New York Times, Feb 9, 2011
Representatives Jerrold Nadler, left, and Milke Quigley, both Democrats, on Tuesday with the president of Naral, Nancy Keenan.
Invoking the mantra of fiscal restraint that has dominated House action since lawmakers reconvened last month, Republicans began committee work this week on two bills that would greatly expand restrictions on financing for and access to abortions. Another bill, one that would cut off federal dollars to women’s health care clinics that offer abortions, is expected to surface later this year.
“This House is more pro-life than it’s ever been,” said Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania and the author of one of the bills to limit money for abortions.
Democrats in both the House and Senate immediately fought back Tuesday, working closely with reproductive rights advocates. They have appropriated the Republican charge from last year that Democrats were working on a liberal policy agenda instead of on job creation and the economy, and turned it on its head.
“This election was about the economy,” said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who joined with other Democratic senators Tuesday to decry the House bills Tuesday as needless and intrusive.
Over and over, Democrats said that by bringing up the abortion issue now, Republicans were going back on their word to focus on the budget.
Yet the bills that have surfaced on the House floor this year have been fiscal in nature, including the repeal of the health care law, which was later rejected by the Senate, and some measures designed to cut spending.
“Republicans are focused on creating a better environment for economic growth and job creation,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner, “and that is reflected in the legislation the House is passing,”
Still, Republicans in the House are clearly energized about using their new majority to reopen debate on an important issue for conservatives, especially in the context of the health care overhaul.
On Tuesday, Representative Eric Cantor, the Republican majority leader, described the new measures as “obviously very important in terms of the priorities we set out initially in our pledge to America.”
He indicated that he expected the first version of a House bill to finance the government through the rest of the year to bar spending to carry out the health care law. That provision is likely to also be attacked by the Senate and the Obama administration.
One bill, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would eliminate tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage if their plans offer abortion services, and would forbid women who use a flexible spending plan to use pre-tax dollars for abortions. Those restrictions would go well beyond current law prohibiting the use of federal money for abortion services.
The bill, sponsored by Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, has drawn fire over language that undercuts a longstanding exemption on the ban on using federal money for abortions in the case of rape or incest; the measure narrows the definition of rape to “forcible rape,” a term that his office has never defined. Democratic lawmakers and others repeatedly hammered on the term, saying it suggested that victims of statutory rape and other crimes could not get abortions paid for with federal money.
While Mr. Smith’s staff said last week that the term "forcible rape" would be removed from the bill, the staff of RepresentativeJerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, said that language remained intact as of Tuesday.
Another bill, sponsored by Mr. Pitts, addresses the health care overhaul head-on by prohibiting Americans who receive insurance through state exchanges from purchasing abortion coverage, even with their own money. The bill is essentially a resurrection of a provision in the House version of the health care law but was not in the Senate version.
The bill would also permit hospitals to refuse abortions to women, even in emergency situations, if such care would offend the conscience of the health care providers.
“Both bills are designed to drive coverage for abortion out of health insurance plans, period,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The bills drew immediate fire from House and Senate Democrats. “We are sending a clear message to House Republicans that their agenda on women’s health is extreme,” Senator Barbara Boxer of California said at a news conference. “It breaks faith with a decades-long bipartisan compromise, and it risks the health and lives of women. It also punishes women and businesses with a tax hike if they wish to keep or buy insurance that covers a full range of reproductive health care.”
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, another Democrat who joined the news conference, compared the proposals to “a Third World country that’s requiring women to wear head shawls to cover their faces even if they don’t want to do it.”
As Mr. Smith’s bill provoked a spirited back and forth at a hearing of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, it also drew praise from some outside supporters.
“The federal government should not use tax dollars to support or promote elective abortion,” Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a news release.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/us/politics/09congress.html?hp
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
A Conservative Gathering Will Test G.O.P. Hopefuls
New York Times, 9 Feb, 2011
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
•FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus
•More Politics News
The three-day gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee, which begins Thursday with more than 10,000 activists expected to convene in Washington, effectively rings the opening bell for the Republican presidential nominating contest.
There is no clear consensus for who should carry the conservative mantle among nearly a dozen Republican aspirants who will be on hand to outline early themes of their candidacies. A wide-open race presents challenges and opportunities for the roster of current or former governors and members of Congress who are working to win over or, at the very least, neutralize influential conservative activists.
The event, which has been held every winter for nearly four decades, is seen as such a command performance this year that Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and John Thune are among those who accepted invitations. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee have both declined, citing scheduling conflicts.
In the wake of sweeping Republican victories in last year’s Congressional elections, where Tea Party supporters rewarded candidates who pledged to uphold fiscally conservative principles and punished those who failed their conservative purity tests, the early stage of the 2012 campaign is unfolding as something of a political free-for-all. The event offers a prominent platform for candidates to introduce — or reintroduce — themselves to influential conservatives.
But that does not necessarily mean that all candidates start on the same footing, conservative leaders say, or that the presidential race will reprise the volatility of the midterm elections.
“When you’re the party that’s out of power, more than usual, you are looking at someone who can win,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conference sponsor. “There are a bunch of people who are hard core, but don’t pass the laugh test at a national level.”
The potential Republican rivals, at this early stage, have been focusing most of their criticism on the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress. But the conservative forum offers an opportunity for the contenders to begin distinguishing themselves from one another, particularly on areas of conservative orthodoxy.
The attendees of the Conservative Political Action Committee, which often includes a large contingent of young activists, are not a perfect representation of Republican voters in the early tier of states that open the presidential nominating season a year from now. But the audience at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, along with those watching the speeches on C-Span, offers the highest-profile platform yet for prospective candidates to test their messages.
Nearly all of the potential Republican speakers have appeared at the conservative gathering in previous years, but with the next presidential campaign on the horizon, the meeting provides an opportunity to create a second impression or explain pieces of their biography that could be troubling for some staunch conservatives.
Mr. Romney, for example, has endured criticism over the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Gingrich has sought to explain his support for ethanol subsidies, which many fiscal conservatives are troubled by. And Mr. Thune has faced questions about his support for the bank bailout, known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program.
“It is a chance to brand yourself,” said David A. Keene, the president of the American Conservative Union, a conference sponsor. “This is a chance for you to lay out a vision for the future to people who don’t know you or may have heard only something about you. The day when we have a perfect candidate — from anyone’s standpoint — is a day we’re never going to see.”
