2nd Précis: Cairo and Philadelphia (cc @hhassan140 @ibishblog)

On, appropriately enough, July 4 of this year, via Twitter as @hhassan140, Hassan Hassan (“HH” below) offered a provocative summary of an article on Islamists and the Arab Spring by Hussein Ibish (@ibishblog, “HI”). A colloquy between Hassan, Ibish, and myself (“CM”) ensued, its terms anticipating the same arguments, and the same situation, that informed that tweet of Hassan’s at the head of my “1st Précis.”

In the following transcript, I have condensed some separate tweets into single paragraphs and have added some simple corrections and clarifications, but have otherwise left the dialogue unaltered.

HH [linking to HI’s post]: To view MB [Muslim Brotherhood] ideology as anything other than a profound threat to all non-Islamists is unforgivably naïve…

CM: Isn’t that what Islamists (and other non-liberals) believe about ideological liberalism?

HI: The difference is that liberals would allow Islamists freedom, whereas Islamists will deny that [to] the liberals. But sure, there is mutual antagonism and suspicion.

CM: The liberals would allow the Islamists the freedom to accept liberalism, under (illiberal) compulsion. The call to “non-naivete” regarding the MB is preparation for that eventual illiberal “necessity.”

HI: I don’t think you can equate Islamist authoritarianism with liberal insistence on individual rights. The thing is, liberalism allows Islamists to practice their religion freely without oppressing others.

CM: That rests on the liberal/modern separation of politics and religion – the rejection of which defines Islamism.

HI: That’s true. But societies are heterogeneous. So, religious politics are by definition going to be discriminatory. Discriminatory means unjust.

Clearly we have a right to fight for maximal choices, justice for most people. Weird to conflate Islamist impulse towards authoritarian oppression of non-Islamists w/ liberal systems of freedom.

CM: It appears “weird” only from a one-sided assumption of the truth or superiority of liberalism.

HI: Yes, given that societies are heterogeneous, there is an inherent superiority to systems that accommodate this. I don’t know why you find that so problematic an observation or morally equivalent to privileging some identities.

CM: I find it problematic because 1) it is evidently very concretely problematic, 2) I find it one-sided and incomplete.

HI: What system would you propose for heterogeneous societies if not one that maximizes individual choices?

It was at this point that I pleaded the impossibility of providing an adequate response on Twitter. Mr. Ibish agreed, and invited me to expand on the subject in some other venue.

This blog is my only “other venue.” I do not accept, however, that the essential political or political-philosophical questions, the July 4th questions, should be reduced to Ibish’s terms. Further posts under the provisional category title “Cairo and Philadelphia” will perhaps most easily be understood as a series of inadequate excuses, a multi-part apology, for my failure to propose the alternative system that Ibish requested. We can also perhaps (of course?) understand such an apology as that proposal, but in the form that the author hopes would qualify it as truly “alternative.”


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.

6 comments on “2nd Précis: Cairo and Philadelphia (cc @hhassan140 @ibishblog)

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. Well keep the metaphor consistent, is there anything that will dissuade you from this trainwreck, which has been deferred since around 1948,

  2. 1948 was when the Brotherhood made it’s first move, against the prime minister at the time Nukraishi Pasha, what do you think Supreme Guide Badie really wants,

2 Pings/Trackbacks for "2nd Précis: Cairo and Philadelphia (cc @hhassan140 @ibishblog)"
  1. […] above is an especially compact re-statement of the Ibish formulation, expressing a self-contradictory position that is effectively universal and definitional for […]

  2. […] texts, their slogans into fading echoes, their objectives into objects of nostalgia. In Egypt, what Hussein Ibish calls “accommodation” would for Islamists, as well as for the felool, equate with capitulation, under the longer term […]

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