"Our disputes about markets and the welfare state are now less critical. What matters is preserving the liberal framework within which we work out our disagreements. In the 20th century, liberals took too long to see this. Fascism and communism got the upper hand. This time around, anti-liberal forces are much weaker. Liberals can beat them."

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think that such a strong desire to impose a 'liberal framework' on the rest of the world has, in the past, done more harm than good. The United States is not the world's savior, and swooping in to 'solve' other countries problems while barely knowing anything about the history behind those problems is courting disaster. Is forcing other countries to accept liberalism a very liberal thing to do? It seems to be the kind of thing that you're criticizing integralists for. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here; it's likely that I am, but I would like to know more about your position here.

Expand full comment
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023

If that were true, then, following that line of reasoning, we should have let the Japanese take over the United States. It's impossible in the post-scientific revolution era not to get involved in other countries affairs, especially when some of the parties involved (anti-Zionists) were directly responsible for mass attacks on US soil (al-Qaeda specifically cited US support for Israel as one of the reasons it attacked US), so unless we obliterate the enemy, we will have more mass casualties. The libertarian pipe-dream that the US can just let other countries fight is naive at best. Some countries hate the very idea of democracy and will destroy or attempt to destroy anything remotely resembling progress. There's a reason that Saudi prince was shot for trying to introduce a TV into his country, and it's not because his attacker was a Zionist or American "imperialist": it was another Saudi who adhered to an obnoxious form of Islam called Wahhabism, which is what the Taliban adheres to. The second most influential figure in modern jihadism was an Egyptian from the early-mid 20th century.

Also, there's nothing wrong with forcing beliefs on others so long as the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs. Suppressing certain forms of Islamic thought like Wahhabism (while tolerating other, less obnoxious forms like Ahmadiyya) will save countless lives and produce long term benefits (less suicide bombers, more rights for women, etc.) Given that whites are still sold as slaves in Islamic countries, I think the least harmful thing the West can do is openly discourage both radical Islamic Dai (apologists) and imams from immigrating to the US by increasing penalties for terrorism and advocating terrorism. It should be illegal for a woman to leave the house wearing a burka without a signed document from a judge showing that she was not forced to wear it by her family. That wouldn't curb the first amendment since the burka is not an integral part of Islam anyway and if she procured the document, she could carry on as usual just like Jehovah's Witnesses can get exemptions from military service and blood transfusions.

Also, the reason the Iraq war failed is precisely because the US DIDN'T force western values on the population, not because of it. Iraq is still in the dark ages in terms of civilization, but Pakistan at least has something resembling a technologically advanced society. Both are Islamic countries, but Pakistan was originally conceived as more secular until the early 1970s. Until 2001 it was rare to find a Pakistani woman wearing a burka but after the invasion of Afghanistan, an invasion which did not by any means seek to instill liberal values on the population, the influx of radical Islam into Pakistan has made the burka more common.

tl;dr the idea that the US or the West in general shouldn't interfere in other countries and still live peaceably in the modern world is a sophomoric pipedream that led to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Had in fact the US attacked the Ottomans after defeating the British, the current conflict in Israel almost certainly wouldn't be happening right now.

Expand full comment

I think the whole anti-Israel sentiment on college campuses is proof that maybe academia as a whole (not just the liberal arts) needs restructured. My freshmen year in college, I had an Egyptian Islamo-Fascist professor who (as expected) hated Israel. It wasn't until later I learned that Egyptian hatred for Israel extended well past the supposed Exodus. I agree it is weird that many who support Ukraine also oppose Israel. I also worry that the support for Hamas will lead some to argue in favor of internment camps for Arabs and Muslims much like the Japanese during WWII. Though it should be said that the groups in question do not seem to realize this and are proceeding full speed ahead (the men and women covering their hair and faces during these "peaceful protests" isn't helping their public image obviously).

I also think this should force Dems to join the other side in wanting the Squad voted out of office. The same would have to hold for Jewish politicians with any anti-Zionist sentiments. Biden would have to condemn the members of the Squad by name (even if not naming them individually) in order to convince people that he truly sides with Israel.

"And in the daughter of Judah he makes mourning and lamentation abound"

Expand full comment