The other day, I had the displeasure of listening to a "conservative" Middle East "scholar" ramble through a lecture on the potential receptivity to democracy in places like Iraq and Iran. His thesis, once I mined it from a wandering trail of endless dead-ends and unanswered "what I mean is..." utterances, amounted to the following: culture, specifically that of the Middle East, is irrelevant to a nation's capability of accepting democracy as its form of government.
He cited examples of various dictators who have already felt compelled to have "democratic elections", thereby demonstrating that the need to have a veneer of democracy is sign enough that a free government could be sustained.
Here is the root of the first problem: the equating of democracy with freedom. Democracy is simply the rule of the majority. In a democracy, the minority gets fucked. When the minority complains about said fucking, the majority tells it:
"Fuck you, it's in the 'public interest' that you get fucked. Therefore, shut your trap, get in the voting booth, and let us fuck you once more."
Sure, democracy might be acceptable to any existing culture in the Middle East. Where you might have a problem, however, is trying to talk to some of those guys about things like constitutional republics. I.e., governments based on objective law that uphold the rights of the individual. Instilling that in the Middle East might not be so easy.
So, here we had yet another Republican who had absolutely no conception of the relationship between ideas, culture, and forms of government. He was actually asserting that dictatorships could be transformed into "democracies" with the simple application of "external pressure". That pressure coming from (a) military force, or (b) diplomatic "pressure".
Evidently, whether your culture makes it a habit of stoning people to death for social faux pas like adultery has no bearing on whether or not your culture will appreciate a government that protects individual rights.
There are two possible courses we can take to be safe in the long run. The first, contrary to the aforementioned horseshit, is to be cultural imperialists. That is, eliminate religion from the fucking planet and maybe teach a few people that suicide bombings aren't the ideal course of action for a human being. The second possible course of action is to keep the barrels of our guns pointing directly at any two-bit dictator and let him know that he will suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein should he support or harbor terrorists.
So pick your solution. Personally, the cultural imperialism thing is an optimistic choice, but frankly I don't know if we can handle it. Regardless of what we do, we're gonna need our finger on the button anyway, so frequent threats of mass annihilation in the Middle East will probably be necessary, and maybe sufficient.
But never mind that. Let me get to the punchline.
After the above limp-wristed conservative finished his tedious sleep-inducing speech, I felt compelled to ask a question. How, I asked, can you argue that culture is irrelevant? How can you argue that "pressure" is enough to change an entire government in the long-run?
His answer?
"I wasn't really arguing. I was suggesting."
Yes, he followed that up with other equally pussified language. But that was the only statement that stayed with me. And I was actually ready to semi-forget that statement, or at least not write about it. Then I turned on the news tonight.
On two cable news stations, I heard the following from two paid "experts" in defense of their supposed positions:
"You can make an argument for that."
Granted, this isn't as bad as refusing to "argue" in favor of "suggesting", but Jesus Christ, it's still pretty goddamn bad. Either make the fucking argument, or don't make it. What the hell does it even mean to say "you can make an argument for that"? Doesn't it matter at all what kind of argument you make?
For example, what if the only kind of argument you could make for it was a completely shitty argument? An argument devoid not only of facts, but of all common sense whatsoever? Would it really be relevant that you could "make an argument" for it?
Don't tell me that some random moron could make an argument for something. And sure as fuck don't tell me that you're only "suggesting" something. Either say it, or don't say it. If you don't have the balls to stand up for your own ideas, then either shut your mouth, or hire a ventriloquist who has the gonads to "argue" them for you.
Though, come to think of it, I guess in either case you'd need to shut your goddamn mouth. (I like to be accurate.)
Postscript:
Here's another example of limp-wristedness, this time (I assumed) coming from someone on the left. When asked whether the U.S. should "act militarily" in the case of Syria (the limp-wristed journalist didn't have the balls to say "bomb the fuck out of"), the expert-for-hire said, "The American public isn't ready for it."
(On second thought, this could be said by someone on the left or right.)
It's a perfect, prefab evasion. No ideas need to be discussed, no facts cited, no opinions advanced. Whether it's right or wrong to bomb Syria, the public just ain't "ready for it".
This fallacy is even worse than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to a bunch of ignorant morons. If you think the "public" isn't "ready" for it, then make them ready, for Christ's sake! Tell them why they should be ready (or not). If politicians exist to do anything, it's that.
