Torturing Your Way To Freedom

Of course, if this view gains any traction, the neocons and defenders of George W. Bush's Presidential legacy will let us know this was all part of their double-secret plan to bring real democracy and human rights to the Middle East.

.

Republican Voters on TV

In the comments section of a previous post, Dante wondered why I lump Glenn Beck in with the rest of the allegedly-conservative "right-wingers," such as Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe because these are the kinds of folks who explicitly stand with Beck? (HT: Daily Dish)

Now I wonder why I didn't lump Beck in with right-wingery of Iowa Republican Caucus-goers.



Here's what the President says that starts this discussion:

The President: "It is important to say that our only two options are not the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed Egyptian people" (though O'Reilly interrupts him during the last part).

O'Reilly (interrupting): "But you don't want the Muslim Brotherhood?"

The President: "What I want is a representative government in Egypt."

Here is where I wonder where any truly conservative individual, outside the general red vs. blue team politics of a situation, will have any problem with this. Right now, in Egypt, we don't have many options. The President of the United States can't tell the demonstrators in Tahrir Square to go home. He can't demand that citizens of Egypt not participate in self-government if they don't reflect our interests.

The President can express the opinions and interests of the United States to whatever government is currently sovereign in Egypt; he can use his influence with the current regime to decrease violent repression in the hope that the demonstrations do not turn anti-American; he can make sure the State Department is looking after US interests, and those of our allies, in that country while these demonstrations continue - which are all things he is doing.

Criticisms of the President, from a conservative standpoint, would wonder if there was anything more that could have been done to use US influence earlier, to move Egypt to a more representative government before people went into the streets in demonstrations that threatened stability. Another could look forward to other autocratic client-states of the US, and how we should begin using our influence there to promote democracy without the same instability (and the anti-American sentiment that might come with it) from happening elsewhere.

You'd think the responses of a real conservative would reflect something like that. I've read about a few, and I've posted a few. I sure hope conservatives who read this will add a few truly conservative thoughts to the Egypt situation.

But what we see in this video is the exact opposite. The responses from the "conservative" Republicans read like a litany of all that has been said by Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, Levin and O'Reilly over these last two years. Let's see how fast this "policy" conversation goes off the rails.

1. He doesn't have a grasp on how serious this could be, doesn't know what the details are, doesn't know what we want or what we need as a country.
2. Doesn't understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy
3. No coherent policy/Doesn't know what he's doing.
4. Barack Obama is a Muslim, and that's guiding his policies.

That didn't take long at all. As a matter of fact, on video, that took exactly 36 seconds. Once that happens, you can see the affirmation of that thought process in the assembly. And before anyone says anything about this being a "liberal media setup," this was on Hannity.

The majority of individuals gathered for this panel think the President of the United States is a Muslim, that being Muslim is a problem, that the interests of Muslims run counter to that of the United States as a matter of foreign policy, and specifically as it relates to the Egyptian people demonstrating against a tyrant.

They also think they will be chided by "the media" for these beliefs. Not that some of these beliefs might be wrong, not that some of these beliefs may be erroneously held, but that they may be complained about by the media. This is what complete epistemological closure looks like: reality has no bearing here, and is seen as a conspiratorial boogeyman.

Who does that sound like?

Now, to be fair, there are some real conservatives who are surprised by this reaction on the part of Republican voters, or do not take this belief on the part of Republican voters seriously. Conor Friedersdorf explains this. On the other hand, I'm not surprised at all. If all people hear from their choice of "populist" media personalities is that the President is a Muslim, that Muslims are bad, and no one but "teh ebil liberals and medai" refute any of those ascertations, what do you think these people are going to think? What did you think they'd say on television?

Let's unpack this.

1. Taking the situation seriously? What we want or need as a country? This country has supported Egyptian autocrats for decades. This runs right up against the later comments in the video that claim President Obama:

• Feels that the United States is to blame, and doesn't respect all the "good" the United States does in the world.
• Will lead us down a "path of destruction," like Neville Chamberlain, through appeasement.
• Always seems caught unaware in the event of a crisis.

