David Brooks’ WaPo column today makes some interesting observations:
Democracy, the argument goes, will eventually calm extremism. Members of the Tea Party may come into office with radical beliefs, but then they have to fix potholes and worry about credit ratings and popular opinion. Governing will make them more moderate.
Those who emphasize substance, on the other hand, argue that members of the Tea Party are defined by certain beliefs. They reject pluralism, secular democracy and, to some degree, modernity. When you elect fanatics, they continue, you have not advanced democracy. You have empowered people who are going to wind up subverting democracy. The important thing is to get people like that out of power, even if it takes a coup.
Ha ha, fooled ya. Replace “Tea Party” with “Muslim Brotherhood” and you’ll have what Brooks actually wrote. But I ask you, how different are these two extremist movements, except by degrees? For example, check out this news story, also from today’s WaPo:
IkhwanOnline, the official Web site of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, posted an article on Thursday asserting that the country’s new interim president, Adly Mansour, is secretly Jewish. The article, since taken offline, suggested that Mansour was part of an American and Israeli conspiracy to install Mohamed ElBaradei, a former U.N. official and Egyptian opposition figure, as president.
Sound familiar? Maybe Mansour can produce his birth certificate and clear this whole thing up. LOL.
This isn’t the first column to make me wonder if David Brooks hasn’t a touch of senility. The problem isn’t radical Islam, it’s radicalism, period. And to throw potshots at the radicals in one part of the world while embracing the ones at home defies logic.