Democracy implies conflict as a way of expressing the inevitable divergences within society and its members. Compromise should be the outcome of the political process, as the ultimate stage of the interaction of its leading agents.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
It is, therefore, totally acceptable to have the opposition mobilize its base to try to undermine or, at least, cause exhaustion to the party that is in power. Bearing this in mind, we must realize that US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her job: She thinks her job is to throw President Donald Trump out of office.
Interestingly enough, if one compares the Tea Party movement during the Obama administration with Antifa and the so-called Resistance movement, one will immediately conclude that, after all, the tea-partiers were really polite and moderate.
Comparing to this far-left movement that has hijacked the Democratic Party, the Tea Party movement was much more like a literal party than a movement of political activists.
Do you recall what Pelosi and her fellow Democrats said about the right-wing movement during the Obama presidency?
Pelosi and her fellow Democrats accused the Tea Party movement of being anti-democratic, racist, xenophobic and all the usual adjectives that fit with the left-wing mantra.
Pelosi is giving shelter to the most violent, radical, anti-Semitic and intolerant political fringes. Ilhan Omar is the twin sister of the most vicious far-Right politicians – they go together, in a tough-to-watch despicable romance.
Nonetheless this context of this intense political climate, I have always believed that patriotism and the values of liberty, democracy and human dignity would prevail.
Apparently, I was dead wrong. Why? Because the left-wing politicians (some) and the media (pretty much all) have wasted more time criticizing US President Donald Trump for killing the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi than congratulating him for this so important win.
One might argue that killing the leader does not solve the greater problem posed by terrorism. This is a fair claim.
However, the right question is whether we are better off with an Islamic State that has been orphaned of true leadership or not – and the answer is plain: Yes, we are better off now than one week ago. Not recognizing this is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.
Additionally, the reactions after the death of al-Baghdadi show the lack of credibility of the partial and partisan media. Think about the Washington Post. The same newspaper that described legitimate and democratically elected leaders – such as Trump, President Bolsonaro of Brazil and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – as authoritarians decided to call the dead ISIS leader an "austere religious scholar".
So, for the Washington Post, a murderer, a fanatic violent and vicious man, who killed a great number of people in the Middle East and around the world was just … an austere religious scholar (the headline was later changed).
It is very sad to see that an important newspaper that has always stood for democracy and freedom becoming an instrument of the far-Left.
Democracy dies in darkness, and the Washington Post has been doing a terrific job in dragging democracy in America to the darkest side, with global consequences.
One thing is for sure: the Washington Post is dying in darkness due to its tarnished credibility. There is no excuse for the "austere scholar" absurdity.
