Can Muslims be Democratic?
Good Pew data on whether Muslims in each country wish for "Western-style democracy"
Published in the Daily Illini on March 13, 2006.
Many arguments against spreading democracy in the Middle East rely on the assumption that Islam is inherently incompatible with democracy. Both conservatives and liberals argue that Islamic people are incapable of democratizing and joining the modern world. They are wrong.
There is a wealth of evidence in today’s countries, the Qur’an and Islamic history that supports the union of Islam and democracy.
Freedom House, a major international non-partisan organization, annually ranks freedom in every country. The Freedom House data shows that in 1995, 70 percent of majority-Muslim nations were not free, 28 percent were partly free, and two percent were free. But, in 2005, 50 percent were not free, 43 percent were partly free, and seven percent were free - a 50-50 tie between the past and the future.
More promising, in 2005, 610 million people lived in majority-Muslim free or partly free countries and 509 million people lived without freedom as ranked by Freedom House.
Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country - 88 percent of its population, or 213 million people, is Muslim. Indonesia is a liberal democracy, as ranked by Freedom House. According to the CIA World Factbook, Indonesia has a republic, universal suffrage, legal structures based on Roman-Dutch law and freedom of religion.
India has the world's third largest Muslim population with 144 million. Freedom House ranks India as a liberal democracy and one of the freest countries.
Bangladesh has the world's fourth largest Muslim population - 88 percent of its population is Muslim. Freedom House ranks them as an electoral democracy, or partly free. Bangladesh has a parliamentary democracy, universal suffrage, a legal system based on English common law, and freedom of religion.
The most progressive and promising Muslim country is Turkey. It houses the world's sixth largest Muslim population with 99 percent of its people practicing Sunni Islam. Kemal Atatürk, Turkey's first president, aggressively secularized the country with the hope to "raise Turkey to the level of modern civilizations."
Turkey is the geographic and symbolic gateway between the Middle East and the West. Today they have a parliamentary democracy, universal suffrage, civil law based on European systems, freedom of religion and abolished caliphates, or Muslim leaders claiming to be representatives of God.
*(The next paragraph originally appeared in the Daily Illini listing countries with significant Muslim populations, but I neglected to list many majority-Muslim countries. The list of majority-Muslim countries that are ranked as partly free or free by Freedom House are: Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Turkey, and Yemen. I feel that this is a better list and should have been the one printed, not the one below)*
Countries with significant Muslim populations that are ranked by Freedom House as either an electoral democracy or a liberal democracy include: Albania, Bangladesh, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ghana, Greek Cyprus, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Macedonia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Turkey and Zambia.
Progressive Muslims, including political scientist Ahmad Moussalli, argue that not only is the Qur'an anti-authoritarianism, but it is pro-democracy. Moussalli points to the concepts of "shura (consultation), ijma' (consensus), al-hurriyya (freedom) and al-huqquq al-shar'iyya (legitimate rights)."
Muhammad's life lends credence to democracy. In 622 A.D. he authored the Medina Constitution that granted equal rights to all Muslims and Jews; "To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided."
The problem lays with the Arab countries, which have histories and economies that tend towards fundamentalism and Sharia. The Arab world is a snapshot of how the West used to look, with religion dominating society.
The region, not the religion, has produced terrorists. The problem is not a matter of abstract religious interpretation. Rather, it is more concrete. The problem is caused by poverty, history and geography - things that we know we can overcome given time. Furthermore, Islamic democracy does not necessarily have to be Western-style, just as Japanese and Indonesian democracy looks different than ours.
Many claim it is Western hubris to believe democracy can be successful in the Muslim world. The opposite is true. It is Western-centric and arrogant to believe that Islamic people are condemned to theocracy, violence and poverty. It is myopic to think that Islam is the world's only faith that is incapable of democratic governance and social modernity.
Muslims are fully capable of entering the democratic world, in fact, most of them already have. The innate desire to be free spans cultures and faiths. Democracy is not a Western idea, it is a human idea.
Billy Joe Mills is a senior in LAS. His columns appear on Mondays. Rohrscheib believes he is God's chosen messiah of the University. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.
Published in the Daily Illini on March 13, 2006.
Many arguments against spreading democracy in the Middle East rely on the assumption that Islam is inherently incompatible with democracy. Both conservatives and liberals argue that Islamic people are incapable of democratizing and joining the modern world. They are wrong.
There is a wealth of evidence in today’s countries, the Qur’an and Islamic history that supports the union of Islam and democracy.
Freedom House, a major international non-partisan organization, annually ranks freedom in every country. The Freedom House data shows that in 1995, 70 percent of majority-Muslim nations were not free, 28 percent were partly free, and two percent were free. But, in 2005, 50 percent were not free, 43 percent were partly free, and seven percent were free - a 50-50 tie between the past and the future.
More promising, in 2005, 610 million people lived in majority-Muslim free or partly free countries and 509 million people lived without freedom as ranked by Freedom House.
Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country - 88 percent of its population, or 213 million people, is Muslim. Indonesia is a liberal democracy, as ranked by Freedom House. According to the CIA World Factbook, Indonesia has a republic, universal suffrage, legal structures based on Roman-Dutch law and freedom of religion.
India has the world's third largest Muslim population with 144 million. Freedom House ranks India as a liberal democracy and one of the freest countries.
Bangladesh has the world's fourth largest Muslim population - 88 percent of its population is Muslim. Freedom House ranks them as an electoral democracy, or partly free. Bangladesh has a parliamentary democracy, universal suffrage, a legal system based on English common law, and freedom of religion.
The most progressive and promising Muslim country is Turkey. It houses the world's sixth largest Muslim population with 99 percent of its people practicing Sunni Islam. Kemal Atatürk, Turkey's first president, aggressively secularized the country with the hope to "raise Turkey to the level of modern civilizations."
Turkey is the geographic and symbolic gateway between the Middle East and the West. Today they have a parliamentary democracy, universal suffrage, civil law based on European systems, freedom of religion and abolished caliphates, or Muslim leaders claiming to be representatives of God.
*(The next paragraph originally appeared in the Daily Illini listing countries with significant Muslim populations, but I neglected to list many majority-Muslim countries. The list of majority-Muslim countries that are ranked as partly free or free by Freedom House are: Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Turkey, and Yemen. I feel that this is a better list and should have been the one printed, not the one below)*
Countries with significant Muslim populations that are ranked by Freedom House as either an electoral democracy or a liberal democracy include: Albania, Bangladesh, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ghana, Greek Cyprus, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Macedonia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Turkey and Zambia.
Progressive Muslims, including political scientist Ahmad Moussalli, argue that not only is the Qur'an anti-authoritarianism, but it is pro-democracy. Moussalli points to the concepts of "shura (consultation), ijma' (consensus), al-hurriyya (freedom) and al-huqquq al-shar'iyya (legitimate rights)."
Muhammad's life lends credence to democracy. In 622 A.D. he authored the Medina Constitution that granted equal rights to all Muslims and Jews; "To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided."
The problem lays with the Arab countries, which have histories and economies that tend towards fundamentalism and Sharia. The Arab world is a snapshot of how the West used to look, with religion dominating society.
The region, not the religion, has produced terrorists. The problem is not a matter of abstract religious interpretation. Rather, it is more concrete. The problem is caused by poverty, history and geography - things that we know we can overcome given time. Furthermore, Islamic democracy does not necessarily have to be Western-style, just as Japanese and Indonesian democracy looks different than ours.
Many claim it is Western hubris to believe democracy can be successful in the Muslim world. The opposite is true. It is Western-centric and arrogant to believe that Islamic people are condemned to theocracy, violence and poverty. It is myopic to think that Islam is the world's only faith that is incapable of democratic governance and social modernity.
Muslims are fully capable of entering the democratic world, in fact, most of them already have. The innate desire to be free spans cultures and faiths. Democracy is not a Western idea, it is a human idea.
Billy Joe Mills is a senior in LAS. His columns appear on Mondays. Rohrscheib believes he is God's chosen messiah of the University. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.
posted by Billy Joe Mills at 3:35 PM
25 Comments:
Thanks for your article on Today's daily illini. I'm from Bangladesh,
which at 150 million people is world's 7th largest population.
Bangladesh has many problems like poverty, corruption, but we do have
parliamentary democracy, as you mentioned. We are also unique in
another respect ... it is the only country in the muslim world
currently under female leadership, with both the prime minister and
the leader of opposition being female (of course, one's assassinated
husband and the other's assassinated father were presidents). We are
also unique in the nature of the government during elections ... after
the ruling party's term ends, executive power is handed over to a
non-political caretaker government headed by a chief advisor (the
latest retired chief justice), and a council of non-political neutral
advisors. We had a lot of coups between 1975 and 1990, but from 1991,
we have been a parliamentary democracy, with universal suffrage. Of
course, there are really bad parties with nasty religious agenda, but
still, democracy stays strong.
Anyway, thanks again for the article.
