Should the people of a given country be allowed to vote in free and fair elections, even if the people they elect are fundamentally hostile to the United States?
That is the great question which is facing America today, as protests have toppled the leader of Tunisia and now threaten the presidency of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
We're a week into the Egyptian uprising now, and it's time to reassess what has taken place so far and what might come next.
We know a few things, and we don't know a lot-and from what we can tell, the folks on the ground are also not sure what might happen. That said, we do know enough to begin to figure out the right questions to be asking.
As was true Friday, things are moving fast, so let's jump right in.
It has been a couple of years since we first started writing about Egypt; at that time we did a series of stories that described how the country's Constitution is designed to ensure that the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) remains the ruling party, how corruption and torture and rape are part of the justice system, how there's a looming Presidential succession crisis, and how we better pay attention, because one day all of this was going to blow up into a national emergency, with the potential for disastrous consequences that ripple all the way from Turkey to Morocco to Pakistan.
And now...that day has arrived.
After protests that led to a change of government (sort of) in Tunisia, rioting is spreading across Egypt, quickly, the ISI (Egypt's internal security police) is out grabbing citizens and doing what they do (we'll talk more about that later), and the question of Presidential succession, which many people thought was headed in one direction, may now be headed off to a place that outside observers might not have previously considered.
Lucky for you, I have some reach inside Egypt, and we're going to get a peek inside the story that you might not have seen otherwise.
I'm following this on twitter, and since I have access to a slightly louder megaphone than some, let's take a second at least to remember that the fate of a nation hangs in the balance right now. At least we can pay attention if nothing else.
Lots of stories flying:
- It appears the government has taken down the Internet in Egypt. This is a country of 80M, a $500B economy, #26 in the world. That's a pretty big deal.
- claims that the government is spreading flammable liquids in potential protest areas of Cairo. If true that would be a new low in gruesome counter-protest violence.
- claims that the regular Police have left Cairo and fears that this means the Army will move in
Also, as I noted in Quick hits, Joe Biden put himself on the wrong side of history with a quote I truly hope haunts him for a long time. Really wasn't expecting that Stephen Harper would prove a better democrat than the Obama admin.
Are you following this? What are you hearing? What do you believe?
Update: Something of a Tiananmen square moment in this video about 1:30 in. Such amazing courage.
We all know that Republicans live in the past. What century is never completely clear, but it's not the 21st, and not even the second half of the 20th. But tonight, Barack Obama joined them by making temporal confusion a bipartisan enterprise, in which America is the only democracy on earth!
So, what time is it? 18th Century? 19th Century? Alternative past history in which Britain didn't exist?
It's no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that's a good thing. That's what a robust democracy demands. That's what helps set us apart as a nation....
We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools; changing the way we use energy; reducing our deficit - none of this is easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law.
Of course, some countries don't have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they get a railroad - no matter how many homes are bulldozed. If they don't want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn't get written.
And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn't a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.
As in Tunisia, so in Arizona. In Arizona, they say that shooting a congresswoman and killing federal judge--as well as her staffers and constituents--is not a political act. "It is the act of a madman"--as if the two were clearly and cleanly mutually exclusive. But saying that does not make it so. Saying that is itself a political act--one that calls out to be contested.
In Tunisia, a young unemployed university graduate, Mohamed Bouazizi, has his unlicensed vegetable and fruit stand confiscated by authorities. It is unclear how many times this has happened to him, but it has happened more than once. And it has happened to many more people than him, many more times than anyone can count. Surely, this is not a political matter, not a political act. It is just the way of the world. It is an administrative police matter, a code violation, nothing more. Complete routine. Unexectional. It is like a traffic stop in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles on August 11, 1965: nothing political at all.
The protests were triggered by a young unemployed university graduate, Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself aflame after his unlicensed vegetable and fruit stand was confiscated by authorities in the city of Sidi Bouzid, in central Tunisia. Bouazizi's fate resembled that of many Tunisian youths, educated but with few job opportunities before them. The dramatic and tragic image of a young man aflame shattered the myth of the 'Tunisian economic miracle' and in its own way, what little legitimacy Zine Ben Ali's rule seemed to enjoy both domestically and internationally.
The rule of the tyrants decline
The year, 1979
From Uganda to Nicaragua
It's bombs and bullets all the time
So they corrupt, so they vile
So it's coup after coup all the while
Human rights they violate
They thought they were too great
So in disgrace now they live in exile
Gairy is a wanted man
Idi Amin is a wanted man
Shah of Iran fighting hard to survive
He too was wanted dead or alive
Strikes, demonstrations & wars
Injustice is always the cause
Politicians turn too soon from
poor people into tycoons
Corruption must bring horrors
South African Vorster resign in disgrace
Muzurewa take away Ian Smith place
The Uganda devil was easily cat straddled
Beaten up and chased, what a waste.
