worship — from which follow the concepts of equal respect for all people, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the rule of law.

These two concepts, Islamism and liberalism, are currently engaged in a fight to the death. My argument is that liberalism is in danger of losing this fight because it has so badly undermined itself and departed from its own core concepts that it is now paralysed by moral and intellectual muddle.

Liberalism is the creed of modernity. The driving force behind the Islamic jihad is the fight against liberalism and modernity. All the iconic conflicts — Iraq, Israel, Kashmir, Chechnya, Sudan —are secondary to the fundamental aim of the jihad to prevent liberalism and modernity from destroying Islam.

The founding ideologue of modern Islamism, Syed Qutb, made clear in his writings that at the core of the salafi interpretation of Islam was opposition to the separation of religion and temporal power that resulted in liberalism and democracy. His governing impulse was the fear that the instinct for liberty was so powerful it would spread to and infiltrate the Muslim mind unless it was checked by the most repressive possible form of Islam. Liberalism v Islamism (more)

Mark Alexander