In case anybody's missed it, the centrist Democratic magazine The New Republic has set parts of the liberal and libertarian blogosphere aflame with a massive article by editor Peter Beinart. In "A Fighting Faith", Beinart argues that Dems need to become just as anti-Islamism as they were anti-Communism in the 50s and 60s. It's a pretty awesome article, but then again, I'm a pretty hawkish bastard.

But, I think it's Beinart's follow-up column that really deserves the praise. Partially egged on by Kevin Drum, Beinart seeks to address just what it is that makes fighting Islamism so damn paramount. And why Osama et al represent the third in a triumverate of anti-democratic, anti-Western ideologies stretching back to the "isms" of the 20s. (I refuse to type the "N-word" or the "C-word.")

You don't have to believe Al Qaeda is as grave a threat as the USSR to believe it is the greatest threat to U.S. security and liberal values today. In 1954, segregation was probably the greatest domestic threat to liberal values. But that doesn't mean it was as great a threat as slavery ...

... Drum suggests that Al Qaeda's "power to kill people isn't even remotely in the same league" as the USSR's. But, if you're talking about killing Americans--which Drum is--the fact that Al Qaeda controls no territory makes it more dangerous, as well as less. Yes, the USSR, with its massive nuclear arsenal, had the power to kill more Americans. But, as a government interested in self-preservation, it was also deterred by the threat of U.S. retaliation. And that threat made the USSR cautious about taking American lives.

Of course, while I side with Beinart's belief that radical Islamism is fundamentally irrational, and a sort of crypto-death cult, it is worth pointing out that plenty of Islamist scholars find Bin Laden to be decidedly un-insane. I don't have the time to find those contrary views, but they're out there. I trust you're all familiar with Google.