humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 12, 4:40 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article ,
> newsgro...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net says...
>
> > He goes on to say that "Analysts in the West...[snip] 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."
>
> I can't remember seeing a more absurd post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy
> than this.  Just curious, but what is the snipped text?

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.