The Left's biggest problem

is the perception embodied in the following excerpt: (click here to read the FrontPage magazine.com article, by David Horowitz, that it is excerpted from)

Mohammad Basirul Haq Sinha: "You often call for uniting Muslim and progressive forces globally. How far is it possible under current situation?"

Galloway: "Not only do I think it's possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations. And the progressive organizations & movements agree on that with the Muslims."

I don't buy it. I don't think Galloway personifies progressives, nor the English Left, nor the American Left, any more than Ward Churchill does. But, to paraphrase a famous rap song- I'm not saying all lefties are Galloway, but all lefties have a little Galloway in them. What's worse, many American lefties have embraced Galloway since he publicly spanked the US Senate.

In the excerpt above Galloway calls for an alliance between progressives and Muslims, but in real world terms he is really talking about an alliance between progressives and radical Islam, using the logic that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Far too many on the left have embraced the radical left, scum like Churchill and Galloway and Che Guevara, employing similar reasoning.

But this is like rooting for Emperor Palpatine because Yoda speaks like he's reading off fortune cookies. No, that's not fair. It is like rooting for Palpatine because the Jedi didn't bother to save Annakin's mother, first from slavery, then from the death Annakin foresaw. I mean the temptation is there- if these Jedi are bad enough to allow slavery in general, and to not liberate The Chosen One's Mom from slavery, then maybe the Sith aren't so bad.

Radical Islam is the left's worst nightmare. Here's an expert from an old Harkonnendog post (click here for the whole thing), about areas where liberals and Islamists (people who would spread radical Islam by force) differ and agree:


Gay Marriage:
Liberals- "Make it happen. By fiat if necessary!"
Islamists- "What gays do in the privacy of their own homes is an abomination. We will kill them."
Free Speech:
Liberals- "Yes! (Well, except on college campuses.)
Islamists- "Yes! As long as you quote the Koran. If you blasphemy we will kill you."
Feminism:
Liberals- "Of course!"
Islamists- "No Burkha; No penis; No life. We will kill you."
Democracy:
Liberals- "Even the dead should be allowed to vote!"
Islamists- "Sharia is the will of Allah. Allah's will trumps that of the people. Sharia rules, ore we'll kill ya'.
Death penalty:
Liberals- "NEVER!!!"
Islamists- "With ROCKS!!!"
Rape:
Liberals- "Don't blame the victim. Keep her identity secret."
Islamists- "Kill the victim. She should have worn a looser burkha. Don't laugh or we'll kill you."

So you would think liberals would not be soft on Islamists. Yet they are. The following shows some areas where liberals and Islamists agree:

George Bush:
Liberals- "We wish Gore or Kerry won."
Islamists- "We wish Gore or Kerry won. (It would be easier to kill ya.)"
Israel:
Liberals- "Israel needs to make peace with the Islamists. Even if that means they can't retaliate to terrorist attacks, when doing so would stifle the peace process."
Islamists- "Israel will have peace only when every Jew is pushed into the sea. But, we totally agree about the no retaliation thing. (Btw we're gonna kill u libs, too.) Pagans!"

So what is Galloway thinking? It is tempting to dismiss him as a crazy aberration or a twisted opportunist- in fact it is so tempting I DO dismiss him, as both. But what is the left thinking when they choose NOT to publicly distance themselves from him? More important, why does the American left allow itself to be defined by the Galloways and Churchills and Michael Moores? (It would be like the right allowing itself to be defined by the David Dukes.)

Well, democrat politicians are in a terrible position. Every vote is crucial, so nobody, even the kookiest of the kooks, can be offended. Everything democrats do is defensive. They are now the party of obstruction- they are blocking Bolton, they are trying to hold the line on judicial appointments, they are trying to stifle Bush’s Social Security reform et cetera. But obstructing does not win elections, and it certainly does not advance a political agenda. To advance their agenda they need to win more elections- but to win election the left needs to move towards the middle. To get to the middle, the moderate left must vanquish and stifle the Galloways and Churchills and Moores, and their enablers and defenders within the party, and prove to America that it has done so.

I don’t think Howard Dean is the man for the job.