Ragib
--
Ragib Hasan
PhD Student
Dept of Computer Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Great piece Billy!
Ragib,
Thank you much for reading the article and for your comments. I originally wrote more about Bangladesh, however, because of space constraints I had to
cut out some of the details, "Bangladesh has a parliamentary democracy,
universal suffrage, a legal system based on English common law and freedom of religion."
Also, thank you for some great history on Bangladesh, I was ignorant of many of the facts you listed. I wish that I had mentioned that, "both the prime
minister and the leader of opposition being female." I try to do a lot of research for
my columns so that I can present facts without as much opinion, but that very important fact eluded me.
Countries like yours give observers of the Muslim world, like myself, much
hope for the future of peace.
Thank you again for reading and writing, it is much appreciated.
Best,
Billy Joe Mills
All,
I want to make a few corrections. First, after learning a bit more than Wikipedia told me about Autaturk, I now regret using him in the article. Although I was careful not to praise him, I believe that I implicitly praised him by explicitly praising his country. He isn't exactly the most beloved character in the Muslim world, and I hope that bringing him up in one paragraph doesn't detract from people's attention to the main point of the article.
Furthermore, the list of countries is not incorrect, but it isn't the best list of Muslim countries. The best list would be the 23 that are majority-Muslim countries and are also ranked as partly free or free by Freedom House. In my rush to finish this article I instead accepted a list from a blogger, which only listed countries with significant Muslim populations, however, he left out many countries with majorities. It is especially questionable to include Israel on that list, since apparently many Muslim rights are not full compared to their Jewish counterparts. But, I am ignorant of many of those details, especially when considering that Muslims serve in the Israeli parliament.
I have an Excel sheet with some calculations I did on population. I can email it to you if you request (wmills@uiuc.edu).
Why is your byline different in your blog and in your column? When I read the DI today, I thought wow this kid sounds so full of himself. Then you go and slam a truly inspired visionary leader like Josh Rohrscheib. Have you no decency sir!
anonymous,
hahahha, originally my byline looked as it does on this blog. Some absurdly dumb copy editor at the DI messed up and changed it to make it look as though I was talking about myself, which obviously made me look pretty terrible...hahaha, but oh well.
I'm just glad that I inspired so many substantive responses to my column. Thanks for the intelligent feedback guys...hahahaha
hello billy joel mills.. your site is lovely and your welcome for the churchill link! wouldnt mind if i link you from my site? your articles are super interesting.. gd read id like to share with others. =)
take care,
rachel
Billy Joe, I respect Freedom House in many ways, it's done some very good work *and* PJ is on the board of directors. How could it possibly be a bad outfit?
However, I am seeing disturbingly neo-conservative trends in your thinking. I'm afraid that you're going to be a very, very disappointed young man very soon. Virtually all of their current ideals will, in all liklihood be proven wrong in the next 10 years.
You state your beliefs in this article and the last one that ultimately Capitalism and Democracy will make the world a fine place in which to live.
I'd like to make a set of predictions about the next decade. Feel free to write them down and save them as references. In the past, I've had about an 80% track record on such political prediction.
[I'd also like to point out to you Jim Dunnigans's Political Futures market. It's a unique tool in the political science/military studies world:
http://www.strategypage.com/
prediction_market/default.asp ]
If you'd like to help and buy in, it's free, you just have to register.
In any case, here are my predictions for the near-term future....
1) If the Democratic party wins a majority in the House and Senate in the '06 election, President Bush will be impeached. I am not sure what the result will be. In any case, any further progress on any of the Republican Party's political agenda will stop dead.
2) Alarmed by the trade deficit and unrestricted illegal immigration, a Populist third party will begin growing in America. It will not be strong enough to influence the '08, but certainly will the '12 elections.
3) America and the Iraqi coalition will lose the Iraq War. Iraq will dissove into Civil War and American will cut its losses and run. This will drop Bush's approval rating to possibly the lowest of any president in history.
4) The liberal democracies in the Muslim world will gradually be superceded by legally voted-in fundamentalist governments.
5) Liberal democracies in Europe will gradually vote in repressive measures against their Muslim minorities (this has already started in the Netherlands.) This will result in more violent reactions and possible deportations.
6) Tension between the Cleric/Capitalist class and the current Iranian leadership will erode the power of the Iranian president *if* the West does not continue to sabre-rattle. If the West does not put in sanctions or attack, the Iranian President will be out of office in a year.
7) Tension between the United States and China will continue to rise in spite of the trade between them, particularly over the status of Taiwan. I don't expect a shooting war until about '25 or so.
