Common ground between liberals and Islamists?

Submitted by Antonio Chaves (United States), Jan 21, 2003 at 17:53

Although I think that Sane’s characterization redrawing of the clash superstystems is much more accurate than Huntington’s, I strongly disagree with his placement of statist liberalism somewhere "between" corporate capitalism and militant Islam. He attributes this position to the compromises to individual liberty tolerated by both Western Europeans and Islamists in order to create their respective versions of an ideal society. This comparison is superficial when you take into account the philosophical basis for their respective utopian ideals.

The ideal society for the statist liberal is the welfare state. This ideal is constantly being developed through the process of open debate and permanent consensus. Critics may justifiably denounce the heavy taxation, top-heavy management, bureaucratic inefficiency, and social parasitism common in this system. Nonetheless, they do so in an atmosphere of free debate, which allows the society to evolve.

Permanent consensus, open debate, and social welfare have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic state. It doesn’t even have a true philosophical basis (Know your Greek: Philosophy means "love of thought"!). Apologists will say that given the chance, the people of many Muslim countries would elect the have an Islamic government. This is not permanent consensus, it is the last gasp of desperate inhabitants in a failed state (One man, one vote, one time). Some will argue that statist liberals and Islamists share the goal of social welfare. This so-called "common ground" is always discredited once the Islamists gain power. For the statist liberals, social welfare is supported for its own sake. For Islamists, it is a justification for tyranny. The former principle is vibrant and subject to change. The latter only leads to fear, stagnation, and death. Even though the Koran has many rules addressing social welfare, these rules can only improve upon the social conditions of a pre-industrial society immersed in tribal barbarism.

The fact that some liberals have betrayed Western values in their naïve desire to find common ground with Islamists, has more to do with their love of diversity and desire to provide justice to those who they perceive as underprivileged. Indeed, these noble sentiments can often be misguided, but guilt by association should never be a component of serious analysis. Most people on the left share no more common ground with the Islamists than the conservatives that choose to confront political Islam. I can just as well argue that the disproportionate influence of corporations on the U.S. government brings the American system closer to the despotism of the Mullahs in Iran. This too is an oversimplification. In effect, any suggestion that statist liberalism has more in common with militant Islam than corporate capitalism is not only offensive, it has no legitimate basis.

Antonio Chaves, Houston

---

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".