On my desk: The Next Founders
posted at 3:12 pm on June 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
When Joshua Muravchik’s latest book on the Middle East and the people who may lead it into an era of freedom and liberty first got published four weeks ago, he couldn’t have foreseen its relevance just a month later. This week, I have begun reading The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East carefully and with renewed interest. Muravchik profiles seven brave pioneers of liberal democracy currently working and risking their lives to free an entire region from oppression and tyranny.
Of particular interest this week is Mohsen Sazegara, one of the people who worked for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and installed the theocratic government of Iran. Sazegara has had an interesting journey from Islamist revolutionary to a pioneer of liberal democracy. He’s certainly not alone, as this week’s events have shown, but Sazegara’s life makes for great background on the evolution of Iran and the oppression of the Guardian Council and Ali Khamenei.
Be sure to read this. Muravchik’s excellent profiles will bring hope that one of the most troubled regions in the world can emerge into the 21st century in an explosion of liberty rather than a nuclear firestorm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
May these folks live long enough to see their dreams realized …
Buckaroo on June 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Our Founders hated Democracy. They were far more concerned with limiting governmental power, separating those limited powers, and placing checks and balances to restrain the ability to concentrate what remained by collusion among those in government. Democracy leads to the opposite of all these. That’s why our Federal government only allowed for democratic processes for 1/2 of 1/3 of our federal government – the House of Representatives.
Further, private property is an absolute necessity for individual liberty to even be possible and Democracy tends to clash with private property rights.
progressoverpeace on June 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM
bush was right.
reliapundit on June 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I can only hope that support for the protestors by other countries can be meaningful enough to prevent another all-out Tienanmen Square. Already too many people have died.
I stand in awe of, and am inspired by, the brave protesters in Iran, who are knowingly risking their lives to take a stand against a repressive government.
This should make us Americans even more grateful for the many liberties we here take for granted, and even more vocal against any attempts by our government to take any of them away from us.
OneVision on June 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Chavez to Obama “You have the power to embrace Socialism and put a final end to capitalism
William Amos on June 21, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Democracy and human rights are in direct conflict with islam. The first step toward meaningful change must start with the discrediting and mass conversation away from mohammad’s death cult.
After that, positive change will happen naturally.
Rebar on June 21, 2009 at 3:51 PM
progressoverpeace,
Thanks for the reminder. I wish more of the talking heads on the conservative side would quit selling democracy as the highest political aim.
Democracy is a sham and only of limited usefulness to free people. It leads to the situation which is quickly approaching where there are more recipients of tax-generated gov’t largesse than those who pay taxes.
Once we cross that threshold, it’s over.
ConstantSorrow on June 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM
His book, “Heaven on Earth” about socialism was great.
V15J on June 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Yep. I would have thought that the names of the political parties would clue them in:
Democrats want a super-state Democracy (like European systems).
Republicans want a federal Republic, as defined by our Constitution.
But, I guess that isn’t clear enough …
progressoverpeace on June 21, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Didn’t the Democrats start out as the “Democratic Republicans”?
Count to 10 on June 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Yes, but their position on government has changed along with the name. (Okay, I’m cheating just a touch on that … but it fits very well, now)
progressoverpeace on June 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Yep. I would have thought that the names of the political parties would clue them in:
Democrats want a super-state Democracy (like European systems).
Republicans want a federal Republic, as defined by our Constitution.
But, I guess that isn’t clear enough …
progressoverpeace on June 21, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Amen to you POP and just in case Allahpundit sees this comment, it would be an attaboy for him.
.
Didn’t the Democrats start out as the “Democratic Republicans”?
.
Count to 10 on June 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM
.
You are right (Thomas Jefferson) and Alexander Hamilton’s party was the Federalist Party.
.
Americannodash on June 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM
“Hugo is like an uncle to me.”
petefrt on June 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Good points. But, I think democracy is not necessarily bad because the term is a rather imprecise as a form of government.
That is to say, democracy may be direct or republican (the latter of which we all cherish). Further, it could be majoritarian (and lawless, if care is not taken) or concensus-based (and very inconvenient). When the given democracy is based on specific rules, then perhaps enumerated powers, seperation-of-powers, checks and balances, and all the other good stuff the US system has can be included.
My basic point is that a qualified democracy (or republicanism in the US) but, in any case, a democracy is part of the basis of responsible rule by consent of the governed.
ConScribe on June 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Can we please not sully the memory of our Founding Fathers by invoking their memories to refer to these barbarian, corrupt cultures?
I’m so tired of these comparisons.
Muswell Hillbilly on June 21, 2009 at 4:48 PM
The “democracies” that most people talk about are of the European party-oriented parliamentary type. They are anit-individualistic (as the party is the fundamental political element, not the individual) and they have very little in the way of separated powers, since they have virtual executive branches that are only formed when one party, or coalition, gains functonal control of the legislature. They have governments that tend to rise and fall on legislative votes (because of the way those governments were formed in the first place), without specific timelines. Checks and balances are almost a non-issue, given this structure. Of course, it’s understandable why the European systems developed this way, as they already had permanent executive branches (the royals) that they had to build systems around. We had no such constraints in the construction of our governmental structures and built a totally unique system. Interestingly, the US has never really promoted our individualistic governmental structure but have been happy to let new governments be built on the Euro structures, which are poor and unstable.
And now we are about to lose our uniqueness as the Dems push towards a super-state and are trying to realign our system to parties instead of individuals. We already saw the idiocy of the Dems when they held “no-confidence” votes against Bush, when there is no function for a “no-confidence” vote in our system, at all. We have non-binding resolutions, but to call any of them a “no-confidence” vote is just to show that many in our government don’t understand the serious differences between our system and those in the rest of the world (save the Phillipines, as AUINSC pointed out on another thread).
progressoverpeace on June 21, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I am so glad to see people recognizing that we have a representative constitutional republic, not a democracy. It drives me crazy when people who should know better refer to us as a democracy!
PrincipledPilgrim on June 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Great post! Great points!
That’s a BIG may.
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 5:03 PM
This is true and I would that add it is likewise for too many of our fellow citizens, which is why those in government remain as such.
Interesting background on the Euro structures, by the way.
ConScribe on June 21, 2009 at 5:12 PM
I also think that it’s interesting to see what’s happening with the so called “far right” in Europe that is anything but on the right…
Fascism is on the rise…
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Just so you know the British and the rest of Europe looked down on our Founding Fathers as being “barbarian, corrupt,” and ignorant. Europeans and many in the World community still look down on Americans to this day.
The yearning for Freedom is the same whether it beats in the heart of an American, an Iraqi or an Iranian. A free Iran is good for the US, the West and the World.
sarahpalinfan99 on June 21, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Ed -
Thanks for that tip! How timely that book is now in light of current events. Muravchik seems to have greater insight than POTUS, Congress and the State Run Media.
sarahpalinfan99 on June 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Absolutely, so maybe the question is, do they really yearn for freedom???
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 5:29 PM
progressoverpeace on June 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I think you overstate. The Founders did not hate democracy, just thought it to have enough flaws as to not sustain a new Nation. Democracy was left to the States-a republic to the nation.
Your point about personal property is dully noted. However, followed to it’s conclusion, it is CAPTIALISMthat insures liberty. A point lost on the socialists, no matter how many times the try and fail.
Browndog on June 21, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Thank George W for spreading freedom from Iraq to Iran.
faraway on June 21, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Yeah, “far right.”
AKA what-a-so-called-progressive-type-brands-one-of-their-own-who-strays-from-the-fold.
ConScribe on June 21, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Hate, strongly disdain, revolted by it… No, I think a great many of our Founders had no desire for Jacksonian democracy… Even when Jefferson got on his “democracy” push with France, many of the others said, “No thanks.”