Write 'em down, Billy Joe.
Neo-conservatism is going to go down as the biggest failure since Communism.
Tom
Oh, one final one.
John McCain will be laughed out of any possibility of the '08 Republican Presidential nomination.
Tom
Tom,
First, I don’t consider myself a neo-conservative on domestic issues, but some of my foreign policy views can be characterized neo-con. Both neo-conservatism and liberalism are today’s dirty words, and I think it is a mistake for either of them to be dirty, they both have strong intellectual roots. I consider myself, and the purest neo-cons, in line with many great liberals of the past, such as Woodrow Wilson and JFK, who believed in the triumph of democracy. I also believe in the “End of History” as it is set out by Francis Fukuyama, essentially that all major events in human history ended with the fall of the Soviets since democracy has won out both in the intellectual and the physical realms…Democracy is the end of human history and we can expect no major or serious threats to that idea. The competing camp comes from Samuel Huntington, who is also on the Freedom House board, he believes that the world is destined to inter-cultural wars, kind of like the ones we see today between the West and Islam, I think this is an incredibly Western-centric and arrogant view.
To respond to each of your points in turn.
1) Bush will not be impeached because he has not done anything that is patently impeachable. Someone nutty with mad cow disease such as Robby Byrd or Charlie Rangel might try to pull something like that, but it is unlikely. It is unlikely because it is politically dangerous to impeach a president who has won two terms, regardless of how unpopular he is currently. Besides, the reason he is so unpopular is because he is taking stands on issues such as Social Security, healthcare, immigration, etc. that are not popular stands, but from an objective standpoint he is addressing politically hazardous issues that only a second term president with nothing to lose would address. He’s unpopular enough, the Dems have little motivation to oust him when he will have about 1.5 years remaining.
2) The trade deficit is not as alarming as many believe; it is currently 5% of GDP. Our economy is absurdly robust and vibrant. It can swallow the deficit, and eventually it will swing back to equilibrium once trading partners like China and India allow their currencies to float and reduce tariffs. I think that most people misinterpret the immigration issue, the average American respects hardworking immigrants, even illegal ones, especially since they perform jobs that no one wishes to have. The only potential third party would come from some combination of McCain, Lieberman, or Giuliani (more on that later in this post).
3) The Iraq war was not a whimsical decision by this country’s leadership. It is part of a concerted effort to liberalize and democratize the Middle East, in the Wilsonian and Millsian (yes, I am now famous enough to be an adjective) belief that democracy, wealth, and capitalism lead people to become peaceful. Even the U.S. dissolved into Civil War, to think that the greatest country in human history killed itself. Why should we expect so much more from the Iraqis? Allow them to decide their fate, allow them to vote and even to fight. Throwing a people two hundred years into the future over night is not an easy or a quick thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.
4) I disagree entirely that the moderate and democratic Muslim population will slip into Sharia governments. My article itself probably responds to this point best. The problem is an Arab one, NOT a Muslim one. This idea is well proven in the political science literature, particularly in the Journal of Democracy.
5) I agree that our Euro friends, particularly on the Continent, are essentially racist and xenophobic. It is just another example that exemplifies how Europe screwed the world for about 2000 years and it has only become a much better place during the time of the Americans.
6) I also agree with this statement in many ways, particularly because of my faith in the capitalist’s spirit. The drive for profit is greater than the drive for religion in all humans. The problem though arises if the Iranian gov’t acquires nukes before the natural and internal coup occurs.
7) My article regarding Capitalism and Peace responds to this comment. Statistics show that the more economically free and interdependent a country is, the less likely it is to have an interstate conflict. Taiwan is a point of contention, but the Americans are not willing to go to war over it. Also, economic relations and communications are improving dramatically between the mainland China and Taiwan, which means that they too will become more friendly towards each other (I actually wrote an entire paper on this with substantiation that I am happy to forward). My own prediction is that China and the U.S. will NEVER go to war with each other. Their increasing economic freedom will lead to great political freedom and to increasingly improved relations with the U.S.
8) Finally, Johnny McCain. It is possible that McCain will lose the Republican nomination. But, the biggest story that no one heard about was Ken Mehlman recently offering to fundraise for McCain’s PAC: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1161114,00.html
I think this is big news, because it might symbolize that many establishment Republicans want a winner and recognize McCain as a lock. Even if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination, my own bold prediction is that he will break off with someone like Giuliani or Liebermann to form his own Bull-Mouse kind of party. Regardless of his party, if McCain runs for President he will get at least 65% of the vote in a two-way race and about 45% in a heated three-way race. This also relates to an earlier column of mine, “A Moderate Revolution.” There is no current politician more inspiring or more trusted than Johnny. He takes the exact opposite pragmatic tactic as every other politician, he is honest. He is honest not necessarily because of his honor, although that too, but because he realizes that the people are yearning for someone they can trust, he is a winner and a pragmatist above all else.
Ok, apologies for the absurdly long post. But, I felt that you raised some provocative points. I appreciate you reading and commenting on my columns and I especially enjoy that you are bold enough to make these predictions publicly. Keep 'em coming Tom.
Best,
Billy Joe Mills
P.S. This post alone is actually 350 words longer than my original column...hahahha
Ok, let me rebut a few of your points:
1) Bill Clinton was a two-term president with considerable popularity, his actions were not serious enough for the vote to succeed and most certainly impeached, so it does happen. Part of the reason that the Democrats would impeach Bush would be as payback. I hold that the domestic spying and the general erosion of rights in America as well as the failure to secure America's borders in time of War are definitely sufficient to bring him up on charges.
2) I didn't say that the people who made the third party would be right, necessarily, merely that it would happen. After all, the segregationists in '68 were wrong and that little guy with the big ears in '92 was a nut, but that didn't stop them from changing history.
3) I notice you keep talking about Wilson. I want to remind you that his good intentions helped set the stage for the Second World War. I would shun him as an example, his diplomacy was a complete failure. Hell, the US wasn't even in the League of Nations--(his brainchild) because the Congress rightfully stayed out of it.
The Shiites and Sunnis will collapse into civil war, since democracy *spit* will put the radicals in the Shiites in positions of power that they will use to extract revenge. At that time, the Kurds will declare independence, aligning with Kurdish populations in Iran and Turkey and the whole place will be up for grabs. Failure. Democracy, as I said in our early conversation is "Two foxes and a chicken voting on who gets eaten" to quote Ben Franklin. About the only thing that would work in Iraq would be the canton system employed in Switzerland.
4) I think the only reason that there are not more Sharia states right now is because the present govenments are repressing them and not allowing them into the elections. Egypt is a good example of this. If the Pakistani govenment collapses by assassination or is changed democratically due to the US forming stronger bonds with India (without really getting anything in return), it'll be the next to become hostile.
Remember, Russia basically voted to return to a strong, near dictatorial leadership with Putin. Whether or not he'll peacefully relinquish power to the next candidate is still to be seen. Democracy does not work.
5) The Europeans do not have our liberal guarantees like Freedom of the Press and Religion. However, I find it fascinating what's going on there as a model as to what will happen in America if the stuff hits the fan.
6) The Sharia clerics in Iran are ALIGNED with the business/capitalist class, not in opposition to them. The President dodged one assassination attempt in December, and the Day of Fire was used to sponsor anti-government protests a few days ago. He won't last very much longer.
7) Trade between nations does not necessarily lead to good relations between them. The Soviet Union was Germany's chief trade partner when Germany invaded them in '41. Heck, the trains from Russia even kept bringing goods to the rail switching yards in Poland for a day or so after June 21st. The United States was a major trading partner with Japan throughout the 1930s, with American scrap metal being used to make some of the ships that later fought at Midway. Political power, national survival and dogma will triumph over profit when given the chance.
8) Take a look at the straw poll taken by the Republicans a couple days ago. McCain was unable to garner more than a few votes, so he used the ploy of telling his people to vote for President Bush because "we need to support him." Bush came in fourth or fifth. No votes within the party hierarchy. Frist came in first in the straw poll, btw.
It is possible that he might be a candidate in the Populist Third Party that I spoke of in 2 above. It'll be much different than you've imagined, though--much more isolationist in foreign policy and less free trade. He's a lot more likely to hook up with crazy Pat B than he is with Guiliani.
I don't trust McCain. He's an opportunist of the first water, and not a very good one at that.
Thanks for this opportunity to reply, BJ. Keep up the good work.
Tom
Oh, take a good look at the Washington Times today. Bill Frist has introduced a comprehensive border-security bill with no provision for guest worker status.
He's begun his serious Presidential bid--addressing what I believe is going to be one of the prime issues of the '08 election.
Tom
Oh, and check out the New York Times article today concerning the Republican leadership seeing the threat of Impeachment after a Democratic victory as a rallying point to insure turn-out for their base in the '06 election.
If you have trouble finding the articles that I am referring to, send me email and I'll send you the links. The blogger software has a tendency to truncate cut-and-pasted webaddresses.
*chuckle* Arguing with you guys is hardly much of an exercise. It's more like a ten-minute workout prior to the real windsprints.
Billy Jo, believing soundly in a philosophy is not a substitute for paying really close attention to EVERYTHING that's going on in the political sphere. I am actually astonished that you didn't realize all this was going on--political science is your major, right?
Tom
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom,
You’re an adult, right? One whose arguments shouldn’t be so weak that he needs to resort to ad hominem attacks as a last resort, right?
You wrote, “I am actually astonished that you didn't realize all this was going on--political science is your major, right?”
What led you to believe that I haven’t heard of the news stories you have been mentioning? You made that comment before I had even responded to your previous two posts, so how did you derive that conclusion exactly?
I can only guess that you are assuming I had not heard about the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. I was fully aware that McCain received ~4.6% of the straw poll vote. But, for some mysterious reason you assumed I had not heard about it, simply because I disagreed with your interpretation of it and because I believe the Mehlman story was more significant. Do you usually accuse someone of complete ignorance of the news when they simply disagree with you?
Now I’m going to prove that you do not understand how to interpret what you read. The Southern Republican Leadership Conference was attended and is always attended by the most hardcore Republicans, not the type who are likely to vote for McCain in a primary. McCain encouraged his loyal supporters to vote for Bush, who got ~10.5% of the vote as a constitutionally impermissible write-in. Furthermore, it was the SOUTHERN conference, which is also a place McCain will likely have less appeal than people like Frist. But, most importantly, something you probably didn’t know because you only look at the facts that suit you, is that the conference was held in Memphis, Tennessee, Frist’s homestate!!! Of course he is going to win when the overwhelming majority of people in attendance have him as their Senator, when he has campaigned there for years, etc. You probably also didn’t know that Frist was the ONLY candidate to actively campaign specifically for this straw poll, according to the AP. The conclusion of the totality of facts regarding this situation is that poll was not at all scientific and was only important to the pop media, like the Daily Show. The NY Times had a very small summary of it, but you use it as the basis of a myopic prediction.
Luckily, for those of us who appreciate great data, there have been multiple scientific polls conducted on this very issue by Zogby, Pew, etc. The polls are conducted on Republican or Republican-leaning voters allowing them to vote for a variety of potential candidates. They consistently show that your boy Billy Frist will average around a paltry 5% and place about 5th. Meanwhile, my boy Johnny McCain consistently averages about 25% of votes and places either 1st or 2nd interchangeably with Rudy Giuliani. In polls that assume Rudy will not run, McCain stomps on everyone. I encourage everyone to check out this data at:
http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08rep.htm
To quote an AP story which supplements the news about Mehlman backing McCain: “Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire, said there are ‘two bases that determine the establishment choice: the ideological base and the dollar base.’ Right now, Rath said in an interview, ‘the polling data points to McCain…’”
Furthermore, the site also has a section showing likely general election contests. There McCain stomps on Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards repeatedly, averaging greater than 10% victory margins.
Upon looking more closely at the data I will revise my prediction from earlier to say that McCain will only get 58-60% of the general election vote – 65% was more of a bold and fun prediction than a serious one.
You also wrote, “Check out the New York Times article today concerning the Republican leadership seeing the threat of Impeachment after a Democratic victory as a rallying point to insure turn-out for their base in the '06 election.” This is the exact argument I made before as why the Dems will never go through with impeachment, even by the small chance that they control Congress in ’06 when I wrote, “
Please don’t force me to make lengthy responses to your whimsical opinions. I am forced to do so out of responsibility and for fear that someone will believe the things you say.
You wrote, “Arguing with you guys is hardly much of an exercise. It's more like a ten-minute workout prior to the real windsprints.” Perhaps it isn’t much of an exercise because you don’t do any work to back up your opinions – its easy for everyone to use unpersuasive opinions and personal logic to respond to facts. I still respect you, but sometimes the things you say flatly contradict accepted political science theorems.
Tom, I suggest you start “paying really close attention to EVERYTHING that's going on in the political sphere,” and not just the facts that buttress your confused and unsubstantiated notions of the world.
Ok, you've shown that you are paying attention to what's going on. I apologize for my earlier jibe, it was uncalled for.
However, I disagree with your interpretation of the information.
I think the best thing to do at this point is wait and see. I do not necessarily believe that Bill Frist will win the nomination or the election, but I do still believe that McCain will not. I've got a pretty good record on predictions, and I don't believe that is any exception. This is why I wanted them to be public record.
