"When Iraqis rejected secular candidates and voted for a party that pledged to have sharia, at least in some forms of domestic law, the New York TImes howled that democracy could be "consigning Iraqi women to a life of subjugation." Columnist Maureen Dowd warned that "the Iraqi election may actually be making things worse" because "it is going to expand the control of the Shia theocrats." These complaints might have some plausibility if women or Sunnis were not permitted to vote. But women and men both voted for the Dawa party, and so essentially the Times and Dowd were arguing that if Iraqis don't want equal roles for men and women, their democracy is a sham." -- Dinesh D'Souza 

"Democracy" for D'Souza is mere head-counting. He does not understand what Western democracy is, what other understandings it brings with it. The idea of a representative republic, with careful checks on the vulgus mobile, and Burke's "little battalions," and solicitousness for the individual, and enshrinement of individual rights that make real, advanced Western democracies at least possible, if they are sometimes let down by their cretinized populations, and distortions in the system, but at least are free of the Total System of Islam, one that is collectivist, and that locates the legitimacy of the government not in the will expressed by the people but in the expressed will of Allah.

What a dope he is.

But on the other hand, isn't it pleasant to think that The New York Times, in now hiring as one of its "conservative columnists" the comical and deplorable William Kristol, at least has not hired, for now, the comical and deplorable Dinesh D'Souza?

Look on the bright side.