Gairy is a wanted man
Patrick John is a wanted Man
The Shah of Iran fighting hard to survive
He too is wanted dead or alive
The Shah have a short time to live
Because the Ayatollah don't forgive
When you see church ruling state
With pure vengeance and hate
Situation must be explosive
General Somoza from Nicaragua
Thought it was easy with the Sandanista
With the help of Venezuela, Panama and Cuba
They kick him straight to America
Gairy is a wanted man
Bokassa is a wanted man
Ali Bhutto tried so hard to survive
He too was wanted dead or alive.
Grenadian Mongoose was bad and so brave
They send the old Bishop straight to his grave
After that, well Gairy skip town
With his diary and him obeah gown
No more people to enslave
Trinidad neighbours all expecting mayhem
Anytime anything could happen to them
Eric Williams taking a back seat to avoid banana
but everyone know he 'fraid Carl
Gairy is a wanted man
Park Chung Hee was a wanted man
Achempong tried so hard to survive
He too was wanted dead or alive.
But it only happened because--starting with one man, Mohamed Bouazizi--the people of Tunisia questioned the handed-down definition of what was political and what was not. The very essence of democracy is that we all get to define what is political, and what, if anything, is not.
If we do not define it for ourselves, then others will define it for us.
As horrified democrats stepped up their criticism of Obama, an alternative voice entered the conversation:
Arguing that this president's inclination to hear, respect and accommodate all sides of an issue is not a sign of political inexperience or character weakness.
But, according to Harvard history prof James Kloppenberg, a reflection of Barack's intellectually powerful understanding of American democracy.
And an expression of the president's commitment to bridging deep cultural and political differences in our society.
On the eve of President Obama's birth date, thoughts turn to his time in office. As a man, countless admire the person, Barack Obama, and yet, feel that they cannot fully celebrate his performance. Hope has all but disappeared. Audacity appears vanquished. Still, some are sure that there is reason to believe. People ponder potentials not fully realized. Prospects for change loom large. Several may be shared in the sentiments offered on this auspicious occasion.
Dreams have yet to die. The desire to write to the President on the anniversary of his birth or converse with him personally is strong. Most will only be able to meet Mister Obama circuitously. Nonetheless, millions will try to talk to the man in the White House. People, such as esteemed Educator, Doctor Cornel West has addressed the President profoundly though the airwaves. "One of America's most provocative public intellectuals," West speaks of what is needed for a genuine success. The Princeton Professor ponders aloud; if only President Obama advanced classlessness.
In recognition of today's celebration of our nation's birthday, I was planning on writing something inspirational and patriotic. Perhaps something about how America's "noble experiment" of universal education for all, regardless of social and economic standing, epitomizes the democratic spirit of our country. I thought I would expound on how public schools present us with the perfect example of how the future of humanity relies not solely on the rights of the individual but also on a "shared effort" among everyone in a community to ensure the well-being of future generations.
I thought I would take the patriotic bond we're all feeling today as an opportunity to remind people that the functions of schools extend way beyond, as Larry Cuban puts it here, "transferring knowledge and skills from adults to children." From the early grades - where little children are taught about "taking turns, no hitting or biting, washing hands, working independently, cooperating with others who look and act different" - through the middle and upper grades that prepare students for the the workplace and citizenship. I felt today would be the perfect time to point out that public schools are a "hotbed for democracy".
While it's true that our educational system cannot right the wrongs that are inflicted on children in every corner of American society - especially in violent, impoverished cities like Chicago and conservative, rural states like Oklahoma - that does not mean that universal public education is a systemic failure. After all, businesses fail all the time and our economy is currently in shambles, but there's no broad based movement to declare capitalism a failure.
So I was getting set for an emotional appeal to acknowledge the history and value of our public schools - what they really mean to this country. And then this flashed across my monitor. Resembling the bland countenance of Kim Jong Il, here we have the nemesis to everything American public education reveres: democratic input from the citizenry, local control, education of the whole child, equality of opportunity and access. And my friends, when you see the arsonist setting your house ablaze, you'd better not pause to reflect on what the house means to you. You'd better man the fire brigade.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hosting four public information meetings on the proposed study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and its potential impacts on drinking water...The meetings will provide public information about the proposed study scope and design. EPA will solicit public comments on the draft study plan.
The public meetings will be held on:
* July 8 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. CDT at the Hilton Fort Worth in Fort Worth, Texas * July 13 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. MDT at the Marriot Tech Center's Rocky Mountain Events Center in Denver, Colo. * July 22 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT at the Hilton Garden Inn in Canonsburg, Pa. * August 12 at the Anderson Performing Arts Center at Binghamton University in Binghamton, N.Y. for 3 sessions - 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT
I have been seeing some news pieces about President Obama's Tuesday speech to the nation, analyzing the "grade level" of his words. They are concluding that he spoke "over the heads" of many Americans.
President Barack Obama's speech on the Gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.
. . . Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said.
