The almost worldwide conflict between “rural” fundamentalist religious ”conservatives” and “urban” ”liberals” has not yet produced bloody battles between Republicans and Democrats on U.S. streets. But if we allow our democracy to be rendered dysfunctional by this conflict, what hope is there for Egypt, Turkey and Syria?
The major monotheistic religions–Christianity, Judaism and Islam–are fundamentally paternalistic. Fundamentalists simply do not trust women (and homosexuals) to make their own decisions (e.g. regarding (extramarital) sex, abortion, “men’s” careers (e.g. in the military), or often any career at all).
Banning contraceptives and/or abortion would be no more effective than Prohibition was. (Abortion is, at best, a regrettable expedient. But doctors should not be punished for taking care of their patients.)
Conflated with this is the “big-government”/“small-government” conflict. Business leaders decry government interference in the “free” market. In fact, many of our laws (most obviously, the tax code) are so complicated precisely because (established) businesses want government to interfere on their behalf (i.e. instead of serving the interests of the people).
Islamic fundamentalism does oppose a “capitalist” market economy, but the “anti-business” label is often applied to those who merely realize “laissez-faire” government does not produce economic competition.
(Published in the Rockford (IL) Register Star 9/1/13 (rrstar.com))
Note: “Immorality” is a term used almost exclusively to denote sexual “misconduct” (which, apparently for some, includes homosexuality). And alleged “immorality” is, apparently, the primary “grievance” religious fundamentalists have against “liberals” and, indeed, the entire modern world.
Nascent democracies in Egypt and Iraq failed largely because the various factions failed to work together. Democracy does not work when voters are motivated by race, religion, and ethnic or sectarian differences, etc. (i.e. motivated by fear and animosity).
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is perhaps best understood as a “Wag the Dog” political maneuver. Putin deliberately stirred up a nationalist furor and started a war in the Ukraine to shore up domestic Russian support for his kleptocracy that might otherwise be under threat from reformers and fall as Yanukovych’s hegemony did in the Ukraine.
Putin’s control of Russian TV and press allowed him to stir up this Russian nationalist furor. Apparently, the democratically elected Ukrainian government is being (almost absurdly) vilified as “fascist” and accused of committing all sorts of (completely fictional) atrocities, etc.
When a news organization has a decidedly partisan political agenda, the truth is sure to go out the window. When a government controls the news media, that’s sufficient reason to distrust and oppose that government.
I will shortly be making a separate post on the subject of abortion to be titled “The conceit about truth & Abortion ‘wrongs.’”
Another separate post on gun control, titled “Guns are not the answer,” will, I hope, also be relevant to this discussion. Conservatives, and “gun rights” advocates, tend to view guns and wars as tools that solve problems. Whereas liberals tend to see guns and wars as creating problems.