National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg weekly newsletter, the G-File, has a fascinating comparison of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and Adolph Hitler.
But before you start screaming “Godwin’s Law!,” you need to read:
The point I wanted to make is that there’s no inherent conflict between what we routinely describe as “pragmatism” and being a fanatic or even an ideologue.
Consider the man in the mustache.
In a major speech in May 1933, Hitler proclaimed he had set “only one great task” for himself and his government: “to secure peace in the world.” The National Socialist Party craved “from its innermost heart to live in peace and friendship.” He continued to hit this note throughout most of the 1930s. In 1935: “National Socialist Germany desires peace from its innermost ideological convictions. . . . Germany needs peace and desires peace.” …
President Obama marveled at Mohamed Morsi’s “pragmatism” because Morsi didn’t punctuate his ululating with chants of “Death to Israel!” Moreover, Morsi opted not to go to war with Israel now. Both Obama and Joe Klein took this as proof that Morsi’s a “moderate.” To me this is like someone in 1935 saying Hitler was a “moderate” for not invading Poland before he was ready to invade Poland.
Note: I’m not saying that I know Morsi will invade Israel. The future is unknowable. He may end up more constrained by the Egyptian people than he’d like. Who knows? What I am saying is that it is idiotic to conclude that Morsi isn’t ideologically committed to the [tenets] of the Muslim Brotherhood (which includes eventually erasing Israel), simply because he refused to let Hamas dictate his agenda to him. The pragmatist Morsi used his success with the cease-fire to parlay it into seizing dictatorial power — power Morsi the ideologue needs to take care of business
Goldberg’s G-File is a weekly newsletter you can subscribe to here.
As far as Goldberg’s comparison — and I’m normally no alarmist, but Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood alarm me. Morsi’s recent power grab through the suspension of the Egyptian constitution and the Brotherhood’s overall ability to effectively exploit the idea of Arab democracy to grab hold of this power, is not only frightening, it’s spreading. Jordan might be next.
And what will Obama do with respect to Jordan? Will he do what he did in Egypt: wash his hands over the loss of a crucial ally while celebrating the “Arab Spring” of an Islamic takeover?
Once again, we’re also not being served by our media. What’s happening in Egypt, Jordan and throughout the Middle East at the hands of the Brotherhood isn’t receiving anywhere near the attention it should from an MSM desperate to ensure Obama is never seen as having made a mistake.
Not only is Obama getting away with using words like “pragmatism” in defense of Morsi, the media would have us believe that what’s happening and likely to happen in the Middle East is a necessary price of Democracy and not, at least in part, the result of Obama’s “leading from behind.”
*This story is part of the Big Journalism Live Blog, which you can bookmark here.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC