WWRD? – maybe decline to take Mubarak’s call

Egypt: WWRD? « Hot Air

The freedom rhetoric is what’s missing in January 2011. Reagan excelled at it – and I think he would, characteristically, have recognized a tremendous opportunity to use ideas to influence the course of events in the Arab world.

So JE Dyer’s exercise in hagiography at HotAir, in which she conjures up an imaginary Reaganesque call to adoration before the Declaration of Independence and such, causing 80 million Egyptians to genuflect to the west and the glory of American exceptionalism .

Or maybe Reagan would handle Egypt in the same way he handled the People Power Revolution in the Phillipines – by doing nothing in public except to support the longtime American stooge and ally, the rather Mubarakian Marcos, until it was clear the people could not be resisted any longer.  Following that pattern, the sainted RWR, if in office today, might have let someone else deliver the good bad news to Mubarak that America could get by with one dictator less in its international alliance structure.

Oddly enough, the HotAirians who, apparently inspired by Glenn Beck and others, have been asserting that the Egyptian events are part of some fiendish world-embracing Islamo-leftist super-Alinskyian Kenyan Socialist conspiracy haven’t yet had much to say under JED’s post.  Yet.


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

14 comments on “WWRD? – maybe decline to take Mubarak’s call

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. the people at Hot Air probably don’t read Dyer’s posts as she writes too well and at greater length and complexity then the other people currently employed and dropping their leavings ( is that wardsback) on the page.

  2. That’s the more optimistic take, on things, as is the Phillipines, which
    the Czar has pointed some parallels.

  3. One big difference between Egypt and the Phillipines, or Iran, or most successful revolutions, is the lack of an identifiable revolutionary leadership or figurehead. It’s part of what fuels uncertainty and speculation, and also pessimism about how much further this thing can go. Also makes it easy to paint as mainly negative or destructive, and to open Beckian and saner speculation about dark forces and conspiracies.

  4. Well I’m focusing on the People Power element, that was common to ESDA and this situation, which Wolfowitz, when he was at Defense,
    supported, and continues to support.

  5. I confess not to knowing much about Indonesia’s transition. The author does make some good points. But that would have been for the WWCD? post. Apparently, Indonesia didn’t have a revolutionary leadership, not sure if it had figureheads or a coherent opposition, but Indonesia also wasn’t seen as a critical component of the US alliance structure. It might actually have been more critical than it was seen to be, but, then again, it seems to have turned out fairly well.

  6. It’s an inperfect fit, Suharto was swept out after thirty plus years, in the aftermath of the great Asian collapse of ’97, they had similar records of human rights abuses, (East Timor, was the exception) one would think the Phillipines offers the most clear positive parallel, I don’t think General Suleiman is going for it though.

  7. @ fuster:
    I meant “seen” as in “widely/popularly followed, narrated, dramatized.” I don’t recall round-the-clock coverage and updates, global hand-wringing, major concerned statements from political leaders, etc. You, me, and the Navy know how important the Straits of Malacca are, but a lot more people are concerned about Israel, Islam, Suez, etc.

  8. @ CK MacLeod:

    Back then, my good Tsar, coverage consisted of radio and whatever film could be smuggled out to the outside world.

    That said, Egypt is more important for more reasons. and it’s famous!

  9. You know I’m just a mere Castillian scribe, but how do they miss this is related to that wikileaks cable from some weeks back;

    King Abdullah of Jordan has just taken the remarkable step of firing his powerful head of General Intelligence in the middle of a major regional — and potentially domestic — crisis. Nabil Ghishan, a Jordanian journalist, explains in al-Hayat that the reason for the firing of Mukhabarat head Mohammed al-Thahbi was his role in a controversial rapprochement with Hamas over the last few months. Presumably his replacement, Mohammed Raqad — whose prior assignment was in the northern city of Irbid — will have fewer ideas about outreach to Hamas. But more broadly, the move suggests a panic at the heart of the Hashemite establishment over the ramifications of the spiraling Gaza crisis. It’s no accident that King Abdullah and Queen Rania have been urgently calling for Israel to “end the violence immediately”, even as fellow pro-U.S. autocrats in Cairo and Riyadh hedge in anticipation of Hamas taking damage. There is no way for Jordan to stay on the sidelines of an Israeli-Palestinian crisis – and this one may prove more dangerous than others.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins