Friday, January 28, 2005

Another Sullivan Howler

Andrew Sullivan is ranting on about how security in Iraq must precede democracy because only with a monopoly on violence can democracy and liberal government happen.

Perhaps Sullivan can explain how America had democratic institutions (a Congress even) from 1775 on despite a revolutionary war.

Yeah it is tough in Iraq. Yeah the fascists are doing everything in their power to derail the emergence of democratic institutions.

At this late date what are the chances the fascists will succeed? Aproximately zero.

Why? Because of the will of the Iraqi people.

All this will become evident post Jan 30, 2005.

I expect by 1 Feb the Great Sullivan will change his tune - why?

Victory has one thousand fathers.......


Welcome Instapunditreaders. And Roger Simon readers.


Donald Sensing said...

And don't forget the Revolutionary War was as much a civil war in the colonies as a rebellion against the Crown by (some) colonials. American Tories were active in the thousands in combat against the revolutionists. So where was the monopoly on violence there?

Anonymous said...

Let us speak "that which must not be spoken":

For Sullivan and many other anti-Bush bigots, Iraq must not succeed because that would mean that Bush was right -- which is an abomination that must be prevented or denied at any cost.

bmcrober said...

What does a monopoly on violence mean, anyway? Aren't the 'insurgents' more akin to criminals than revolutionaries or rebels? They aren't fighting to liberate Iraq - they're fighting to prevent it from coming under the control of Iraqis. Looking at the US - do we have a monopoly of violence here? Does the fact that violent crimes still occur here mean it's too soon for us to seek democratic elections? How high is that bar set? When has violence ever *not* been part and parcel of the change from one system of government to another? Is our own revolutionary war somehow impugned because it required 'violence' in order to attain the liberty we so greatly desired? I used to enjoy Sullivan - but I've stopped visiting his site after it became clear that his one issue trumped everything else (especially logic). A monopoly on violence is utterly absurd.


M. Simon said...


You will note that there is no link to Sullivan in this post, or any other post, or in my blog roll.

It is not an accident.


Sullivan used to be an informed critic of the Right. Since he has gone left he has lost all sense of proportion.


You know, I personally am infuriated at the drug war. I could go left where I would get way more support on that issue. But, I am no single issue voter.

I have a sense of proportion.