The candidates will also be judged in a straw poll. The survey holds no official significance, but several contenders make a significant investment into trying to win the mock election, which is often filled with suspense and intrigue. (Mr. Romney won the contest in 2007, while Mr. Paul won last year. This year, Gary Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, is also on the ballot, which organizers believe could complicate efforts for Mr. Paul because they are likely to split the libertarian vote.)
The prospective presidential field will be joined by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and several newly elected Republican members of Congress who helped the party win its House majority. The appearances could highlight the fissures among Republicans — presidential hopefuls have already started distancing themselves from Congressional leaders on issues like raising the debt ceiling — that are likely to play out when the 2012 campaign intensifies.
The Conservative Political Action Conference also is opening against a backdrop of controversy over whether a gay Republican group should have been allowed to help sponsor the event. The Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation are among the organizations boycotting the conference because GOProud, the gay group, is participating.
The disagreement highlights the tensions among various conservative factions and raises questions about the balance between the social and fiscal priorities of Republicans that has already become part of the debate in early-voting states like Iowa, where the state’s precinct caucuses are scheduled to open the nominating contest next Feb. 6.
The first in a series of candidate forums sponsored by the Family Leader, a social conservative advocacy group, started this week in Iowa. Mr. Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, fielded questions about his opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Several prospective candidates have agreed in the coming months to participate in the sessions, which are sponsored by Bob Vander Plaats, a leading conservative in Iowa.
Mr. Vander Plaats said presidential contenders needed to address a spectrum of issues, including government spending and the deficit, same-sex marriage and abortion, if they hoped to find support among many conservative voters in Iowa.
“We’re looking for an authentic conservative that would be both social and fiscal,” Mr. Vander Plaats said. “It’s going to be a big part of the vetting process.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/us/politics/09republicans.html?_r=1&hp
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
•FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus
•More Politics News
The three-day gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee, which begins Thursday with more than 10,000 activists expected to convene in Washington, effectively rings the opening bell for the Republican presidential nominating contest.
There is no clear consensus for who should carry the conservative mantle among nearly a dozen Republican aspirants who will be on hand to outline early themes of their candidacies. A wide-open race presents challenges and opportunities for the roster of current or former governors and members of Congress who are working to win over or, at the very least, neutralize influential conservative activists.
The event, which has been held every winter for nearly four decades, is seen as such a command performance this year that Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and John Thune are among those who accepted invitations. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee have both declined, citing scheduling conflicts.
In the wake of sweeping Republican victories in last year’s Congressional elections, where Tea Party supporters rewarded candidates who pledged to uphold fiscally conservative principles and punished those who failed their conservative purity tests, the early stage of the 2012 campaign is unfolding as something of a political free-for-all. The event offers a prominent platform for candidates to introduce — or reintroduce — themselves to influential conservatives.
But that does not necessarily mean that all candidates start on the same footing, conservative leaders say, or that the presidential race will reprise the volatility of the midterm elections.
“When you’re the party that’s out of power, more than usual, you are looking at someone who can win,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conference sponsor. “There are a bunch of people who are hard core, but don’t pass the laugh test at a national level.”
The potential Republican rivals, at this early stage, have been focusing most of their criticism on the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress. But the conservative forum offers an opportunity for the contenders to begin distinguishing themselves from one another, particularly on areas of conservative orthodoxy.
The attendees of the Conservative Political Action Committee, which often includes a large contingent of young activists, are not a perfect representation of Republican voters in the early tier of states that open the presidential nominating season a year from now. But the audience at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, along with those watching the speeches on C-Span, offers the highest-profile platform yet for prospective candidates to test their messages.
Nearly all of the potential Republican speakers have appeared at the conservative gathering in previous years, but with the next presidential campaign on the horizon, the meeting provides an opportunity to create a second impression or explain pieces of their biography that could be troubling for some staunch conservatives.
Mr. Romney, for example, has endured criticism over the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Gingrich has sought to explain his support for ethanol subsidies, which many fiscal conservatives are troubled by. And Mr. Thune has faced questions about his support for the bank bailout, known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program.
“It is a chance to brand yourself,” said David A. Keene, the president of the American Conservative Union, a conference sponsor. “This is a chance for you to lay out a vision for the future to people who don’t know you or may have heard only something about you. The day when we have a perfect candidate — from anyone’s standpoint — is a day we’re never going to see.”
The candidates will also be judged in a straw poll. The survey holds no official significance, but several contenders make a significant investment into trying to win the mock election, which is often filled with suspense and intrigue. (Mr. Romney won the contest in 2007, while Mr. Paul won last year. This year, Gary Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, is also on the ballot, which organizers believe could complicate efforts for Mr. Paul because they are likely to split the libertarian vote.)
The prospective presidential field will be joined by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and several newly elected Republican members of Congress who helped the party win its House majority. The appearances could highlight the fissures among Republicans — presidential hopefuls have already started distancing themselves from Congressional leaders on issues like raising the debt ceiling — that are likely to play out when the 2012 campaign intensifies.
The Conservative Political Action Conference also is opening against a backdrop of controversy over whether a gay Republican group should have been allowed to help sponsor the event. The Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation are among the organizations boycotting the conference because GOProud, the gay group, is participating.
The disagreement highlights the tensions among various conservative factions and raises questions about the balance between the social and fiscal priorities of Republicans that has already become part of the debate in early-voting states like Iowa, where the state’s precinct caucuses are scheduled to open the nominating contest next Feb. 6.
The first in a series of candidate forums sponsored by the Family Leader, a social conservative advocacy group, started this week in Iowa. Mr. Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, fielded questions about his opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Several prospective candidates have agreed in the coming months to participate in the sessions, which are sponsored by Bob Vander Plaats, a leading conservative in Iowa.
Mr. Vander Plaats said presidential contenders needed to address a spectrum of issues, including government spending and the deficit, same-sex marriage and abortion, if they hoped to find support among many conservative voters in Iowa.
“We’re looking for an authentic conservative that would be both social and fiscal,” Mr. Vander Plaats said. “It’s going to be a big part of the vetting process.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/us/politics/09republicans.html?_r=1&hp
Exceptionally Articulate
Foreign Policy Slate, Feb 8, 2011
Obama's eloquence fails to quiet charges that he does not believe in God or America.
