Redstate

By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Here is a Guardian report that heartens me. It seems that opposition to Islam in Europe is hardening and gaining traction, judging both by explicit political actions and by the implications of all the hand-wringing evident in the article.

Switzerland’s direct democracy rules require referendums if there is enough public support. Mr [Ulrich] Schlüer [of the Swiss People’s party] has launched a petition demanding a new clause in the Swiss constitution stating: “The building of minarets in Switzerland is forbidden.” He already has 40,000 signatures. If, as expected, he reaches 100,000 by this time next year a referendum is automatically triggered.

Despite the brouhaha such a referendum will provoke, it would be unwise to bet against it.

Says Schlüer: “Unlike other religions, Islam is not only a religion. It’s an ideology aiming to create a different legal system. That’s sharia. That's a big problem and in a proper democracy it has to be tackled. If the politicians don't, the people will.”

Read on.

He’s right. The inherent intransigence of Islam’s political character is just a fact. That it amounts to a kind of apocalypse of Liberalism does not change the fact.

What seems most important about this, to my eyes (which are admittedly many hundreds of miles removed from the situation), is that politicians are starting to wake up to the fact that, lo and behold, opposition to the Jihad is a popular opinion. They are starting to accommodate rhetoric and policy to this fact.

In light of Erick’s recent (very fine) post, here is a potential strategy by which to recapture GOP unity: firm, unflinching, confident, informed opposition to the Jihad.

We should: (1) Shift the focus of what is called the war on terror, beginning with public rhetoric, toward the domestic front; take heed of the subversives and saboteurs in our midst; strike at them without apology. This combined with: (2) reconciling the Party to that deep skepticism verging on hostility, which comprises the majority opinion on Iraq in this country, will go a long way toward recovering some popularity on our core strength of national security. As Henry Kissinger might say, it has the additional virtue of being the right thing to do.

I really doubt that the Democrats (were they to gain Executive power) shall conduct foreign policy as the reflexive anti-patriots of their base would like. A gradual but steady reduction of American troops in Iraq seems far more likely than immediate withdrawal.

For the fiscal boys, it’s much cheaper. We don’t need huge new expenditures of money. We need to carefully craft some laws whereby we can expose the doctrines of the enemy to vigorous prosecution. Our work will largely be a matter of legal savvy and above all public and democratic will. We may need a new prosecutor, investigator, or orator now and then. We will not need to spend even a fraction of what we are spending in Iraq right now.

For social Conservatives, it's the whole enchilada: the maintenance of the character of the Republic. Who are we? Are we a people that is going to shelter and protect the Jihad like its principles are mere Free Exercise? or are we a people confident enough to say we will stand against this wicked thing?

What was the glue that held the old Coalition together, from the early glory days of NR to Reagan?

It was a clear single thing: the Communist Enterprise; and a unified anthipathy for a wicked system. Well the Jihad is no less wicked, and it has already stuck us blows no Communist ever dared.

So let us unite against it. Let opposition to the Jihad be one of our principles.