Victor Davis Hanson writes that the West faces a crisis of confidence:

Just imagine in our present year, 2006: plan an opera in today's Germany, and then shut it down. Again, this surrender was not done last month by the Nazis, the Communists, or kings, but by the producers themselves in simple fear of Islamic fanatics who objected to purported bad taste. Or write a novel deemed unflattering to the Prophet Mohammed. That is what did Salman Rushdie did, and for his daring, he faced years of solitude, ostracism, and death threats--and in the heart of Europe no less. Or compose a documentary film, as did the often obnoxious Theo Van Gogh, and you may well have your throat cut in "liberal" Holland. Or better yet, sketch a simple cartoon in postmodern Denmark of legendary easy tolerance, and then go into hiding to save yourself from the gruesome fate of a Van Gogh. Or quote an ancient treatise, as did Pope Benedict, and then learn that all of Christendom may come under assault, and even the magnificent stones of the Vatican may offer no refuge--although their costumed Swiss Guard would prove a better bulwark than the European police. Or write a book critical of Islam, and then go into hiding in fear of your life, as did French philosophy teacher Robert Redeker.

...Note also the constant subtext in this new self-censorship of our supposedly liberal age: the fear of radical Islam and its gruesome methods of beheadings, suicide bombings, improvised explosive de-vices, barbaric fatwas, riotous youth, petrodollar-acquired nuclear weapons, oil boycotts and price hikes, and fist-shaking mobs, as the seventh century is compressed into the twenty-first.

In contrast, almost daily in Europe, "brave" artists caricature Christians and Americans with impunity. And we know what explains the radical difference in attitudes to such freewheeling and "candid" expression--indeed, that hypocrisy of false bravado, of silence before fascists and slander before liberals is both the truth we are silent about, and the lie we promulgate.

There is, in fact, a long list of reasons, among them most surely the assurance that cruel critics of things Western rant without being killed. Such cowards puff out their chests when trashing an ill Oriana Fallaci or a comatose Ariel Sharon or beleaguered George W. Bush in the most demonic of tones, but they prove sunken and sullen when threatened by a thuggish Dr. Zawahiri or a grand mufti of some obscure mosque.

[Evening update]

Eric Raymond had a post last February that's quite relevant.

When Newt Gingrich says we must sacrifice the First Amendment to defeat some scuzzy camel jockeys, we need to follow the advice given to Yanks crossing streets in London.

Its not the bus coming from the Left that will kill you, its the bus coming from the Right. Look Right to see the oncoming threat, not Left.

Really?

Just when did Newt say that? Care to provide a credible citation?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/11/29/publiceye/entry2215861.shtml

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008595.php

And these comments about Newt have what to do with this post again?

Yawn should be Fart. College campuses have been censoring free speech from the right for years. It does show what VDH was talking about. Liberals yammer about supressed speech in vile terms that gain them no punishment but won't condemn liberal voices silenced in horrendous ways in other countries. So he attacks the right here but not those who would kill him if he were close enough.

The post is all buggered up on IE, Rand...

Instead of trading billingsgate, let's just look some facts. Michael Moore made a film critical of the Bush administration, and is lionized and well-paid. Theo Van Gogh made a film critical of Islam and was stabbed to death. Where's that threat coming from again?

I'm tired of Victor Davis Hanson. He seems to really want to solve every problem with some grand Greek Tragedy inspired violence.

Even the US Army is now focusing on post war management and conflict resolution, having learned the hard way how easy it is to bomb and how hard it is to make peace after.

Some people can only find meaning in continual aggression. Having read the umpteenth post linking to this Victor Davis Hanson's thought process, I'm a bit sick of the guy.

Here's why Hanson is wrong...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9bd02c1a-7f0a-11db-b193-0000779e2340.html

Why is it the lefts' posts on this topic are OFF TOPIC. Are your reading comprehension skills that bad? Or are you so desperate to criticize that you can't finish what you are reading before you write?
Offsides, that has nothing to do with what VDH wrote.

They're just following the game plan: lie, distort, obfuscate, misdirect, omit facts that counter their position, change subjects, move goal posts; do whatever neccessary that will move forward the agenda.

Along with the spoils, "truth" belongs to the victors.

Suprise! Yawn totally mischaracterized Newt's remarks.

But I guess when the ends justify the means, it is considered acceptable to be a slut whore to the truth.

From Cpt Ed.

"UPDATE AND BUMP: I received a number of e-mails today cautioning readers about taking the NY Sun account as an accurate rendition of Newt's remarks. I e-mailed Newt's staff for a clarification, and they dispute Josh Gerstein's characterization of Newt's remarks. They have a selected excerpt on their site, as well as the full audio of the speech. I haven't had a listen to the full remarks yet, but from the excerpt, it looks like Newt's office has a point:

This is a serious long term war, and it will enviably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear of biological weapons.
And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement. "

To "nobody important": If we want to summarize the agenda of the left in such hyperbolic terms, well, it seems to me that the agenda of the RIGHT can be expressed even more succinctly in a simple three letter word to every problem: WAR

To "Cambias": So in your way of thinking, comparing apples to apples, you compare George Bush to Islam? ...I guess you've given away your thinking without intending to...is George Bush a RELIGION?

You can summarize anything you'd like. It doesn't change the fact that the Left has only one principle: the ends justify the means.