[. . .] Obama's nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 "Yes, we can" victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.
The media and pundits are largely talking about how Obama is perceived and not about what Obama says, and certainly not explaining the underlying policies. Is Obama too smart for Americans? Or at least for American media, which is supposed to transmit and translate information that helps citizens participate in our democracy. But our "market driven" media (thanks, Ronnie) by and large no longer plays this role, and politicians are supposed to play a part on a stage. Obama did not intentionally mispronounce the word nuclear, as the previous president did. Was this a political mistake?
During the recent media frenzy with pundits complaining that Obama doesn't exhibit enough anger, comedian Bill Maher had a line that Obama would say, "I've been briefed on your pain." Is this the "grade level" of America now? How much is each of us to blame, insofar as we allow ourselves to be consumers instead of citizens?
Yesterday was the President's Deficit Commission and today is the Peterson summit. The very serious people (who didn't know there was a housing bubble) are telling us that our own government providing benefits to our people is baaaad and very unserious. (Military spending? What's that?)
So what about that deficit, and the Social Security crisis? Always, always keep in mind that the whole bruhaha over Social Security comes out of a strategic plan to get rid of it. As Paul pointed out in his post and as I have written about,
This strategy goes back to a larger Wall Street effort to get rid of Social Security. A 1983 Cato Institute Journal document, "Achieving a Leninist Strategy" by Stuart Butler of Cato and Peter Germanis of Heritage lays it out for us. The document is still available at Cato, and select quotes are available at Plotting Privatization? from Z Magazine. ...
[quotes from the Cato strategy document]
... Every time you hear that "Social Security is going broke" you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point. Every time you hear that "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point. Every time you hear that "Social Security won't be there for me anyway" " you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point.
Don't fall for it. If they can gut Social Security they stand to make a lot of money but you stand to lose your retirement.
AND never forget that the deficit was also manufactured on purpose, to defund government's ability to regulate business and protect citizens, and to force a shrinking of what the corporate right calls "big government." Government is We, the People making the decisions for ourselves, "big government" is We, the People making more decisions for ourselves. The only alternative is the wealthy and big corporations making the decisions for us instead. Don't fall for it. We didn't have deficits until we cut taxes on the rich.
On April 7, 2010 the people of Kyrgyzstan, a far-away country straining under an increasingly oppressive president, liberated themselves. In a revolution recalling those of 1989, protests unexpectedly toppled the authoritarian government. The opposition quickly took control, promising free and fair elections.
The United States government promptly asked if the new administration would allow America to keep its air base in the country.
Is it already too late for America? I'm starting to think that the anti-tax, anti-government conservative movement that started in the mid-70s, elected Reagan and led to the terrible Bush Presidency may have effectively destroyed the country, leaving it bankrupt, corrupt,ungovernable, ruled by a wealthy elite -- and we're only now just starting to realize it. To cover tax cuts we stopped maintaining the infrastructure and started borrowing. To satisfy their hatred of government we increasingly stripped away rule of law, regulation, and belief in one-person-one-vote. We are seeing the consequences of all of that coming back to roost now.
Reagan left us with massive debt and ever-increasing interest payments. Bush left us with $1.3 trillion deficits and a destroyed economy that would force further increases in the borrowing for years - to be blamed on Obama. The "free marketers" gave away our manufacturing base that will take decades and massive capital investment to recover. Obama can try, but it may just be too late to do anything about the borrowing. We need massive investment in jobs and infrastructure, and a national economic/industrial plan. But, with their own Reagan/Bush debt as ammunition, conservative ideologues continue to block every effort at investment to get out of the mess we are in.
As someone who writes a fair amount about the systemic rigging in the US system that leads to conservative outcomes, I often run up against this pointless and empty slogan used to rationalize rule by aristocratic elites.
I've tried to ignore it, but it is such a regular part of American political debate that it needs elevation into the realm of "Zombie lies." In last week's edition of my ongoing effort to contribute to the low level roar calling to eliminate the filibuster, commenter PTM provided one of the best rebuttals to this meme, so here it is, in front page glory:
Basic familiarity with the terms of discussion might help. (4.00 / 9)
'The founders intended the country to be a republic' is not incompatible with: 'The founders intended the country to be a democracy.'
Because republics are not some different kind of government from democracies, in the way that dictatorships are.
'Republic' comes from 'res publica' which is Latin for the 'public thing'. For something to be a republic all that is necessary is for the government to count as being owned or controlled by the public at large.
'Democracy' comes from 'demos' which is Greek for 'people' or 'tribe' and 'kratia' which is Greek for 'power'. A democracy is literally a government in which the people have the power. There have been democratic republics. There have been aristocratic republics. There is no natural tension between something's being a republic and something's being a democracy. In fact you might think that the most natural way for a government to count as a republic is for it to be a democracy. After all the best way to insure that the government belongs to the people as a whole is to let the people as a whole run it.
cont
STATE BLOGS