By John Dickerson
Posted Monday, Feb. 7, 2011, at 7:30 PM ET
President Obama does not treat all conspiracy theories alike. He dismisses those who question where he was born, but he's unsettled by those who question whether he is born again. At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, he said his Christian faith has sustained him through his presidency—"all the more so," he said, "when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned."
Americans like their presidents to share their values, and religion is often a proxy for that connection. There has been at least some confusion about what Obama believes; in a recent poll, half of Americans said Obama holds religious values different from their own. Those who see the difference tend to view him unfavorably.
Of the three prayer-breakfast speeches the president has given since coming to office, this was his most personal talk on faith. As Time's Michael Scherer pointed out, in 2009, Obama used the first-person pronoun I 15 times in his prayer-breakfast remarks. He used the first-person pronoun 10 times in 2010. Last week, he used it 44 times. It was hard not to see the political balancing act: He was trying to give the religious charge just enough credence to smash it to pieces. It is a strategy Obama will need to perfect as the 2012 election approaches as he faces a similar charge—"he just doesn't believe in it"—on such issues as "American exceptionalism" and capitalism itself.
All of these issues represent inroads to a broader toxic argument against Obama that Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, articulated in a strategy memo four years ago: "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots" by wrapping Clinton almost literally in the flag. "Let's explicitly own 'American' in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn't. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy fund" What Penn wanted to do—without ever getting caught doing so—was raise the question in voter's minds: Is he one of us?
At its most corrosive, this set of issues promotes the idea that the president isn't simply supporting the "wrong" policies but has the "wrong" beliefs. But Penn failed (spectacularly), so how potent is this mix now?
It's big enough that the president had to address the religion element in his prayer breakfast. Sen. John McCain also addressed these issues when trying to make peace with Obama by defending him against the toughest conservative charge: "He is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals."
The size of the exposure may also be determined by which GOP candidates try to feed it.
Is that what Mitt Romney was trying to do when he changed the subtitle of his book from No Apology: The Case for American Greatness to No Apology: Believe in America? It sounds right out of Penn's playbook. Romney's critique of the president is not just that Obama does not share American values but that Obama is intent on smothering them. Then again, as Romney allies say, maybe he is just trying to increase book sales.
When Newt Gingrich suggests the president "doesn't seem to have the kind of personality that allows normal Americans to get the rhythm of who he is," he is hitting on this theme. In his recent book he does it with a sledgehammer by suggesting Obama and the "secular-socialist machine" pose as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. He has since moderated that charge but not its essential thrust. Even if he's not comparing the president to those two regimes, he's saying that he is so non-American that a person must stretch to find an analogy among the people who committed the greatest acts of human depravity.
On Monday, the president addressed the Chamber of Commerce in the latest of a series of steps aimed at rebutting the idea that he does not believe in American commerce. It is the easiest of these values charges to rebut because the president has some control over policies that might help or hurt business.
Opponents are likely to see Obama's prayer-breakfast speech or the American boosterism of his State of the Union address as insincere: He's just talking about these issues now because he's got an election coming. Such charges may have some power, especially if voters don't want to investigate them. But on the two big charges—that Obama doesn't believe in God, and doesn't believe in America—it's hard to make the case that the president has just discovered his faith or his voice in praising the American spirit.
Obama is a Christian—as he likes to put it, he has "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." You don't have to hunt for proof. His embrace of Christ is a key point in his 1995 autobiography. He has spoken throughout his career about his faith. In 2004, he gave an extensive interview on the topic. In 2006, he scolded his own party for shutting out religion and scolded himself for not always boasting about the Christian roots of his values. A Politico story written in the first year of his presidency said he referred more to Jesus than George W. Bush did. (In the face of this, those who still want to judge Obama an unbeliever should go read their Matthew.)
It is also possible to find the same antecedents for the president's State of the Union address. When Obama spoke about America's history and the unique ability of Americans to shape their destiny, many saw it as an attempt to answer the charge that he did not believe in "American exceptionalism." That was certainly part of the pitch, but he didn't have to go to the library to hunt up the passages. Before Obama was facing the charge that he was not a believer in this brand of American bootstrapping, he was singing the identical song as a candidate.
To Obama's strongest critics, his view of "American exceptionalism" will not be sufficient. But they're not the audience for Obama's suasion. The voters who may need convincing are the ones in the middle of the electorate, the ones who believed he shared their values even when Sarah Palin said he was "palling around with terrorists." It's the message the president gave in his interview with Fox's Bill O'Reilly. "I'm the same guy."
http://www.slate.com/id/2283755/?from=rss
Obama's eloquence fails to quiet charges that he does not believe in God or America.
By John Dickerson
Posted Monday, Feb. 7, 2011, at 7:30 PM ET
President Obama does not treat all conspiracy theories alike. He dismisses those who question where he was born, but he's unsettled by those who question whether he is born again. At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, he said his Christian faith has sustained him through his presidency—"all the more so," he said, "when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned."
Americans like their presidents to share their values, and religion is often a proxy for that connection. There has been at least some confusion about what Obama believes; in a recent poll, half of Americans said Obama holds religious values different from their own. Those who see the difference tend to view him unfavorably.
Of the three prayer-breakfast speeches the president has given since coming to office, this was his most personal talk on faith. As Time's Michael Scherer pointed out, in 2009, Obama used the first-person pronoun I 15 times in his prayer-breakfast remarks. He used the first-person pronoun 10 times in 2010. Last week, he used it 44 times. It was hard not to see the political balancing act: He was trying to give the religious charge just enough credence to smash it to pieces. It is a strategy Obama will need to perfect as the 2012 election approaches as he faces a similar charge—"he just doesn't believe in it"—on such issues as "American exceptionalism" and capitalism itself.
All of these issues represent inroads to a broader toxic argument against Obama that Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, articulated in a strategy memo four years ago: "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots" by wrapping Clinton almost literally in the flag. "Let's explicitly own 'American' in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn't. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy fund" What Penn wanted to do—without ever getting caught doing so—was raise the question in voter's minds: Is he one of us?
At its most corrosive, this set of issues promotes the idea that the president isn't simply supporting the "wrong" policies but has the "wrong" beliefs. But Penn failed (spectacularly), so how potent is this mix now?
It's big enough that the president had to address the religion element in his prayer breakfast. Sen. John McCain also addressed these issues when trying to make peace with Obama by defending him against the toughest conservative charge: "He is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals."
The size of the exposure may also be determined by which GOP candidates try to feed it.
Is that what Mitt Romney was trying to do when he changed the subtitle of his book from No Apology: The Case for American Greatness to No Apology: Believe in America? It sounds right out of Penn's playbook. Romney's critique of the president is not just that Obama does not share American values but that Obama is intent on smothering them. Then again, as Romney allies say, maybe he is just trying to increase book sales.
When Newt Gingrich suggests the president "doesn't seem to have the kind of personality that allows normal Americans to get the rhythm of who he is," he is hitting on this theme. In his recent book he does it with a sledgehammer by suggesting Obama and the "secular-socialist machine" pose as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. He has since moderated that charge but not its essential thrust. Even if he's not comparing the president to those two regimes, he's saying that he is so non-American that a person must stretch to find an analogy among the people who committed the greatest acts of human depravity.
On Monday, the president addressed the Chamber of Commerce in the latest of a series of steps aimed at rebutting the idea that he does not believe in American commerce. It is the easiest of these values charges to rebut because the president has some control over policies that might help or hurt business.
Opponents are likely to see Obama's prayer-breakfast speech or the American boosterism of his State of the Union address as insincere: He's just talking about these issues now because he's got an election coming. Such charges may have some power, especially if voters don't want to investigate them. But on the two big charges—that Obama doesn't believe in God, and doesn't believe in America—it's hard to make the case that the president has just discovered his faith or his voice in praising the American spirit.
Obama is a Christian—as he likes to put it, he has "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." You don't have to hunt for proof. His embrace of Christ is a key point in his 1995 autobiography. He has spoken throughout his career about his faith. In 2004, he gave an extensive interview on the topic. In 2006, he scolded his own party for shutting out religion and scolded himself for not always boasting about the Christian roots of his values. A Politico story written in the first year of his presidency said he referred more to Jesus than George W. Bush did. (In the face of this, those who still want to judge Obama an unbeliever should go read their Matthew.)
It is also possible to find the same antecedents for the president's State of the Union address. When Obama spoke about America's history and the unique ability of Americans to shape their destiny, many saw it as an attempt to answer the charge that he did not believe in "American exceptionalism." That was certainly part of the pitch, but he didn't have to go to the library to hunt up the passages. Before Obama was facing the charge that he was not a believer in this brand of American bootstrapping, he was singing the identical song as a candidate.
To Obama's strongest critics, his view of "American exceptionalism" will not be sufficient. But they're not the audience for Obama's suasion. The voters who may need convincing are the ones in the middle of the electorate, the ones who believed he shared their values even when Sarah Palin said he was "palling around with terrorists." It's the message the president gave in his interview with Fox's Bill O'Reilly. "I'm the same guy."
http://www.slate.com/id/2283755/?from=rss
Monday, February 7, 2011
Why We Can't Rule Out an Egyptian Reign of Terror
Foreign Policy, Feb 8, 2011
A historian's look at revolution and its discontents.
BY DAVID A. BELL | FEBRUARY 7, 2011
There are, of course, many different ways of categorizing historical revolutions. But for the purposes of understanding what is happening in Egypt -- and the challenges it may pose for the United States -- one simple, rough distinction may be especially useful. This is the distinction between revolutions that look more like 1688 and revolutions that look more like 1789. The first date refers to England's "Glorious Revolution," in which the Catholic, would-be absolute monarch James II was overthrown and replaced by the Protestant William and Mary and the English Parliament claimed powerful and enduring new forms of authority. The second is, of course, the date of the French Revolution, which began as an attempt to create a constitutional monarchy but ultimately led to the execution of King Louis XVI, the proclamation of the First French Republic, and the Reign of Terror.
A key feature of 1688-type revolutions is their relative brevity. They may be preceded by lengthy periods of discontent, agitation, protest, and even violence, but the revolutionary moment itself generally lasts for only a few months (as in 1688 itself), or even weeks or days. A regime reaches a point of crisis and falls. The consolidation of a new regime itself may well involve much more turmoil and bloodshed, and eventually entail considerable political and social change -- but these later events are not considered part of the revolution itself, and there is no sense of an ongoing revolutionary process. Men and women do not define themselves as active "revolutionaries" (in 1688, in fact, the English noun and adjective "revolutionary" did not yet exist -- it only came into frequent use after 1789).
Revolutions of the 1789 type are quite different. Their leaders and supporters see regime change as only the beginning of an arduous, ambitious process of political, social, and cultural transformation that may require years, even decades, to complete. For them, the revolution is not a discrete event, but an ongoing cause. They eagerly define themselves as "revolutionaries" and even speak of the "permanent revolution." Revolutions of this type generally have much stronger utopian tendencies than the others and more frequently lead to large-scale violence. They also tend to have ambitions that overflow national boundaries -- the local revolution becomes seen as just part of a process of worldwide emancipation. In some cases, revolutions of this type may be driven from the start by a self-consciously revolutionary party, committed to radical upheaval. In other cases (such as 1789 itself), it may seem to start off as a more limited event, only to change its character as particular groups grow frustrated with the results and the opposition they have encountered, and conclude that far broader, deeper forms of change are called for.
Historically, 1688-type revolutions have been much more common: France in 1830, Germany in 1918, China in 1911-12, and many of the revolutions of 1848 (of which most ended in failure). 1789-type revolutions, by contrast, have been relative historical rarities: above all, 1789 itself, Russia in 1917, China in 1949, Cuba in 1959. They are not, however, necessarily revolutions of the left. One could also include in this category the Nazi seizure of power in Germany (which Hitler termed a "National Revolution") and Iran in 1979. The American Revolution, it could be argued, represents something of a hybrid case -- closer to 1688, yet with important features of the other type, thanks to the long process of consolidation and contestation that followed independence.
In recent years, it seems as if the 1789 type of revolution has lost its appeal for most of the world. During the greatest series of political upheavals in recent times -- the collapse of communism -- most leaders of the victorious reform movements rejected the word "revolution" altogether. The Polish Solidarity leader Jacek Kuron went so far as to write in the summer of 1989, àpropos of the French Revolution's bicentennial, that Poland did not want a revolution because revolutions spill too much blood. Germans refer to the events of 1989 as the "Turning," not the "Revolution." It was, above all, in Czechoslovakia that the word "revolution" came to describe what happened in 1989, but paired with the word "velvet" to underscore the differences from the great revolutions of the past.
