Pipes and Jasser deserved the debate victory.

Submitted by Stuart Fagin (United States), Oct 10, 2012 at 18:05

Pipes and Jasser deserved the debate victory. Gerecht and Katulis failed to substantiate their central point; that Islamists, when elected, offer a more likely pathway to a liberal democracy than do western-aligned dictatorships. They could provide no examples of Islamists governments transforming in this way. Indeed, the Turkish example, (as well as the unmentioned Hamas example in Gaza) indicates the direction of political motion is the opposite of what they hope for.

By contrast, Pipes and Jasser call attention to the several historical examples of western-aligned dictatorships transforming to functioning democracies such as Spain and Greece. The Philippines may also be mentioned. Pipes and Jasser also make the significant point that, in contrast to western-aligned dictators, the Islamists' project causes them to be outwardly aggressive and thus threatening to the west. From the standpoint of national interest the dictator is preferred. I was also put off by Katulis' histrionics and his continuous mischaracterization of the opposing position. I much prefer the cool style of Pipes and Jasser.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".