It's mainly that the entire "end of history" thing makes me behave like a bull that the toreador has just waved his cape in front of. History is a continuity, not a step function. One of the reasons that we got in so much trouble in the 90s and were unprepared for the 9/11 attacks is the hubris of believing that we are the "crown of creation" as far as political and economic systems go.
I look forward to sparring with you in the future, but I think we should let this discussion rest at this point and find out what, in the end, actually happens. I have the utmost confidence in my deductions.
With best wishes always,
Tom
I will offer a bet with you, or with anyone, since I am a confident gambling man who takes advantages of a lack in information, or inefficiency, in the market. I will offer three bets.
1) If Giuliani does not run for the Republican bid, I will bet $100 that McCain wins the Republican primary. To me, Giuliani is nearly as good and as likely to win. Perhaps the bet could be that either McCain or Giuliani will win, and you can have every other candidate in the field.
2) If McCain makes it to the general election as either a Republican or an Independent then he will win the presidency.
3) We will NEVER go to war with China. I will give you every remaining year in human history to allow war to occur, or at least until one of us dies, but even then I would be willing to pay your posterity.
I hope that everything is cool between us Tom, I don't like being uncivil...well actually it is kind of fun. But it enhances the cloudiness effect of emotions.
Best,
Billy
I'm not going to bet on Guiliani, because he's, to me, an unknown quantity. I am of the general opinion that the next Republican presidential candidate will be from Dixie, but it's possible that the current Congressional rebellion will have repercussions that will weaken the Southern Bloc.
I will cover your $100 bet that McCain would win if nominated. If someone else is nominated, we'll just consider the bet void. [Easiest money since I bet the University of Chicago Econ prof in mid-98 that no one would notice the effects of the y2K bug on day-to-day life (note, I still have to collect on that one, so make sure we stay in touch.)]
No Third Party in America has won since the Republicans did in the 1860 election. I don't expect this to change anytime soon. What I would expect to happen with a 3rd party would be for it to insure the election of the political party most directly opposed to its views, as it did in 1912 and 1992.
Concerning the China War, I expect it, but pray that it doesn't happen. If it does, that $100 would be pretty much worthless--what would be the equivalent, a Holstein calf, perhaps?
China's a marvellous civilization with serious problems of its own nowadays. I'm fascinated by its race into the 21st century and the age-old conflict between its north and south and between the cities and the countryside. Any country with that many people is a fascinating laboratory for politics.
Something delightful and totally unrelated happened today, though, that I have to tell you and Josh about. I'm a regular contributor to quite a few political blogs and boards across the 'Net.
Somebody saw my writing, the fact I use the initials tc and sign posts Tom and emailed me asking whether or not I was Tom Clancy. Needless to say I was stunned and more than a bit flattered. I let him down easy. I would have loved to have strung him along for a bit, but that's how you get sued.
Tom
hahahah, that's hilarious, I really wish you would have led him on some more...that would have been a hilarious conversation to read.
The following is an email exchange between Leo Buchignani and myself. I am posting it here with his permission:
I never said Muslims were incapable of democracy. I said that Islam was inherently undemocratic. I think you mentioned ijma, shura and the Constitution of Medina as examples of democratic elements in Islam. These concepts are pushed very hard in U of I's Islamic studies classes, but as I already said, I was able to successfully challenge and put down that thesis in class discussion, even convincing my professor Valerie Hofman.
So, I will refute that portion of your article in the upcoming
Observer, but as for the Freedom House data, that is simple fact. The
degree to which the militarily and culturally superior west can impose
by force and by force of example liberalism on Muslim nations is
unknown to me. Still, I feel you fail to appreciate the degree to
which Islam militates against liberalism. It is a continually renewing wellspring of illiberalism that will always be one resurgence away from wiping out western liberal gains, until it itself is vitiated or wiped out.
Yours,
Leo
Leo,
When you say, "No, I never said Muslims were incapable of democracy. I said that Islam was inherently undemocratic," what exactly do you mean. Those statements seem contradictory unless you are referring to the difference between Islamic people and Islamists (people who want to implement Sharia).
"These concepts are pushed very hard in U of I's Islamic studies classes." For the record I have never taken an Islamic studies class here, the arguments I made were purely a product of my own research and beliefs. I was not repeating the diatribe of some crazed liberal professor, hahahha.
By the way, one thing we agree on strongly is the overwhelming liberal professor population. But, we need to discuss ways of persuading faculty on this issue. The way is not similar to Horowitz's.