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 5:39 PM
The Irony… This “far right,” is just tracing back to the original Progressive Movement… Hmmm…
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 5:40 PM
If you believe our founding documents were Divinely inspired, as I do, then the only way liberals can support their own agenda is to replace individualism with collectivism. Private property, and wealth creation has to be relegated to the government. There isn’t enough constitutionalists left in the schools or univercitys anymore.
fourdeucer on June 21, 2009 at 5:41 PM
4deuce, Obama believes our founding docs were “stained”. And America is not exceptional.
faraway on June 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM
The European Union is an oligarhcy. The laws are written by the European Commission and then they send directives to national governments who pretend to have written said legislation themselves and pass it through the various parliaments.
In Book VIII of The Republic Plato said oligarchical man gives way to democratic man who in turn gives way to tyrannical man. This does not apply to Europe because the presence of Islamic man throw the equation out of whack. There will be war in Europe and at the present moment its impossible to say who will win.
However in America, which was set up as a Republic but is now a democracy in all but name, I think its reasonable to predict that democratic man will give way to tyrannical man as Plato said and that this process has already begun.
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM
According to the Great Ronald Reagan…
I have long since seen that Fascism and Communism are both on the same side of the scale. I fail to see a difference between the two. I refuse to put Fascism on the ‘Right’ and ‘Communism’ on the left. No… I put them both on the same side… the ‘down’ side.
Freedom and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution I put on the ‘up’ side.
Reagan was right. He was always right.
Chaz706 on June 21, 2009 at 5:56 PM
4deuce, Obama believes our founding docs were “stained”. And America is not exceptional.
faraway on June 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Thats right and listening to REV. Right. Probably doesn’t care more American blood was spilled in the Civil War than any other war. When you porposely deny history, I guess you tend to make it up to fit your agenda.
fourdeucer on June 21, 2009 at 6:00 PM
The European systems generally have no formal separation of powers but in older times the established churches (back when they had influence) were to some extent a brake on government.
Here is a present-day example of what I mean:
Greece fears immigrant unrest:
Certainly I would consider the formal intervention of an established church as more potent than the U.S. media – the free press being of those essential checks and balances that is totally non-functioning. The concept of an established church is so anathema to Americans that they tend to overlook it in this regard.
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 6:00 PM
No, I too don’t believe Fascism is on the right. We can even trace back historically when the Communists severed tied with their fellow leftists.
For convenience sake, many Modern American Liberals (BTW they are anything but liberal) have taken up the cause of redefining Fascism to serve their purposes.
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Heres a website of interest!
http://www.iranian.com/main/node
canopfor on June 21, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Well that depends on who you’re talking about. There are parties that are nationalistic but to the left on economic matters. The Jobbik party in Hungary are unreconstructed ex-Communists.
There are also parties that are to the right of the Republicans on economic and social issues. UKIP and VB are genuinely libertarian on economic issues. Abortion is illegal in Ireland.
Vagueness is no good. The “right” in Europe covers the entire political specturm from right to left.
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 6:04 PM
I suggest you brush up on your founding fathers. To Quote Thomas Jefferson (the most democratic of the founding fathers)…
Even if this was a ‘pure’ democracy… Ben Franklin adds:
A free society requires a free market. Capitalism is just as much as an integral part of Liberty and freedom just as much as state control of everything is an integral part of Communism.
To put it in plain English for the rubes… It’s a package deal. You can have a free government and a free market… or you can have communism and state control of everything.
Chaz706 on June 21, 2009 at 6:06 PM
That’s for sure. I always enjoy teasing my Italians friends… They have to admit that an American conservative would be better than Berlusconi any day…
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Question: Why does the Constitution say (Article IV, Section 4)
Answer: because Democracy was never left to the States.
We are not supposed to be a democracy. Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
The Monster on June 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Either the cult of islam ceases to dominate in the middle east or freedom languishes. There is no middle ground. The koran forebids it.
Fletch54 on June 21, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Had to finish the Quote.
Chaz706 on June 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Hm, well I don’t want to sound contentious but Berlusconi is one of the very few politicians that I actually admire. I’m a pretty serious immigration restrictionist so I am glad that he wants to keep Italy Italian (or so he says). I just wish he would hurry up and deport more immigrants while there’s still time.
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM
He wants too much power. He doesn’t want a small enough gov’t. This is something that is a European problem, but I’ve never understood the “Keep Italy Italian” call. I’m thinking “Keep America American” has a much different conotation than “Keep Italy Italian.” I could be wrong, but the first suggest to preserve a set of ideals that can be equally applied to anyone willing to participate in the American Dream. The later has a much more racial connotation. Further, who really cares if Berlusconi can or can’t speak Latin? He sure seems to care. This would be like asking our Presidents if they could speak Onödowága. In the end, it’s more identity politics – and boy are Europeans good at this…
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Interesting.
itsnotaboutme on June 21, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I understand the objection but do your Italian friends advocate that Italy should secede from the European Union? If the answer is no then they are not serious small-government conservatives. Any European who is favour of EU membership is by definition an advocate of big (gigantic actually) government.
The snag is that there is an “American people” and an Italian race. The attempt to make an “Italian people”, a “Swedish people”, a “French people” has already been a huge failure and now another huge European war will commence as a result of this failed social engineering.
One of the reasons I oppose the utopian “democratic” social engineering experiment in Iraq is because I realise that the initial model, in post-war Europe, has been such a failure. Hitler was a racialist psychotic and in reactionary fashion we have all become anti-racialist psychotics. But if Jews deserve their own homeland (and they do) then so do Britons, Italians, Dutchmen etc.
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Oh… they are far from small government cons. This is why I can tease them and I relish it.
Again, it is a European problem. They can worry about their “pureness.” I don’t care. Look how well things have been going for them…
Well, in all fairness to the Israelis, they’ve absorbed a large amount of Jews from very, very diverse backgrounds… Yes, there are some that feel threatened, but they aren’t doing bad considering they have Jews and non-Jews from every corner of the earth… I think you are selling them short. I haven’t heard of the “Keep Israel Sephardi” mantra… That said, they do have their problems.
Finally, just because Israel does it, doesn’t mean the Europeans have to. Thank goodness that we Americans don’t follow in the footsteps of the Europeans.
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Again, that makes European rightists Hitlerite which they are not. It’s nothing to do with pureness. If the population of America, which is 300 million, was replaced with 300 million Chinese people it would cease to be America as we now know it. That’s just a fact, even if it makes people uncomfortable.
Actually that’s true, Israel is a multi-racial country. You’ve just solved for me a problem which have been turning around in my brain for a long time. Israeli ethno-nationalism is not condemned by liberals in the same terms as European ethno-nationalism because Israeli ethno-nationalism is not exclusively concerned with ethnicity.
I’m only talking about liberal attitudes towards Israel, not the Israelis themselves. In fact what I favour the non-liberal stances taken by Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beitnu over what Caroline Glick calls “post-Zionism”.
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 7:02 PM
s/b that makes European rightists sound Hitlerite
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 7:03 PM
I seemed to have killed this thread stone dead with my non-liberal (illiberal?) contributions. Sorry Ed.
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Ed … pleae read Mousavi’s Manifesto – it’s linked in the Gary Sick article.
Mousavi hasn’t made the journey to liberal democrat – Mousavi is calling for a return to the “pure” days of Khomeini.
Yeah – real democratic alright.
HondaV65 on June 21, 2009 at 7:11 PM
This is my issue with this whole elecions protest business. I just hope the protesters are using the rigged elections as the jump-off point for a deeper reform: Overthrow of the Mullahcracy.
ConScribe on June 21, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I do not call these people like say Berlusconi rightist! Let me reiterate that again. If they are rightist, they are in the European definition of the right.
