humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <778467cc-ace9-42f8-843c-c72cbfde6d23
@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, mark_sieving@yahoo.com says...
>
> Here's the quote with a little more context:
>
> "The Islamist defeat in Pakistani confirms a trend that's been under
> way for years. Conventional wisdom had it that the wars in Afghanistan
> and Iraq, and the lack of progress in the Israel-Palestine conflict,
> would provide radical Islamists with a springboard from which to seize
> power through elections.
>
> "Analysts in the West used that prospect to argue against the Bush
> Doctrine of spreading democracy in the Middle East. These analysts
> argued that Muslims were not ready for democracy, and that elections
> would only translate into victory for hard-line Islamists.
>
> "The facts tell a different story. So far, no Islamist party has
> managed to win a majority of the popular vote in any of the Muslim
> countries where reasonably clean elections are held. If anything, the
> Islamist share of the vote has been declining across the board."
>
> As you said, attributing this to the Bush Doctrine is a post hoc, ergo
> propter hoc fallacy. But I don't think that was the author's intent.
> Rather, his point seems to be that where free elections are held,
> Muslim fundamentalists don't do well. That's kind of counter to the
> "clash of civilizations" line that some like to argue.

I couldn't tell if the author of the quote was guilty of a post hoc
fallacy, but Bill presented the quote in the context of how "we're
winning the war on terror". Some good things seem to be happening, but
the idea that "we" have had anything to do with Muslims rejecting
fundamentalism at the polls is absurd. Furthermore, the "Bush
Doctrine" added "spreading democracy" as an afterthought to "the right
to take preemptive strikes without the customary legal constraints of
necessity and proportionality". The latter is the central feature of
the "Bush Doctrine", and that is what he will be remembered for.

--
Gordon