Awful thought


Today's missive from Ahmadinejad is decidedly interesting. Spencer at Jihad Watch thinks it may be a prelude to an attack, though he's not sure. The letter contains a wide variety of appeals. Some of it is straight from Democrat talking points, but not a lot, especially compared to previous tapes from Zawahiri and Zarqawi.

Ahmadinejad spends considerable time and effort appealing to a Christian sensibility, and to a populist strain common to most European and American cultures.

Now here's the awful thought. When I read this bit - - - - -

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families.

They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.

The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity.

Today these two concepts have failed.

Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems

- - - - I found myself involuntarily nodding in assent.

If the Green Mist Man is able to click something positive in my mind, it's a bad symptom. And that's putting it mildly. Trouble is, our own government has failed so miserably to keep up our own morale, failed so miserably to give us facts and logic to cling to, failed so miserably to give us any reason for hanging with our own side ... , that a clever Persian can make a fiercely loyal American pause and say "Hmmmmmm."

FDR didn't allow that Hmmmm to happen, even involuntarily. He knew that Fascism was magnetic, especially in tough times. He took constant pains to counter its appeal with words and actions. In the end he managed to implement one piece of the fascist program -- corporatism -- more effectively than Germany, without adopting the racial aspects of fascism. Part of our victory in WW2 resulted from the complete devotion of big business to national purposes; Germany didn't mobilize its industries nearly as well, which contributed to its defeat.

The difference between then and now: populism ---> authoritarianism had a strong local representative in the form of Father Charles Coughlin. Because Coughlin was explicitly trying to run for President, he posed an internal political threat in a way that Hitler or Mussolini could never do.

In our current situation, the Dems and Reps agree solidly on world citizenship, no borders, free trade (another name for outsourced slavery), careful sensitive warmaking, and paying tribute to the enemy. There is no Big Name speaking on behalf of the basic defense of THIS particular nation. There is no competing institution that could force the two parties to focus on basics. Rush is, I guess you'd say, demographically analogous to Father Coughlin, but he emphatically doesn't want to be a political leader, and he's more elitist than populist.

Such a vacuum will inevitably be filled one way or another. In hard times people need and deserve a leader. The worst possible answer is Ahmadinejad's answer, voluntary dhimmitude and surrender. Next worst would be a hard leftist.

The least-bad answer would be a complete change of personnel at the top without abandoning our system. A bit like castling in chess, you might say....
  ¶ 10:16 PM