Of course, revolutions have hardly disappeared since 1989. But the recent wave of them across the world -- the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the recent events in Tunisia -- all look much more like 1688 than 1789. They have been short, sharp affairs, centered on the fall of a regime. In none of these countries have we seen the development of an extended "revolutionary" process or party. And though some of these revolutions have triggered others, domino-style, as in 1848, they have not themselves been expansionary and proselytizing. As far as I know, there are no Tunisian revolutionaries directing events in Cairo.
The principal exception to the current pattern -- the one great contemporary revolution of the second type to remain an ongoing proposition today -- is Iran. Although it has been more than 30 years since the fall of the Shah, Iran's Islamic Republic is still a revolutionary regime in a way matched by few other states in the world today. Despite its considerable unpopularity with its own people, it has remained committed since 1979 to the enactment of radical, even utopian change, and not just inside its own borders. Organizations such as the Revolutionary Guard retain considerable importance.
Egypt, interestingly enough, experienced a revolution close to the 1789 type in its relatively recent history. The so-called Revolution of 1952 that overthrew the country's monarchy and brought Gamal Abdel Nasser to power ultimately involved a great deal more than regime change. Nasser had broad ambitions both for remaking Egyptian society and for taking his revolutionary movement beyond Egypt's own borders (most strikingly, in the creation of the short-lived United Arab Republic). Ironically, Hosni Mubarak spent much of his military career in the service of Nasser's revolutionary regime. But well before Mubarak came to power, following the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt's revolutionary energies had largely dissipated.
The fundamental question being discussed by commentators at present is what shape a new Egyptian revolution might take, if Mubarak's regime falls and the military does not intervene. Will it come to a quick end with the establishment of a new government -- hopefully a democratic one -- or will a much more radical, long-lasting revolutionary process develop? In other words, will things look more like 1688 or 1789? Anxieties focus not on a resurgent Nasserism, of course, but rather on the Muslim Brotherhood and the possibility that Egypt may experience its own Islamic revolution, with unpredictable consequences, not only for the country itself but for the region and the world.
Against these anxieties, many commentators have been pointing to the lack of ingredients, at present, for such a turn of events. Cairo in 2011, they insist, is not Tehran in 1979. They argue that the crowds protesting Mubarak have called above all for democracy and expressed little enthusiasm for an Islamic Republic. They characterize the Muslim Brotherhood, despite its long and radical history, as a relatively ineffective organization that has recently moved in more moderate directions and that lacks a charismatic leader like Ayatollah Khomeini. In short, they are effectively arguing, the signs point to 1688, not to 1789.
This analysis may well be accurate. But the history of revolutions suggests that even if it is, the long-term outlook in Egypt is still a highly unstable one. This is not only because the furious events of the last two weeks are hard to predict, but because revolutions of the 1789 type do not always start out as such. Hardly anyone at the start of the French Revolution could have predicted the demise of the French monarchy and the Reign of Terror. There were no Jacobins present at the fall of the Bastille in 1789, only future Jacobins. France's turn to radicalism took place after the Bastille had been taken, within the revolutionary process itself -- between 1789 and 1793. Similarly, Russia's February Revolution of 1917 initially looked to most observers like 1688: a short, sharp crisis that led to the fall of a monarch, and the quick foundation of a constitutional regime. While Bolsheviks were already present, few observers foresaw the October Revolution that would bring Lenin to power.
Egypt probably does not face the prospect of an Islamic Revolution in the next few months. But if Mubarak falls and is replaced by a weak, unstable series of governments that cannot restore order or deliver serious social and economic reforms -- and thus quickly lose credibility and legitimacy among the population -- then a different, far more radical revolutionary movement may yet develop. And despite the current lack of a charismatic leader for such a movement, one could quickly emerge out of the torrent of events. In July 1789, Maximilien Robespierre and Georges Danton were unknown lawyers; Jean-Paul Marat an unknown doctor, known to most of his acquaintances as something of a crackpot. Within four years, they had emerged as leaders of the most radical revolution yet seen in history.
So the crucial point to keep in mind, as events in Egypt unfold, is that even in the best-case scenario -- Mubarak falls without further violence and is replaced by a seemingly stable, democratic, secular government -- the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 may still just be getting started. Its crucial moments may lie months, or even years, in the future. It is after Mubarak's fall that American support for Egypt's democratic forces will be most important. And the last thing anyone should do, if Egypt appears to complete a revolution this year that looks like 1688, is to breathe a sigh of relief. At the end of 2011, Mohamed ElBaradei may well be president of a democratic Egypt. But then, at the end of 1789, Louis XVI was still King of France.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/07/why_we_cant_rule_out_an_egyptian_reign_of_terror
A historian's look at revolution and its discontents.
BY DAVID A. BELL | FEBRUARY 7, 2011
There are, of course, many different ways of categorizing historical revolutions. But for the purposes of understanding what is happening in Egypt -- and the challenges it may pose for the United States -- one simple, rough distinction may be especially useful. This is the distinction between revolutions that look more like 1688 and revolutions that look more like 1789. The first date refers to England's "Glorious Revolution," in which the Catholic, would-be absolute monarch James II was overthrown and replaced by the Protestant William and Mary and the English Parliament claimed powerful and enduring new forms of authority. The second is, of course, the date of the French Revolution, which began as an attempt to create a constitutional monarchy but ultimately led to the execution of King Louis XVI, the proclamation of the First French Republic, and the Reign of Terror.
A key feature of 1688-type revolutions is their relative brevity. They may be preceded by lengthy periods of discontent, agitation, protest, and even violence, but the revolutionary moment itself generally lasts for only a few months (as in 1688 itself), or even weeks or days. A regime reaches a point of crisis and falls. The consolidation of a new regime itself may well involve much more turmoil and bloodshed, and eventually entail considerable political and social change -- but these later events are not considered part of the revolution itself, and there is no sense of an ongoing revolutionary process. Men and women do not define themselves as active "revolutionaries" (in 1688, in fact, the English noun and adjective "revolutionary" did not yet exist -- it only came into frequent use after 1789).