What our country "wants" is stability and peace so that our goods and capital can flow to and from foreign markets, and we can access the natural resources we need and new markets for our goods. What our country claims to promote around the world is the dignity of human liberty, individual freedom and human rights. What our country actually does is attempt to reconcile those two things, and the result ain't always pretty.

But don't tell these people. They aren't real conservatives, because real conservatives would understand that foreign policy is an ugly mixture of realpolitik and idealism. For these people, this isn't a complicated issue - the United States does only good around the world, and anyone who thinks we do anything bad hates and blames the United States, isn't a patriotic American and is most likely a liberal (the most intolerant religion).

If our country supports autocrats and tyrants it is because their people can't be trusted with representative or democratic government and hate the United States because of Marxism or Sharia. After all, just look at what happened in Cuba, Iran, Lebanon, the West Bank and Iraq! Why, as soon as those people got out from under their dictators, they started hating the United States for no reason whatsoever. All they do is sit around hating the USA, and being ungrateful for all the wonderful things we did for them under Batista, the Shah, the Israeli occupation or by bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. All these intolerant liberals want to do is encourage that sort of behavior because they hate America.

As far as being prepared for unexpected crises, that's why they're called crises. You can try and be prepared all you want, but sometimes you're not going to be in control of a situation. Real conservatives would realize that.

2. Doesn't understand the difference between Republic and Democracy? Both are governments where the people hold real elections and are not ruled by autocrats.

3. No coherent policy, doesn't know what he's doing? Hell, I told you that earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for simplicity's sake.

The President can express the opinions and interests of the United States to whatever government is currently sovereign in Egypt; he can use his influence with the current regime to decrease violent repression in the hope that the demonstrations do not turn anti-American; he can make sure the State Department is looking after US interests, and those of our allies, in that country while these demonstrations continue - which are all things he is doing.

I'm quite unclear as to what else our President should or is able to be doing at this time from a policy standpoint. Perhaps one of my conservative readers can clue me in on this as well.

From what I read and hear from the right-wing, however, the basic idea appears as "be outraged" and "blame Obama" and "no, you don't need actual reasons."

And, of course,

4. President Barack Obama is a Muslim. Which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about these people Fox News and Sean Hannity put on television to talk about politics. It tells you everything you need to know about what these people think of Barack Obama, Muslims, liberalism, politics and religion all in one. It tells you instantly what these people really think about the United States of America and our laws, our policies and our place in the world. And if I keep hearing Republican voters talk about this, I'm going to start ascribing this erroneous belief to the whole of the GOP and the Tea Party.

Because this is exactly the reason I do not identify with mainstream Republican voters. That is exactly why I do not trust many Republican elected officials. Put the "R" after someone's name on a ballot, and these people are who I think of. I try to rise above that, and think instead of the people I know who do not act like this, but the reaction has become a gut one at this point.

This is not conservatism. Conservatism focuses on policy, regardless of religion. What you see here is right-wingery, hackery and demagougery. That's what this is.

.

"Sane People Will Stop Paying Attention"

We can only hope they will. I'm glad I'm not the only individual who noticed that Glenn Beck and the rest of the right-wingers have upped the ante on shark jumping with the Egyptian Revolution (And Why Obama Is To Blame).

I'm literally floored that these people, who spent months to instigate and cash in on the idea of an American Tea Party "Revolution" against a freely and legally elected American government - that peacefully transferred power after the following election - are lining up to denounce pro-democratic, reform-minded Egyptians who are actually facing the batons, water cannons, tear gas, and blades of a tyrant.

Though I've heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and O'Reilly - not to mention the blogosphere - tirelessly one-upping one another in hyperbolic warnings of what will come, and why President Obama is to blame for whatever happens, Glenn Beck - "a college sophmore with a big budget" - wins this one going away.

To cut to the chase, a new caliphate will emerge in the Middle East and push further east until China, as Beck puts it, says "Knock it off guys" and takes over India, reaching some way into Pakistan. The caliphate will then push north, which is when it will absorb the UK
...
So there you have it, an "Archduke Ferdinand moment" which will split Europe, the Middle East and Asia into Chinese and radical Islamic zones. In the full Beck, he also introduces Bill Ayers (who Sarah Palin had in mind when she accused Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists"), Hizbullah and Code Pink, a feminist antiwar group. But that's enough for now.

And keep in mind, this is a show that holds a primetime slot on a major "news" network.

(Link HT's to DSB.)

.

The Massacre Begins

I guess Mubarak thinks that he has "compromised" with the Egyptian demonstrators now that he has decided he will not run for "reelection." This is the same guy who - upon facing hundreds of thousands in the streets asking him, personally, to leave office - fired people in his cabinet.

The Egyptian "president" has been trying all week to label these demonstrators as violent: sending plain clothes police and hired thugs to loot and terrorize neighborhoods. He wants the world, and Americans especially, to conflate the anti-Mubarak population with violence and rioting and terrorism. He wants the world to think there is some spontaneous outpouring of support for him to remain "president." Once the confrontations become more pronounced, the Army will then be compelled to violently quell it - and we all know which "side" the crackdown will land the most heavily on. To Egypt's autocrat, it won't matter, "justification" will have been provided in his imaginantion and for the cameras. That's his plan - to do one thing and make us believe his hand was forced. Some Americans are quite happy to oblige him.

Some of us know better than to be fooled.

The same Egyptians who knelt to pray in the face of batons, water hoses and tear gas formed human chains around libraries to keep the looters at bay. They are marching for freedom against a tyrant, one who has demonstrated what tyranny actually looks like on live television. They carry the flags of their own nation, and have stepped up to protect their own neighborhoods against the police state thugs. How can any American think ill of such people, considering our own long history of struggle for the expansion of personal and social liberty?

Especially with our national obsession with blame. There needs to be no debate on this point in this situation.

Because now that his "compromise" has not been accepted, the Egyptian autocrat has sent in his thugs, on horseback and with weapons, into the crowds with the intention of visiting violence on what had been to this point a mostly non-violent demonstration. Blood now runs through the streets. This means that the one man who could have ensured Egypt stepped away from a violent transition of power chose instead confrontation. And for what? So he can continue to be "President" for a few short months.

It will be much more difficult for him to live out his days in "his country" now.

And now we, as Americans, must consider this: a peaceful transition of political power in the Arab world's most populous nation would have been a game changer for our national and strategic security. Never underestimate the importance of any society achieving justice through peaceful means, much less a society such as Egypt, located at the heart of a region troulbed by violent autocrats and governments built of religious fanaticism.

Now, with the violent retribution, we have a higher risk of fanatic religious forces providing the violent counterpunch to the pro-government thugs. Logically extended, Mubarak's actions have now increased the chances that whatever government will follow him in Egypt will be much more anti-American. The window for addressing such concerns is short.

I only hope the platitudes out of Washington that continue to talk of "peaceful and eventual transfer of power" and "urging all sides to refrain from violence" are being matched with audacity of word and action behind the scenes to pressure Mubarak to immediately bring an end to the crackdown, and leave power.

Because his actions, especially those of this morning, have violated the contract we made with him to ensure stability over these last decades. His use is at an end for us, and every drop of blood that falls today increases the chances that whatever government Egypt uses to replace Mubarak will be one unfriendly to the United States.

.

The Egypt Narrative on the American Right

I've long said that the GOP/Tea Party/Right-Wing folks can take any issue, and talk themsleves into being on the right side of an issue and their political opponents into being on the wrong side of the issue, regardless of what the issue actually is.

Though I don't think I've ever seen an example as good as this one. See if you can follow the pick-your-own-right-wing narrative about Egypt:

Stability Good, Obama Bad: Obama isn't doing enough to support Mubarak against these protesters, who will install in Egypt Kenyan-anti-colonial-Marxist-Sharia government at the hands of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. Stupid Cairo speech. Why does this administration hate our allies?