Best,
Billy
Billy,
No, I am drawing a distinction between the practitioners of Islam, Muslims, and Islam's inherent nature as a religion founded by Muhammad. I'll elaborate on the nature of Islam in the article I'm
writing. It's been a while since I took the class, so I'll need to refresh myself before I say more.
Of course, the perspective on Islam taught in the University is merely the conventional liberal wisdom on the subject, so it's natural that you were exposed to it.
I doubt the possibility of persuading the faculty that they are biased and that 40% of them should quit. I see more hope in persuading taxpayers and parents. If you want to try to persuade the faculty, good luck!
~Leo
Since I'm a political uber-nerd, I wanted to make a couple of small points concerning the earlier discussion on the Tennessee straw poll. I had a much more in-depth analysis on my own blog (before I killed my blog), but the gist of most of that was essentially what WJM has written here. I'd like to add two small points:
1) The only reason Frist won is because he was essentially forced into a no-win situation. Since the poll took place in his own state, Frist had to win it lest he look like an unelectable loser whose own fellow Tennesseans wouldn't even vote for him. Since straw polls like these are generally open to members of the groups running them or to those who are willing to pay a fee, Frist essentially had to choose to waste his campaign's time and resources making sure they get enough of their people registered for the poll and actually get them there to vote. Winning the poll accomplished nothing for Frist and in fact caused him to lose resources, but losing the poll would have made things much worse for him. As is, WJM is right - Frist will get 5% of the vote max, although he'll probably drop out after South Carolina (barring a deal with George Allen or McCain for a post in one of their hypothetical administrations).
2)The big winner in that straw poll had to be McCain. If you add together McCain's ~5% and George W. Bush's ~10%, you get around 15%, which put McCain/Bush in second place in the poll, just ahead of Mitt Romney's 14%. If we look at it that way, McCain was able to come in second in the poll behind the guy who was running in his home state and was able to shore up his support among the Bushies, most of whom dislike or at least do not support McCain. Sounds to me like McCain made off like a bandit.
Extra point: I have to disagree with WJM that McCain will pull 60% in any general election. I do agree that McCain will probably beat all comers and win the general (barring any unusual developments), but I think it will be much closer, with McCain pulling around 52-53% of the vote. That, of course, is if the Democrats are smart and nominate a southerner for president (i.e. Mark Warner) - if the race is McCain v. Hillary, then it'll be a bit higher, around 55% for McCain. I don't think he has a reasonable shot at 60%, but then I don't believe anybody does these days.
So, Billy, I won't take your bet on McCain beating anyone, but if you'd like to bet on his percentage in the general (I'll give you anything above, say, 56%), then I'm your huckleberry.
Matt,
Thanks much for the post. I am saddened to see that you have taken down your blog. I'm not sure why you decided to kill it, but I would encourage you to continue blogging. Your perspectives on things were quite informative and valuable to me and I'm sure others. Blogging is a powerful tool for realizing the potential of the First Amendment...I just hope that you aren't taking it down because you felt their was a lack of readership, you had some fantastic analysis...give it time.
Thanks for backing me up on a few of those points and for strengthening the arguments for McCain. I think that point #2 is especially persuasive.
I realize that 60% is a slightly audacious, perhaps unrealistic, prediction...but that is what makes it fun. I realize that 60% is an absurd number in today's world, but I believe strongly in the might of this country's center and I believe that they will flex in 2008 in favor of McCain.
The polls at
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm
show an average gap of about 12% between McCain and Hillary with about 11% undecided. If these numbers have any worth, then McCain will begin with a base lead of about 56-44%. Assuming more of the swing voters go for McCain, which I think is reasonable, especially as people get a closer look at both candidates, that would push McCain to about 58%.
This theory is also based off of the Washington Post article linked to in my "Moderate Revolution" post, which shows that the percentage of the electorate who consider themselves "swing" or moderate has grown from 1/4 to 1/3. That roughly means that voters are 1/3 Republican-leaning, 1/3 Democrat-leaning, and 1/3 are without a home. That mighty 1/3 is desperate for a candidate that inspires them, someone they can trust. They are desperate for someone they do not feel is the lesser of two evils. McCain can fill that void. So, Mr. Diller I will certainly take your bet at 56%. This however assumes there is no major third party candidate, like Ross Perot, who dramatically lowers the needed percentage.
So, the bet is $100 at 56% for McCain, no matter the Dem nominee provided there is no major third party to mess things up (Green Party does not qualify, they don't know a damn thing about politics).
Does this sound fair?
Hope you are doing well Matt.
Post a Comment
<< Home