Revolutions of the 1789 type are quite different. Their leaders and supporters see regime change as only the beginning of an arduous, ambitious process of political, social, and cultural transformation that may require years, even decades, to complete. For them, the revolution is not a discrete event, but an ongoing cause. They eagerly define themselves as "revolutionaries" and even speak of the "permanent revolution." Revolutions of this type generally have much stronger utopian tendencies than the others and more frequently lead to large-scale violence. They also tend to have ambitions that overflow national boundaries -- the local revolution becomes seen as just part of a process of worldwide emancipation. In some cases, revolutions of this type may be driven from the start by a self-consciously revolutionary party, committed to radical upheaval. In other cases (such as 1789 itself), it may seem to start off as a more limited event, only to change its character as particular groups grow frustrated with the results and the opposition they have encountered, and conclude that far broader, deeper forms of change are called for.
Historically, 1688-type revolutions have been much more common: France in 1830, Germany in 1918, China in 1911-12, and many of the revolutions of 1848 (of which most ended in failure). 1789-type revolutions, by contrast, have been relative historical rarities: above all, 1789 itself, Russia in 1917, China in 1949, Cuba in 1959. They are not, however, necessarily revolutions of the left. One could also include in this category the Nazi seizure of power in Germany (which Hitler termed a "National Revolution") and Iran in 1979. The American Revolution, it could be argued, represents something of a hybrid case -- closer to 1688, yet with important features of the other type, thanks to the long process of consolidation and contestation that followed independence.
In recent years, it seems as if the 1789 type of revolution has lost its appeal for most of the world. During the greatest series of political upheavals in recent times -- the collapse of communism -- most leaders of the victorious reform movements rejected the word "revolution" altogether. The Polish Solidarity leader Jacek Kuron went so far as to write in the summer of 1989, àpropos of the French Revolution's bicentennial, that Poland did not want a revolution because revolutions spill too much blood. Germans refer to the events of 1989 as the "Turning," not the "Revolution." It was, above all, in Czechoslovakia that the word "revolution" came to describe what happened in 1989, but paired with the word "velvet" to underscore the differences from the great revolutions of the past.
Of course, revolutions have hardly disappeared since 1989. But the recent wave of them across the world -- the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the recent events in Tunisia -- all look much more like 1688 than 1789. They have been short, sharp affairs, centered on the fall of a regime. In none of these countries have we seen the development of an extended "revolutionary" process or party. And though some of these revolutions have triggered others, domino-style, as in 1848, they have not themselves been expansionary and proselytizing. As far as I know, there are no Tunisian revolutionaries directing events in Cairo.
The principal exception to the current pattern -- the one great contemporary revolution of the second type to remain an ongoing proposition today -- is Iran. Although it has been more than 30 years since the fall of the Shah, Iran's Islamic Republic is still a revolutionary regime in a way matched by few other states in the world today. Despite its considerable unpopularity with its own people, it has remained committed since 1979 to the enactment of radical, even utopian change, and not just inside its own borders. Organizations such as the Revolutionary Guard retain considerable importance.
Egypt, interestingly enough, experienced a revolution close to the 1789 type in its relatively recent history. The so-called Revolution of 1952 that overthrew the country's monarchy and brought Gamal Abdel Nasser to power ultimately involved a great deal more than regime change. Nasser had broad ambitions both for remaking Egyptian society and for taking his revolutionary movement beyond Egypt's own borders (most strikingly, in the creation of the short-lived United Arab Republic). Ironically, Hosni Mubarak spent much of his military career in the service of Nasser's revolutionary regime. But well before Mubarak came to power, following the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt's revolutionary energies had largely dissipated.
The fundamental question being discussed by commentators at present is what shape a new Egyptian revolution might take, if Mubarak's regime falls and the military does not intervene. Will it come to a quick end with the establishment of a new government -- hopefully a democratic one -- or will a much more radical, long-lasting revolutionary process develop? In other words, will things look more like 1688 or 1789? Anxieties focus not on a resurgent Nasserism, of course, but rather on the Muslim Brotherhood and the possibility that Egypt may experience its own Islamic revolution, with unpredictable consequences, not only for the country itself but for the region and the world.
Against these anxieties, many commentators have been pointing to the lack of ingredients, at present, for such a turn of events. Cairo in 2011, they insist, is not Tehran in 1979. They argue that the crowds protesting Mubarak have called above all for democracy and expressed little enthusiasm for an Islamic Republic. They characterize the Muslim Brotherhood, despite its long and radical history, as a relatively ineffective organization that has recently moved in more moderate directions and that lacks a charismatic leader like Ayatollah Khomeini. In short, they are effectively arguing, the signs point to 1688, not to 1789.
This analysis may well be accurate. But the history of revolutions suggests that even if it is, the long-term outlook in Egypt is still a highly unstable one. This is not only because the furious events of the last two weeks are hard to predict, but because revolutions of the 1789 type do not always start out as such. Hardly anyone at the start of the French Revolution could have predicted the demise of the French monarchy and the Reign of Terror. There were no Jacobins present at the fall of the Bastille in 1789, only future Jacobins. France's turn to radicalism took place after the Bastille had been taken, within the revolutionary process itself -- between 1789 and 1793. Similarly, Russia's February Revolution of 1917 initially looked to most observers like 1688: a short, sharp crisis that led to the fall of a monarch, and the quick foundation of a constitutional regime. While Bolsheviks were already present, few observers foresaw the October Revolution that would bring Lenin to power.
Egypt probably does not face the prospect of an Islamic Revolution in the next few months. But if Mubarak falls and is replaced by a weak, unstable series of governments that cannot restore order or deliver serious social and economic reforms -- and thus quickly lose credibility and legitimacy among the population -- then a different, far more radical revolutionary movement may yet develop. And despite the current lack of a charismatic leader for such a movement, one could quickly emerge out of the torrent of events. In July 1789, Maximilien Robespierre and Georges Danton were unknown lawyers; Jean-Paul Marat an unknown doctor, known to most of his acquaintances as something of a crackpot. Within four years, they had emerged as leaders of the most radical revolution yet seen in history.
So the crucial point to keep in mind, as events in Egypt unfold, is that even in the best-case scenario -- Mubarak falls without further violence and is replaced by a seemingly stable, democratic, secular government -- the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 may still just be getting started. Its crucial moments may lie months, or even years, in the future. It is after Mubarak's fall that American support for Egypt's democratic forces will be most important. And the last thing anyone should do, if Egypt appears to complete a revolution this year that looks like 1688, is to breathe a sigh of relief. At the end of 2011, Mohamed ElBaradei may well be president of a democratic Egypt. But then, at the end of 1789, Louis XVI was still King of France.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/07/why_we_cant_rule_out_an_egyptian_reign_of_terror
Egypt Uprising
After a year of keeping the weblong inactive, now the Egyptian Revolution has inspired me to start writing. Today I was looking at New York Times. In the Room for Debate, I found these remarks interesting.
