Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

I"m not one of those people who likes to be alarmist and call Republicans "fascists" and other such things. Unlike some of my friends, I don"t think that they have any secret plans to annul the Bill of Rights and destroy democracy as we know it. That kind of alarmism doesn"t get us anywhere. Or at least that"s what I thought until I started reading about Rudy Giuliani.

There"s a big debate on whether or not Islamist parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, are normatively committed to democracy and the rule of law. It"s a valid question. However, it seems to me that a much more relevant question, at least for Americans, is whether today"s Republican party is normatively committed to democracy. I"m genuinely afraid after hearing this audio of Guiliani going berserk on a caller to his radio show. Then I read Michael Wolff"s cogent, persuasive case that Guiliani is all of the following: unstable, insane, charismatic, depressive, able to speak without notes, susceptible to mood swings, an incorrible philanderer, doesn"t talk to his kids, has an ambivalent relationship to truth and reality, has ties to the mob, and is in perpetual need of 24-hour attention, like a little kid on Ritalin. Then I read this:

There was Rudy"s extra-legal plan to set aside the 2001 mayoral election (after his term limit had been reached, so he couldn"t run again) and, by legislative acclamation (thwarted only at the last minute), extend his term.

So, yes, he"s an autocrat living in a democracy. Would he still be an autocrat if he was President? Um, yes. But Rudy"s Rudy, right? And then I stumble upon this Victor Davis Hanson quote, via Andrew. Andrew got pretty worked up, but after a I read the paragraph in question, I couldn"t figure out what the big deal was. So I read it again more carefully: