That the New York Times over the past generations as been insitutionally untrustworthy is a given. Some of its lefty hacks have found better hacking elsewhere recently. Frank Rich comes to mind. Inhouse black lefty monominded, Bob Hebert has retired. Nick Kristof and Princeton economics ‘professor, Paul Krugman, still play their loony tunes on their harps on a regular basis which ownership apparently passes off as wisdom of the ages.
Then there is the rest of the New York Times “Opinion Page”.
As I was surveying the armies of news pundits on display at realclearpolitics this morning, I came across the title,….”WHY ISLAM IS WINNING’ from the NY Times Opiners. I was interested in knowing what Islam was winning at, whatever the “at” might be. The folks at the NYT are usually sketchy about such matters. But, I bit anyway. They had won some elections recently, surprising clean for the Islam world which usually breaks out in pox when honest elections might occur.
I noticed that this opinion was an outside job by someone by the name of John M. Owen, IV…..not Owen III or II, nor John Owen IV……but, John “M.” Owen, IV. Now , that is impressive and so gentile. I immediately jumped to blue blood Connecticut or Virginia for the owner of that name……perhaps a professor of HISTORY.
I often use New York Times articles to support my prejudices of life, and those with opposing prejudices of life for my own thinking and writing. And here, lelow, is the NYT article, WHY ISLAM IS WINNING:
“EGYPT’S final round of parliamentary elections won’t end until next week, but the outcome is becoming clear. The Muslim Brotherhood will most likely win half the lower house of Parliament, and more extreme Islamists will occupy a quarter. Secular parties will be left with just 25 percent of the seats.
Islamism did not cause the Arab Spring. The region’s authoritarian governments had simply failed to deliver on their promises. Though Arab authoritarianism had a good run from the 1950s until the 1980s, economies eventually stagnated, debts mounted and growing, well-educated populations saw the prosperous egalitarian societies they had been promised receding over the horizon, aggrieving virtually everyone, secularists and Islamists alike.
The last few weeks, however, have confirmed that a revolution’s consequences need not follow from its causes. Rather than bringing secular revolutionaries to power, the Arab Spring is producing flowers of a decidedly Islamist hue. More unsettling to many, Islamists are winning fairly: religious parties are placing first in free, open elections in Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt. So why are so many Arabs voting for parties that seem politically regressive to Westerners?
The West’s own history furnishes an answer. From 1820 to 1850, Europe resembled today’s Arab world in two ways. Both regions experienced historic and seemingly contagious rebellions that swept from country to country. And in both cases, frustrated people in many nations with relatively little in common rallied around a single ideology — one not of their own making, but inherited from previous generations of radicals.
In 19th-century Europe, that ideology was liberalism. It emerged in the late 18th century from the American, Dutch, Polish and especially French revolutions. Whereas the chief political divide in society had long been between monarchs and aristocrats, the revolutions drew a new line between the “old regime” of monarchy, nobility and church, and the new commercial classes and small landholders. For the latter group, it was the old regime that produced the predatory taxes, bankrupt treasuries, corruption, perpetual wars and other pathologies that dragged down their societies. The liberal solution was to extend rights and liberties beyond the aristocracy, which had inherited them from the Middle Ages.
Suppressing liberalism became the chief aim of absolutist regimes in Austria, Russia and Prussia after they helped defeat France in 1815. Prince Klemens von Metternich, Austria’s powerful chancellor, claimed that “English principles” of liberty were foreign to the Continent. But networks of liberals — Italian carbonari, Freemasons, English Radicals — continued to operate underground, communicating across societies and providing a common language for dissent.
This helped lay the ideological groundwork for Spain’s liberal revolution in 1820. From there, revolts spread to Portugal, the Italian states of Naples and Piedmont, and Greece. News of the Spanish revolution even spurred the adoption of liberal constitutions in the nascent states of Gran Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Mexico. Despite their varied grievances, in each case liberalism served as a rallying point and political program on which the malcontents could agree.
A decade later, in July 1830, a revolution toppled France’s conservative Bourbon monarchy. Insurrection spread to Belgium, Switzerland, a number of German and Italian states and Poland. Once again, a variety of complaints were distilled into the rejection of the old regime and the acceptance of liberalism.
The revolutions of 1848 were more numerous and consequential but remarkably similar to the earlier ones. Rebels with little in common — factory workers in Paris, peasants in Ireland, artisans in Vienna — followed a script written in the 1790s that was rehearsed continuously in the ensuing years across the continent.
Today, rural and urban Arabs with widely varying cultures and histories are showing that they share more than a deep frustration with despots and a demand for dignity. Most, whether moderate or radical, or living in a monarchy or a republic, share a common inherited language of dissent: Islamism.
Political Islam, especially the strict version practiced by Salafists in Egypt, is thriving largely because it is tapping into ideological roots that were laid down long before the revolts began. Invented in the 1920s by the Muslim Brotherhood, kept alive by their many affiliates and offshoots, boosted by the failures of Nasserism and Baathism, allegedly bankrolled by Saudi and Qatari money, and inspired by the defiant example of revolutionary Iran, Islamism has for years provided a coherent narrative about what ails Muslim societies and where the cure lies. Far from rendering Islamism unnecessary, as some experts forecast, the Arab Spring has increased its credibility; Islamists, after all, have long condemned these corrupt regimes as destined to fail.
Liberalism in 19th-century Europe, and Islamism in the Arab world today, are like channels dug by one generation of activists and kept open, sometimes quietly, by future ones. When the storms of revolution arrive, whether in Europe or the Middle East, the waters will find those channels. Islamism is winning out because it is the deepest and widest channel into which today’s Arab discontent can flow.
John M. Owen IV, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, is the author of “The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010.”
Further comment: No one should gett politically, socially, or religiously too excited about the junior college level pap of the article. Mr. Owen IV seems to be suggesting something like Arab pragmatism to benign bureacratic Socialism of today’s Europe……the Europe that is BROKE , culturally, religiously, and financially…..among other accurate adverbs.
But the professor’ puffings that Islam is pragmatically in fits and starts moving toward something like European “Liberalism” whose riots and killings he infers are by the good guys, he wound up forgetting about an entire 100 years of history, last century’s holocaust of slaughter equal to all slaughters of the past put together in Europe……..THE AGE OF MARXISM and its leadership of the National Socialist Workers Party in Germany, and the COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS. (I’ll mention nothing here among my complaints about the 60,000,000 or more slaughtered under Chairman Mao’s leadership of the Marxist dictatorship, The People’s Republic of China, and the political pansies of North Korea.
I am wondering why Professor Owen, IV, forgot to enter such history while guessing about the transition of Islam from brute to civilized? My prejudice guessed that the article might not have been accepted by the Opinionators of the Marxist Times. But, then I discovered that Professor Owen, IV, is not a professor of history at all, but of politics at the University of Virginina.
My prejudice no longer seemed no longer a guess.
Filed under: Education, Foreign Affairs and News, Marxism, National Politics | Leave a Comment »