Egypt Is Not Iran
February 7, 2011
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Behind the Obama administration’s concern over legalism, many current and former officials worry that any withdrawal of support for Egyptian President Mubarak will reverberate through the region much as did President Carter’s abandonment of the Shah of Iran.
A legalistic U.S. approach is no way to promote democratic change.
The two situations are not analogous, however. Egypt has been an ally in name only. When Vice President Cheney called Mubarak a good friend and a U.S. ally, it is telling that his example of Mubarak’s friendship — Egyptian assistance during the liberation of Kuwait — is two decades old. He omitted that Mubarak held out for $14 billion in debt forgiveness before he chose sides.
As for the shah, Iran had been a loyal ally during the cold war when the stakes were higher. While the shah’s fall harmed American national security interests, what occurred next compounded the damage: Desperate to ingratiate himself with revolutionary students, President Carter was willing to sacrifice the shah’s life. He not only sought to force the shah to leave American soil for Panama, but he quietly encouraged Panamanian authorities to send the shah back to Iran before the deposed monarch could travel on to Egypt. Thankfully, they did not. The problem with Carter’s approach was not the shah’s fall, but White House dithering in its aftermath.
So long as Mubarak remains in power, the most radical elements will use his presence as an irritant against which to rally. If Obama and Secretary Clinton try to take a legalistic approach now, they will alienate the protesters. After all, Mubarak’s behavior was little grounded in Egyptian constitutionalism. Instead they should be proactive: They should support establishment of a technocratic transitional government, use their soapbox to help it make the necessary legal changes to ensure a smooth election according to a set time line, and then welcome Egypt’s new democratic order.
Cautionary Lessons from Iran and Lebanon
Updated February 7, 2011, 06:44 PMDavid Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy project on the Middle East Peace Process. He is the co-author with Dennis Ross of “Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East” and the author of "Imagining a Border."
President Obama is walking a tightrope: On the one hand, he aims to support American democratic values in non-democratic states. On the other hand, he and his advisers must realize that democratic revolutions in the Middle East have all too often been subverted by groups that use liberal means to reach illiberal ends.
Contemporary history teaches us to be cautious when examining the intersection of Islamic parties and revolutions.
The Islamists have demonstrated that they are potent not because they are a majority, but because they are a determined and disciplined minority.
In 1979, people of all political inclinations took to the streets in massive demonstrations to oust the Shah from Tehran. Liberals, trade unionists, and Communists joined hands with Islamists. Yet, it was not long before the Islamist-dominated Iranian parliament impeached the new moderate Iranian president Bani Sadr and the Revolutionary Guards seized his office. In the years that followed, Islamists proceeded to discard civil liberties, including imprisoning the masses who protested the sham elections of June 2009.
In 2005, the world celebrated the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon. It is widely believed that Hezbollah was behind the political assassination of beloved former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, which triggered the uprising.
In May 2008, its militia coerced the Druze — a key pillar of the Cedar Revolution — to rescind their support for Saad Hariri. Finally, Hezbollah toppled the Lebanese government last month in opposition to the international tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri’s assassination.
Likewise, when people say that the U.S. need not worry about the Egypt ‘s Muslim Brotherhood because they are supported by less than 30 percent of the public, they miss the point. The Islamists have demonstrated that they are potent not because they are a majority, but because they are a determined and disciplined minority.
They do not play by democratic rules. Both in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas, they created their own Iran-backed independent militias that exploit the fragility of the state. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accused Hamas, which was in a power sharing government with Abbas, of a coup when it expelled the authority ’s security forces from Gaza in June 2007.
We cannot be certain whether the Muslim Brotherhood will follow these models. (Saying you are against violence as the Brotherhood says when they have the Egyptian security state on top of them does not count for much.) Given the complexity of the issue, the U.S. would do well to couple its support for democratic values with quiet support for Egyptian military efforts to reach out to assorted democratic forces in the opposition. Let those Egyptian forces negotiate a plan for constitutional change that nobody can charge is “made in the U.S.A .”
Stop Fixating on Mubarak
Updated February 7, 2011, 11:39 PM
Lydia Khalil is a board member of the Project on Middle East Democracy and a non-resident fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Last week, Robert Gibbs was asked to clarify what President Obama meant when he said "an orderly transition must begin now." "Now means yesterday," Gibbs replied. Fast forward a few days and the administration's special emissary to Egypt, Frank Wisner, says, "President Mubarak's role remains extremely critical in the days ahead."
The U.S. has a habit of reducing a complicated, dynamic situation to the actions and fate of one strongman.
The Obama administration's mixed messaging is not only reflective of the uncertainty of the situation as both Egypt and Washington grapple with what's next, but it is symptomatic of the United States' long standing foreign policy contradictions in the Middle East. It reflects the unsavory habit of the U.S. foreign policy establishment to focus on the short term rather than the long term and to reduce a complicated, dynamic situation to the actions and fate of one strongman.
By fixating on the terms of Mubarak's departure, the Obama administration is missing the forest for the trees. Though the U.S. has come out in support of political reform and a democratic transition, it is still framing the debate in terms of the fate of one person. Egypt's transition to democracy is about much more than whether Mubarak stays on until September or leaves right away. Regardless of whether the United States pushes for his ouster immediately or argues that a transition period is needed, it is not addressing the fundamental concerns of the Egyptian opposition and risks alienating its future partners.
The administration needs to understand what is behind the protesters call for Mubarak's ouster. The calls for Mubarak's immediate removal are fundamentally an emotive response to the suffering and stagnation that most Egyptians experienced under his regime. There is also fear that the longer Mubarak is allowed to stay, the greater the chances he will try to reverse the momentum against him.
The protesters don't want to replace Mubarak with another one of his cronies or return to military rule. At the same time, Egyptians don't want chaos and are wary of the consequences of rapid change. They want responsive governmental institutions, a decent education for their children, job opportunities, and the creation of an Egyptian society that restores dignity and allows for meaningful participation.
