Talk:Peter Berkowitz

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

it's ok, edit the critique out. i just have to spout

cheers - - --Hugh Manatee 13:48, 12 Jan 2005 (EST)

I mvoed the critique to here. User:SiberioS

Critique of Berkowitz's article, "Kuwaiti Complexities" (bias warning)

One of Peter Berkowitz's stated areas of scholarly study is the role of virtue in democratic self-government, yet he is quick to rationalise that the Kuwati goverment is a positive middle east force, and a role model for other countries in the region. As is so often the case with modern conservatives, their stated goal of spreading democracy is a masquerade. Kuwait is ruled by a nepotic monarchy, and its women are not allowed to vote.

In his article, "Kuwaiti Complexities"[1], published in the Fall, 2004 Hoover Digest, Berkowitz somehow works the July 5, 2004, Kuwaiti Parlamentary Elections into a plus for Democracy's future in the Middle East. Some of thay election's results being that,

"...the liberals lost six of their nine seats, and the Islamists-proponents of establishing the sharia, or Muslim religious law, as the law of the land-enjoyed a small gain, giving them about a third of the seats in the 50-member National Assembly."

Kuwait rule by an nepotic Emir who appoints members of his family as ministers, writes Berkowitz, is a positive force because,

"In the context of Kuwait, ... the royal family is a liberalizing institution."

Berkowitiz then equivocates on the value of Women's suffrage in Kuwait,

"Many Islamists are married to women who have been raised in strict accordance with religious law and tradition and could be counted on to vote to strengthen the political role of Islam."

Proving once again the fallacious claim of virtue's residence within America's conservative think-tanks. Underlying all of their loud proclamations of the ultimate pricelessness of Democracy, one of the revisised Post-Duelfer Report jutifications for the War Upon Iraq, is the fear that the Democratic process will actually elect the choice of the unwashed masses.

Their ends-testing of Democracy's valuation on a case by case basis speaks truth from the core of their ideology. They, just as the Reagan policys in Latin America did in the eighties, seek to subvert true democracy, if that process dares to elect someone who doesn't share their vision.

This they proudly do from their high horse, espousing the virtues of democratic self-government, lying to everyone along the way.

I am not implying that Berkowitz is wrong in his assessment of Kuwait, another mid eastern country ruled by anti-American fundamentalists is not a plus, but I do not view democracy as some ultimate metaphysical ideation either. The will of the mob is often a dark and nasty evil, and one of the most powerful stabilising forces of America's government is the codification of minority rights, and the inviolate liberties of individuals. I am just pointing out a very typical inconsistancy in the morality of the modern conservative.

Berkowitz dances around the reality; that democratic self-rule is not always virtuous.

--Hugh Manatee 13:47, 12 Jan 2005 (EST)