Politics: January 2005 Archives

The Iraqi elections are over, and by all accounts they have been successful: fewer murders than expected, and millions of people showed up, including many Sunnis (though personally I don't care if ex-oppressors get all pouty and decide not to play.) The winners will then build a new Iraqi constitution, which will pave the way for a permanent government later this year.

Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing from the Democrats who asserted that "the security situation" precluded Iraq from having a fair election. They were to see an additional "miserable failure" they could hang around the Bush administration's neck. They should rehearse a few phrases for the news shows tomorrow morning, such as, "I'm glad I'm wrong," "Boy, those dark-skinned people can really surprise ya sometimes!" or "Maybe the president is onto something with this 'democracy' thing."

The left-wing blogs, usually a leading indicator of the next crackpot party line the leading Dems are about to take, have already started moving the goalpost: "This Election is simply, in my estimation, an exercise in pretty pictures" (Daily Kos). Or this choice quote from the Democratic Underground: "I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this 'democracy' bulls---."

Given the intelligence, wit, and sensitivity of Catholic Light readers, I don't need to point out the high irony of people calling themselves "Democrats" yet dumping all over democracy itself. To them, the Constitution is a sacred document when it refers to free speech and press freedoms, but infinitely malleable when it comes to gun rights, property ownership, religious expression, states' rights, or commercial activity. Democracy is good as long as Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are elected by left-wing constituencies, but bad if it means George Bush and Tom Delay. In fact, any political phenomenon can be evaluated not in terms of justice or goodness, but whether it advances your ideology.

To the Iraqi people: may God bless you and your country, and may you defeat the enemies of your freedom and well-being. Ignore those who would rather you live under someone else's boot — a situation they would never accept for themselves or their families. Millions more are cheering for you.

After the new Italian state stripped the Papal States from the Vatican, the Holy See forbade faithful Catholics from participating in Italy's government. This included voting in democratic elections. Something like a third of the Italian population dutifully obeyed, and the result: Benito Mussolini. The Fascists and Communists, who began with small percentages of the population, did not face any electoral competition from serious Christians, and thus the playing field was left to various monsters large and small.

A mirror-image situation is about to happen in Iraq. The Sunni Muslims look like they are going to boycott the January 30 elections for the interim government. That means the new government will be dominated by the minority Kurds and the majority Shiites. The Sunnis will thus have little say in Iraq's rebirth, and that may well spell trouble for them. They have been oppressing the Kurds and Shiites for the last half-millennium or so, under the Ottoman Empire, the Hashemite kings, and the Baathists.

As the brilliant Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the U.S.-led coalition has basically been fighting a civil war against the Sunnis for the last year and a half. Once Iraq gets its native lawmakers together and they form a constitution, the formerly oppressed groups may want to extract some payback from the Sunnis if they're still misbehaving. Who can blame them? Whereas if the Sunnis at least try to be conciliatory, they might receive mercy. But their ingrained Arab pride will get the better of them, and they will be arrogant to the last.

For similar reasons, I don't think Catholics should stop participating in mainstream society, which is why I am not generally in favor of homeschooling (and neither is the Church, which considers Catholic schools to be the first option if it is at all possible.) It isn't even possible to shield your kids entirely from the effects of our diseased culture: it still seeps in through the cracks. So go out and try to transform it as best you can, and choose what is good and encourage it.

From a Newfoundlander now living in Washington, D.C., a new website has arisen that provides supporters of Newfoundland with the opportunity to take political action via the internet. Fair is fair. Just because Newfoundland is not Quebec does not mean that Prime Minister Paul "Mr. Dithers" Martin should not be forced to keep his promise to the province. Does President Bush know what type of character he's dealing with in the Canadian Prime Minister? Anyway, please visit A Fair Deal for Newfoundland

1) Nurses at Montreal English hospital fail French test, lose licences

2) Delays drive away sick children
Rate is double that in the U.S.: 'It's never acceptable, because bad things can happen to people when they leave'

Responding to one of my posts over at Canadian Republic, some constitutional monarchist and Canadian loyalist (who sounds an aweful lot like a self-proclaimed "proud member of the Orange Lodge" I had been debating at Free Dominion) left the following love-letter in my comments box:

--------------------------------------------
Yes, get him [me] a green card, INS!

Which is, Mr. Vere? Do you want a green card, and the chance to move down there? Or do you want to turn us into a complete clone of America?

The first step to getting a green card, Mr. Vere, Ms. Shaidle, Albertadude, Adam Yoshida, and all the rest of you traitorous "conservative" (not really) Canadian bloggers, is to apply. Tell them how much you hate your homeland, tell them how much you idolize America, tell them how you'd be willing to take a bullet for Uncle Sam. Fight for Uncle Sam in a foreign war, then maybe, just maybe, you'll be granted citizenship, if you come home not in a box. Or promise to be as talentless a hack as your fellow traitor Mark Steyn, and maybe they'll let you in to write neocon agitprop! (Don't worry; you're more than half-way there already!)

BTW, you criticize the U.N. (which I don't like either, incidentally) for being "basically a coalition of banana republics, terrorist states, and tinpot dictatorships" and then say "the reality is that the US (a Republic) did the right thing in taking charge". But since you love republics so much, why is one republic and member of the U.N., the U.S., taking charge necessarily preferable to coalitions of various kinds of republics (banana, terrorist, tinpot dictatorship - almost none of these are monarchies, after all), including free republics such as the same nation you wish to be in charge, the U.S.? What does America's being a republic have to do with anything, in this case?

And if the American revolution was a good thing, and one Canada should emulate, in your opinion, then why is it bad if some countries change governments continually through revolutions? You contradict yourself, when you support revolution as a legitimate means of changing forms of government, on the one hand, yet see political stability as a desirable goal, on the other!

BTW, should America's "Coalition of the Willing" members Great Britain and Australia dump their monarchy, too, or just us Canucks? After all, their having the monarchy, just as we do, hasn't stopped them from having the sort of foreign policy you like - whereas our government does differently - so is the problem really the monarchy, or is it just that you don't like what Chretien and now Martin have done, foreign-policy-wise, since 9/11/01?

Get your green cards and get out, all of you! Frig, much as I loathe my nation being flooded with all manner of foreign subhumans, whether clit-removing ragheads or dog-eating coolies or crack-gang violent homeys, at least some of them actually like the country which has let them in, in contrast to you traitors - I'm tempted to vote Grit to continue completely unbridled immigration, just to offset your influence in Canada by importing a new populace, at least some of which will actually be grateful to their new home...

(And in case you read this, MWW, I said "my nation", and meant it; your people lost a half millennium ago, deal with it.

You too, Mr. Levantine; not all of us are shabbos goyim...)
------------------------

Does this explain why Canada's Progressive Conservative Party, until it merged with the Canadian Alliance just prior to the last election, had lost practically every election to the Liberal Party in the last fifty years?