The Obama administration needs to concentrate on these fundamental demands, do what it can to bolster the secular opposition and assist in initiating institutional and constitutional reform. It must shift the conversation away from Mubarak's immediate future to what it plans to do to help Egypt become a stable and representative government responsive to the needs of its people.
Egypt Is Not Iran
February 7, 2011
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Behind the Obama administration’s concern over legalism, many current and former officials worry that any withdrawal of support for Egyptian President Mubarak will reverberate through the region much as did President Carter’s abandonment of the Shah of Iran.
A legalistic U.S. approach is no way to promote democratic change.
The two situations are not analogous, however. Egypt has been an ally in name only. When Vice President Cheney called Mubarak a good friend and a U.S. ally, it is telling that his example of Mubarak’s friendship — Egyptian assistance during the liberation of Kuwait — is two decades old. He omitted that Mubarak held out for $14 billion in debt forgiveness before he chose sides.
As for the shah, Iran had been a loyal ally during the cold war when the stakes were higher. While the shah’s fall harmed American national security interests, what occurred next compounded the damage: Desperate to ingratiate himself with revolutionary students, President Carter was willing to sacrifice the shah’s life. He not only sought to force the shah to leave American soil for Panama, but he quietly encouraged Panamanian authorities to send the shah back to Iran before the deposed monarch could travel on to Egypt. Thankfully, they did not. The problem with Carter’s approach was not the shah’s fall, but White House dithering in its aftermath.
So long as Mubarak remains in power, the most radical elements will use his presence as an irritant against which to rally. If Obama and Secretary Clinton try to take a legalistic approach now, they will alienate the protesters. After all, Mubarak’s behavior was little grounded in Egyptian constitutionalism. Instead they should be proactive: They should support establishment of a technocratic transitional government, use their soapbox to help it make the necessary legal changes to ensure a smooth election according to a set time line, and then welcome Egypt’s new democratic order.
Cautionary Lessons from Iran and Lebanon
Updated February 7, 2011, 06:44 PMDavid Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy project on the Middle East Peace Process. He is the co-author with Dennis Ross of “Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East” and the author of "Imagining a Border."
President Obama is walking a tightrope: On the one hand, he aims to support American democratic values in non-democratic states. On the other hand, he and his advisers must realize that democratic revolutions in the Middle East have all too often been subverted by groups that use liberal means to reach illiberal ends.
Contemporary history teaches us to be cautious when examining the intersection of Islamic parties and revolutions.
The Islamists have demonstrated that they are potent not because they are a majority, but because they are a determined and disciplined minority.
In 1979, people of all political inclinations took to the streets in massive demonstrations to oust the Shah from Tehran. Liberals, trade unionists, and Communists joined hands with Islamists. Yet, it was not long before the Islamist-dominated Iranian parliament impeached the new moderate Iranian president Bani Sadr and the Revolutionary Guards seized his office. In the years that followed, Islamists proceeded to discard civil liberties, including imprisoning the masses who protested the sham elections of June 2009.
In 2005, the world celebrated the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon. It is widely believed that Hezbollah was behind the political assassination of beloved former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, which triggered the uprising.
In May 2008, its militia coerced the Druze — a key pillar of the Cedar Revolution — to rescind their support for Saad Hariri. Finally, Hezbollah toppled the Lebanese government last month in opposition to the international tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri’s assassination.
Likewise, when people say that the U.S. need not worry about the Egypt ‘s Muslim Brotherhood because they are supported by less than 30 percent of the public, they miss the point. The Islamists have demonstrated that they are potent not because they are a majority, but because they are a determined and disciplined minority.
They do not play by democratic rules. Both in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas, they created their own Iran-backed independent militias that exploit the fragility of the state. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accused Hamas, which was in a power sharing government with Abbas, of a coup when it expelled the authority ’s security forces from Gaza in June 2007.
We cannot be certain whether the Muslim Brotherhood will follow these models. (Saying you are against violence as the Brotherhood says when they have the Egyptian security state on top of them does not count for much.) Given the complexity of the issue, the U.S. would do well to couple its support for democratic values with quiet support for Egyptian military efforts to reach out to assorted democratic forces in the opposition. Let those Egyptian forces negotiate a plan for constitutional change that nobody can charge is “made in the U.S.A .”
Stop Fixating on Mubarak
Updated February 7, 2011, 11:39 PM
Lydia Khalil is a board member of the Project on Middle East Democracy and a non-resident fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Last week, Robert Gibbs was asked to clarify what President Obama meant when he said "an orderly transition must begin now." "Now means yesterday," Gibbs replied. Fast forward a few days and the administration's special emissary to Egypt, Frank Wisner, says, "President Mubarak's role remains extremely critical in the days ahead."
The U.S. has a habit of reducing a complicated, dynamic situation to the actions and fate of one strongman.
The Obama administration's mixed messaging is not only reflective of the uncertainty of the situation as both Egypt and Washington grapple with what's next, but it is symptomatic of the United States' long standing foreign policy contradictions in the Middle East. It reflects the unsavory habit of the U.S. foreign policy establishment to focus on the short term rather than the long term and to reduce a complicated, dynamic situation to the actions and fate of one strongman.
By fixating on the terms of Mubarak's departure, the Obama administration is missing the forest for the trees. Though the U.S. has come out in support of political reform and a democratic transition, it is still framing the debate in terms of the fate of one person. Egypt's transition to democracy is about much more than whether Mubarak stays on until September or leaves right away. Regardless of whether the United States pushes for his ouster immediately or argues that a transition period is needed, it is not addressing the fundamental concerns of the Egyptian opposition and risks alienating its future partners.
The administration needs to understand what is behind the protesters call for Mubarak's ouster. The calls for Mubarak's immediate removal are fundamentally an emotive response to the suffering and stagnation that most Egyptians experienced under his regime. There is also fear that the longer Mubarak is allowed to stay, the greater the chances he will try to reverse the momentum against him.
The protesters don't want to replace Mubarak with another one of his cronies or return to military rule. At the same time, Egyptians don't want chaos and are wary of the consequences of rapid change. They want responsive governmental institutions, a decent education for their children, job opportunities, and the creation of an Egyptian society that restores dignity and allows for meaningful participation.
The Obama administration needs to concentrate on these fundamental demands, do what it can to bolster the secular opposition and assist in initiating institutional and constitutional reform. It must shift the conversation away from Mubarak's immediate future to what it plans to do to help Egypt become a stable and representative government responsive to the needs of its people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