Freedom good, Obama bad: Obama didn't pressure Mubarak enough to liberalize Egypt over the last 30 years, and now these protesters want the sweet promise of freedom George W. Bush offered them by invading Iraq. (Visual.) Why does this administration insist on keeping dictators as allies? Neoconservatism is vindicated, just eight short years later, in a different country, that the USA did not invade. (Though Fox News appears to be confused on this last point.)

How easy is this? If anything bad happens, it is automatically Obama's fault. But if anything good happens, Obama needs to thank George W. Bush, and widely discredited neoconservatives will be proven right about...Iraq. It doesn't matter that either choice completely ignores pesky reality or contradicts the other.

Luckily, there are a few really real conservatives out there who seem to be taking the correct lessons from this. While Limbaugh and Breitbart have to give their cults of personality what they pay for, other thinkers are working it out.

I linked you to one such sample yesterday, and today I link you to Kyle Wingfield at the AJC:

But for the part of Americans, via our government, one lesson is clear. The time for demanding real change and reforms in a country such as Egypt with a regime such as Mubarak’s, into which we have poured tens of billions of dollars, is not when the people have finally taken to the streets and defied the tanks.
...
But this should be a red line: No more aid for undemocratic rulers who aren’t moving their people toward greater liberty.

Glad to see some conservatives on board the "let's not pay dictators to be allies" train, finally. It has taken some time. A long time. A really, really long time.

But, hey, while we're discussing unsavory allies....

.

"History Makes Fools of Us All"

It is good to know that, concerning the events in Egypt, there are a few folks out their with their rational thinking hats on. While it ain't all about us, we play an important role, and that role directly affects our nation. It is time to take a serious and sober look at the real effect our policies and diplomacies have on the world. Because:

It’s quite possible that if Mubarak had not ruled Egypt as a dictator for the last 30 years, the World Trade Center would still be standing.

Ouch. (HT: The Daily Dish.)

Good thing this guy is conservative, because if he were a liberal, he'd be accused of riding on the "hate-America-and-blame-us-for-everything" train. (I mean, hell, some individuals are already linking the protests to the onward march of Kenyan-anti-colonial-Sharia-Marxist-fascism, hating America can't be far behind.)

It is a delicate subject, after all. Just look at the confusion many Americans seem to be feeling, since they are unsure which "side" to support in Egypt. Who is doing what, how does America play a part in all this?

The last is, of course, the most complicated due to our cultural fear of introspection. No one wants to remember the US role in Cuba's history; or Iran's; or Iraq's; or Afganistan's or any of those places now that another international client of our tax-dollars is facing another popular revolt. We just like to have bad guys and good guys, and shame on History if it can't be more cut-and-dry than that.

Hell, this thing should be wrapped by now anyway, the 15 minutes of fame over, allowing our national narrative to declare us the liberator/conquerer/victims of something so we can compartmentalize it to the dustbin of national memory of vague recollection of grainy news footage and future "remember when" specials, and get back to the new season of American Idol.

Pesky reality.

.

One Man

I'll write more about the international stuff once we see what happens. History is being written right now, maybe in a way we haven't seen since 1989. While it unfolds, and you watch the passions of people yearning to be free struggle against the yoke of those who would curtail their liberty, ask yourself what effect can one man have on the world?

For this is what the blood of patriots and of tyrants looks like in real time. Why must the cost always be so high?

Will this just be another false dawn, forcing the United States again into the realm of realpolitik to protect our interests? Or we be able to come down on the side of true freedom as our moral compass demands? It is time we start looking very deeply at our own motivations, and perhaps even our own complicity in keeping things the way that they are.

For we will not decide the outcome here. Perhaps that is for the best.

And, yes, I choose my words carefully. The very fabric of my being as an American and a Southerner knows the meaning when I see images of a people on a bridge, praying in the face water cannons, tear gas and police batons.

I don't need to think too long to realize where I've seen that before.

.

The Telling Response

After the shooting in Tuscon, we've been treated to yet another episode of American political culture tearing itself apart. Some men just want to see the world burn, and this guy is getting exactly what he wants.

Compare that, if you will, to Egypt's response to their latest round of terrorism.

.