Anon says: To "nobody important": If we want to summarize the agenda of the left in such hyperbolic terms, well, it seems to me that the agenda of the RIGHT can be expressed even more succinctly in a simple three letter word to every problem: WAR

There you go compressing everything into black and white again. This is not a summarization of the right's agenda, it is a very astute observation of where we stand and where we might need to go to maintain our way of life. Of course, if you don't mind an American city being nuked or a few million Americans being killed by a biological weapon, that's your deal.

Anon says: To "Cambias": So in your way of thinking, comparing apples to apples, you compare George Bush to Islam? ...I guess you've given away your thinking without intending to...is George Bush a RELIGION?

It is apples to apples, but you twist it to point to the wrong example, of course. Why is it that a movie about Bush garners praise by bashing the president (with more than questionable facts) and a movie or piece about Islam results in death? Are those of the Muslim faith to be granted a free pass from questioning of their actions? You, of course compare Bush to Islam, completely ignoring (not missing) the point that Cambias laid out there. You are an average day golfing...par for the course.

First, to those of you 'left fielders' who want to rant and spew your nonsense, regardless of how on topic you may or may not be, I would first suggest you RTFA.

You really make the point for us (and the point of the article). Hyperbole, exaggeration, and hippocrasy are staples of the left wing agenda. They are quick to criticize those that disagree with them, as long as those people are civilized enough to not attack them. On the other hand, thugs like the leaders in Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. (you know, the ones who actually physically suppress free thinking) get a pass because they are not civilized and may attack them.

These are the same types of people who will openly yell at police officers while shrinking meekly from scumbags openly selling drugs. The reason is simple: they have no real beliefs or solutions, only theoretical rantings. You say watch out for the right because that is the 'real' problem. Just the fact that you can say/post that idea shows you are flat out wrong. Don't believe me, please go to China and openly post anti-government ideas. Didn't work to well for those brave ones in the past, but maybe you are different.

"is George Bush a RELIGION?"

The correct question: "Is BDS a RELIGON?"

To "Mac", "nobody important" etc,

If want to make a comparison of responses to a movie about Islam, a better comparison would be to a movie about Christianity, say "Passion of the Christ". Instead of which you compare the response to a movie about Islam to a movie about Bush.

Am I really NUTS to think that comparison is STUPID? Let me repeat, there aren't more than 1 Billion followers of a religion named George Bush. The comparison is silly.

Make the comparison on the basis of a movie critical to Christianity and at least you begin to make sense.

To Tom: God, you have a totally stereotypical view of the left don't you? Yell at police officers while supporting scumbags who sell drugs? That is such a ridicuous caricature of the left. Certainly there may be some who fit that characterization but do you really think that the vast numbers in the NorthEast for example who think Bush is an IDIOT fit this characterization?

Anon says: If want to make a comparison of responses to a movie about Islam, a better comparison would be to a movie about Christianity, say "Passion of the Christ". Instead of which you compare the response to a movie about Islam to a movie about Bush.

Am I really NUTS to think that comparison is STUPID? Let me repeat, there aren't more than 1 Billion followers of a religion named George Bush. The comparison is silly

No, you're not nuts, and the comparison YOU made is stupid. The point was not the comparison of the movies, but the comparison of the respinse to those who MADE the movies and the reactions they received from viewers.

Anon says :Certainly there may be some who fit that characterization but do you really think that the vast numbers in the NorthEast for example who think Bush is an IDIOT fit this characterization?

Do you really think that the vast numbers of people in Iraq think EVERYTHING is going badly? Do the vast numbers of the left in our country think EVERYTHING in Iraq is going badly?

Hello Pot, yeah Kettle here...

This thread is really going off topic, but Mac deserves an answer.

No, not everyone in Iraq thinks things are going badly. Oh no, not at all. From the Shia persepective things are going great, at least in the longer term. So yes, not everyone in Iraq thinks things are going badly, especially not those who want a loose confederation with Iran.

On the other hand some in Iraq have been royally screwed. No, not the Sunni. I'm talking about the Iraqi Christian community which actually flourished under Saddam. One of the lasting ironies of the Iraq War is that a fundamentalist Christian President of the United States will be viewed in history as responsible for the elimination of Christianity in Iraq; whether the Shia Sadrites or the Sunni fundamentalists eventually takeover Baghdad, Christianity is kaput. Holy cow, the fruit of our war!

Anon says: This thread is really going off topic, but Mac deserves an answer.

Its not off-topic, the discussion point in the post is about rewards received by artists treading on the religious front..."Or compose a documentary film, as did the often obnoxious Theo Van Gogh, and you may well have your throat cut in "liberal" Holland. Or better yet, sketch a simple cartoon in postmodern Denmark of legendary easy tolerance, and then go into hiding to save yourself from the gruesome fate of a Van Gogh."

Then someone made a comparison and you skewed it. So, if off-topic, only from your skewing of the points.

Anon says: No, not everyone in Iraq thinks things are going badly.

That's all I needed to know. You see, I do know things are not going well over there in some aspects and I equally understand that some things are. My point is that you asked Tom if NorthEasters fit a mold and I again made a comparison of your thoughts to thoughts you have posted elsewhere.

So simply put (yes I know you were being sarcastic) You understand that not everything going on in Iraq is bad. Now, let's revisit above...

Cambias said: Michael Moore made a film critical of the Bush administration, and is lionized and well-paid. Theo Van Gogh made a film critical of Islam and was stabbed to death. Where's that threat coming from again?

There's the comparison again Moore, lionized and well paid from a critical film...TVG stabbed to death after a critical film...see? Really easy to see what the point was....