Posted on 03/02/2006 5:14:15 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
March 2, 2006
Is it just coincidence? Barely a week after new media from Rush Limbaugh [subscripton required] to this column found the Today show appearance of NY Times foreign-affairs maven Thomas Friedman noteworthy, Today had him back again this morning. Could the new media be driving news choices at the antique?
In any case, while the ostensible purpose of Friedman's appearance was to discuss President Bush's current trip to India, his most interesting comments came in relation to Iraq and by extension to the entire Middle East. His notion: the path from dictatorship to democracy in the region necessarily passes through a period of fundamentalist religious rule.
Katie read to Friedman a statement he had made in 2003 suggesting that democracy in Iraq could be a model for the rest of the region. Clearly dubious, Couric referred to current events in Iraq and the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and asked: "do you really think Iraq can still be a role model for the Middle East?"
That's when Friedman got off his line of the day:
"Well, it depends on how the situation in Iraq eventually is concluded. I said all along, you don't go in the Middle East from Saddam to Jefferson without going through Khomenei. I wish you could but you don't. We are seeing the truth about that part of the world. When you crack regimes at the top, you go into complete free-fall until you hit the mosque. There are no civil societies, no free press."
Couric: "Is it still possible to get to Jefferson?"
Jefferson: "I am not sure. That's the grand experiment. It's an experiment that is important. If you can't create a situation where these people themselves forge their own social contract so they don't have to be ruled by an iron fist, you are looking at a future of dictatorship as far as the eye can see. That brought you 9/11, I would argue. We don't know how this will end. I would say I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months will tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq."
Noteworthy comments again from Friedman. But query whether his theory is overly optimistic. He suggests that it is dictatorship that led to 9/11, and that rule by religious fundamentalists might only be a phase on the road to democracy.
But is the problem Middle Eastern dictatorship per se, or something inherent in Islam that makes religious rule not merely a detour on the road to democracy, but a destination? Is there no essential difference between, say, the kind of monarchy that ruled the Thirteen Colonies and the mullahs surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Today Show/NewsBusters ping.
I dunno. In the West we took 600 years, and numerous wars and revolutions, to go from the middle ages to the modern world. So why can;t the guys in the Middle East do it in a couple of months?
"the path from dictatorship to democracy in the region necessarily passes through a period of fundamentalist religious rule."
Well, then why is he resisting fundamentalist rule in this country?
Here's the NewsBusters column on Friedman's recent, previous appearance on Today during which he suggested we might be winning in Iraq:
http://newsbusters.org/node/4168
Probably for the same reason that they were able to rapidly go from sitting around watching the fire for entertainment, to watching TV on their satellite dishes, flying to Mecca in airplanes, talking on cell phones, and setting up websites.
It's interesting that Friedman said this all along, considering that no country in the Middle East has gone "from Saddam to Jefferson" by "going through Khomenei"..
I'm still waiting for Jefferson to appear in the Middle East, wonder if he'll come before breakfast?
First of all, it's either Khomeini or Khamenei. Who's Khomenei?
The correction had already been made in the NewsBusters piece. Anything else to bring to the discussion?
Good for them and good for you. I reject the idea wholesale so I'll refrain from analyzing.
Your initial post said "First . . . ", leading me to think that you had something else to say. In any case, if you read the last paragraph of the report, you'll notice I also express serious skepticism as to Friedman's theory.
The most irritating thing about Friedman is his emphasis on cute phrases rather than letting ideas stand on their own. This is an example of that.
Maybe they can do it becasue they have the advice and guidance of the most successful large-scale experiment in such governance ever? Switzerland has been as successful, but it's on a smaller scale---though it might be a better model for Iraq than the US.
Interesting analysis - thanks. I hadn't been paying much attention to Friedman, but after his two recent Today appearances, perhaps I should.
I had no idea that was your report. Besides, I have a near allergic reaction to anything TF says, which I have developed over years of reading his columns in the Houston Chronicle. I could not agree with anything he said about Iraq, Israel, etc. Sorry, I know it's a disease, but I like it.
Sounds like an "updated" translation of Hegel: thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Those things, I'm afraid, are the mere appurtences of civilization. Savages can learn to use them.
Civilization comes from the character and moral training of the mass of citizens. You can't buy that from an online retailer.
The process doesn't include haste. History is not driven by the pundits.
Tune into AM radio Katie... they give traffic updates all the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.