Just the other day I read this (usually don’t read Steyn)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/18/why-the-fascists-are-winning-in-europe/
Also, I like reading Goldberg…
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 8:23 PM
The author is a hardcore Israeli first Ashkenazim Jew. I point that out because I don’t support anyone who puts their racial interests over the interests of America. He is exactly why we have so many problems in the ME. The support Israel receives from conservatives makes no logical sense. Our whole foreign policy is shaped around whether we’ll piss Israel off or not. It’s short-sighted and lacks any logic whatsoever.
A true and honest study of evil and deceitful machinations of how Israel became a state should convince any person of good Christian moral conviction that they do not deserve our support. I refer you to two Ashkenazim Jews who were not hardcore ideologues like Muravchik – Israel Shahak and Benjamin Freedman. Both are honest about how the creation of the state of Israel came about, in particular Benjamin Freedman as he was part of the inner circle during the negotiations during the Treaty of Versailles. God bless those men.
I know my position is unpopular here, but eventually our support of Israel will have to be reconsidered. Somehow our nation has been steered towards a radical policy of all Israel all the time. God bless the people there, but I question our alliance with the STATE of Israel. Israel has more domestic spies in our nation than any other “ally”. Yet nobody ever brings that up because they fear being called a name – Antisemite. Need I remind you that Palestinians are semites?
For goodness sakes we must be blunt about this. Our involvement in the ME serves the best interests of Israel not ours.
True_King on June 21, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Steyn and Goldberg know next to nothing about European politics. They are an embarrasment.
Relying on these people would be like attempting to gain an understanding of American politics by reading Timothy Garton Ash. They’re lazy and not-very-bright writers.
Yes the BNP are economic corporatists, which conforms to Goldbergs’s theory that fascism is really a form of liberlism. But has he written about UKIP who won 15 seats in the European Parliament compared to the BNP’s two seats and who are genuinely conservative (in an American sense) on economic matters?
No, of course not. To get an understanding of the political situation in a country you must (at the very least) read a correspondent based in that country. The idea that you can understand a foreign polity by occasionaly casting an askew glance at it (”Europe” in the dumb shorthand that Ed Morrissey uses when he talks about the European Union) is a bad joke.
Mark Steyn, on his web site, linked to this article which was pubslished in the same magazine as his original article and challenges his assertions:
The feeble ‘march’ of Euro-fascism
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 8:46 PM
I’m not going to defend Steyn. I don’t read him much. I will say that I find Goldberg clever and witty. Lazy? I don’t know much exactly how much research he puts into his pieces, but I’d say he does a tad bit more than “unnamed others.” So, no, I don’t find Goldberg to be an Embarrassment to the American Right.
Why must he applaud those on the “right” for winning elections when he is pointing out that the so called “far right” is not on the right? At least in the American sense.
Again, you don’t really know what askew glances are being cast by whom… I guess you’d have to live with Goldberg/Ed to know this.
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 9:01 PM
He can do what he likes. All I was saying is that UKIP do qualify as a rightist party by American standards. So why pretend that the corporatist BNP (who are electorally insignificant) are the epitomie of British or European rightism when they clearly are not? UKIP won 15 seats. The BNP won two.
The bone-stupid Steyn and Morrissey promote this view not because they are smart or know anything about European politics but because it exactly fits with their political prejudices.
aengus on June 21, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Uh… I don’t think he was. He was merely pointing out that they are being LABELED far right for the benefit of the more mainstream left… You know, kind of like when Anti-Semites that shoot up a Holocaust museum, hate Fox News, and love them some kiddyprn are automatically labeled as far right without [conveniently] taking into account what it means to be on the American Right.
Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Yes.
Connie on June 22, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Because not giving them support now will somehow “make right” any of those “wrongs”?
Are you simply an isolationist are are there countries in the ME that are more deserving of our support?
deesine on June 22, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Comment pages: