Egyptian Protests: Where do you stand?

[RobinFinderson]

I would make this a poll if I felt confident that I could figure out a decent range of possible views, but I'm not sure I understand the whole situation. But here here are my simplistic alternatives:

A. Support Mubarak: He may be a dictator, but he is OUR dictator, and he plays nice with Israel. The known quantity of the Mubarak regime is preferable to the unknown outcome of a democratic election in a country that was the home to Ayman Al-Zawahiri and the Muslim Brotherhood.

B. Support Democracy: This is a time to stand by one of America's guiding principles -- that the legitimacy of governments flows from the democratic support of the people.


Ross Douthat has a nice op-ed today. Here is a quote from the end of his piece:

But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.

Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic. History has its upward arcs, but most crises require weighing unknowns against unknowns, and choosing between competing evils.

The only comfort, as we watch Egyptians struggle for their country’s future, is that some choices aren’t America’s to make.

[pellegrino]

I think they should privatize the state department. there's clearly an inefficiency In Clinton's staff that only the market can work out.

[oxcoug]

I would make this a poll if I felt confident that I could figure out a decent range of possible views, but I'm not sure I understand the whole situation. But here here are my simplistic alternatives:

A. Support Mubarak: He may be a dictator, but he is OUR dictator, and he plays nice with Israel. The known quantity of the Mubarak regime is preferable to the unknown outcome of a democratic election in a country that was the home to Ayman Al-Zawahiri and the Muslim Brotherhood.

B. Support Democracy: This is a time to stand by one of America's guiding principles -- that the legitimacy of governments flows from the democratic support of the people.


Ross Douthat has a nice op-ed today. Here is a quote from the end of his piece:

Good quote from Douthat.

My view is this: Democracy is a misunderstood fetish of the western mind. Democracy as we know it and love it is something that has never taken root and flourished until two other forces are entrenched: constitutionalism and liberalism.

Neither the UK or the US was truly "democratic" until well into the 20th century. But they were both liberal (small 'l' - as in pluralistic, protected mechanisms for dissent and as in politically dynamic) and constitutional - i.e. the rule of law and an independent judiciary were well established. The final factor, which tends to flow from liberalism, is a robust civil society.

All three of those forces have been conspicuously lacking almost everywhere that we've attempted democratic experiments. Historically some, like Germany, have had a history of constitutionalism and liberalism which was rooted enough to make its post-WW II transition to democracy manageable. But without that history, democracy is, in my view, both overrated and a foolhardy project.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm in the "B" camp. The U.S. is riding an aging horse in Mubarak, and this movement doesn't seem to be fueled by radical Islam or anti-Americanism.

[Jacob]

C. Stand by freedom, not democracy.

I agree with Ox re: liberalism. If Egyptian democracy would lead to a more liberal or free government/state, I'd support it. Who know's if it will?

Ox: how can you claim that the US was not truly democratic until well into the 20th century? Is this merely because the franchise was not extended to all people, or because there was not direct election of senators? Are you saying that a republic is not truly democratic? I'd suggest that our was a democracy even prior to the constitution. Certainly at the state level, where most government power was held during the early stages of our nation.

[SCcoug]

Here are a few feasible scenarios.

It is a tricky situation but I think the US should back democracy. The demographic makeup of the middle east leans toward a young population. Backing an aging unpopular regime for short term reasons may poison the well so to speak for the rising generation. Perhaps siding with the protesters could score some points. I realize the US isn't popular there now but if Egypt could transition into a Turkey style democracy I think that would end up better for the US in the long run than continuing to back an unpopular "president".

[oxcoug]

C. Stand by freedom, not democracy.

I agree with Ox re: liberalism. If Egyptian democracy would lead to a more liberal or free government/state, I'd support it. Who know's if it will?

Ox: how can you claim that the US was not truly democratic until well into the 20th century? Is this merely because the franchise was not extended to all people, or because there was not direct election of senators? Are you saying that a republic is not truly democratic? I'd suggest that our was a democracy even prior to the constitution. Certainly at the state level, where most government power was held during the early stages of our nation.

Just referring to the fact that women couldn't vote until what - 1919?

And there was still serious suppression of full voting rights for blacks in the south well into the mid 20th century.

But we had deeply entrenched legal institutions, civil society and traditions of liberalism.

[byu71]

I don't have any idea what should be done. I hope the people who can influence what is going to happen have great insight.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm for democracy. Governments with power not rooted in the will of the people are illegitimate. We may as well be dealing with pirates when we make deals with dictators. The convenience of working with Mubarak has been enjoyed at the expense of the Egyptian people, and worse, for decades we have used Egyptian prisons to outsource torture and indefinite detentions without trial.

The US maintains much of its involvement in the ME through cozy relationships with dictators, even while we use the pretense of 'democracy' to justify our incursion into Iraq. The situation in Egypt exposes this duplicity. I think it is time to take a stand for democratic principles.

[Jacob]

The US maintains much of its involvement in the ME through cozy relationships with dictators, even while we use the pretense of 'democracy' to justify our incursion into Iraq.

While I'm not a huge fan of our "incursion into Iraq," I'd think that our post-incursion actions re: our commitment to a free and democratic Iraq has moved us beyond the point of accusations of being motivated by a mere "pretense of democracy."

[byu71]

The convenience of working with Mubarak has been enjoyed at the expense of the Egyptian people, and worse, for decades we have used Egyptian prisons to outsource torture and indefinite detentions without trial.

The US maintains much of its involvement in the ME through cozy relationships with dictators, even while we use the pretense of 'democracy' to justify our incursion into Iraq. The situation in Egypt exposes this duplicity. I think it is time to take a stand for democratic principles.

I wish things were as simplistic as you often view them.

[Katy Lied]

I'm in the "B" camp. The U.S. is riding an aging horse in Mubarak, and this movement doesn't seem to be fueled by radical Islam or anti-Americanism.

This is my viewpoint too.

[RobinFinderson]

I wish things were as simplistic as you often view them.

Do what is right, let the consequences follow.

[Uncle Ted]

Egypt seems like yet another example of the bad foreign policy of giving money (about $2B/yr in Egypt's case) to a dictator just because he happens to play nice with the United States.

The American Dilemma in Egypt

Should the people of a given country be allowed to vote in free and fair elections, even if the people they elect are fundamentally hostile to the United States?

That is the great question which is facing America today, as protests have toppled the leader of Tunisia and now threaten the presidency of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

Almost everybody agrees that Mr. Mubarak is a dictator who does not respect human rights or promote democracy. He is a typical example of the authoritarian leader, whose values are fundamentally at odds with those of the United States. It is quite conceivable that the current protests will end in bloodshed, with the military firing upon civilians in a Bloody Sunday-style massacre.

In a perfect world, a peaceful revolution would topple Mr. Mubarak and install a new democratic government. Said government would be moderate, friendly to the West, and firmly against Islamic extremism.

Unfortunately, the truth is that Mr. Mubarak’s strongest political opponents are the Muslim Brotherhood, a proudly Islamist movement with broad popular support. If the protests in Egypt succeed in toppling the dictator, the most likely situation is the formation (through free and fair elections) of an Islamist government hostile to the United States.

Therein lies America’s dilemma – betray its ideals and support an “ally,” or keep its ideals and allow an anti-American government to take power.

Historically, the United States has chosen the former option. During the Cold War, dictators were always perceived as better than popularly elected Communist governments. Today replace Communism with Islamism, and one gets the same idea.

Yet think about this: why do the people of Egypt so dislike the United States? Why would they most likely elect, if given a choice, an anti-American government?

The answer, of course, is because the United States keeps on supporting dictators like Mr. Mubarak! In fact, that is why Osama bin Laden attacked the United States – because it continues allying with dictators in the Middle East, in direct contradiction of its democratic values.

Why does the United States support these dictators? Because it knows free democratic elections will result in anti-American governments. Why would elections result in anti-American governments? Because the United States keeps on supporting dictators who oppress the people. And on and on the cycle goes.

The problem is that dictators may not stay in power forever. A U.S.-supported dictator, if unpopular enough, may fall. Iran and Vietnam are just two examples in which this happened. Today Iran is a determined foe of the United States. On the other hand, the communist government in Vietnam is quite friendly to America.

In the short term supporting friendly dictators might benefit American interests. In the long run, however, supporting those who oppress their people probably does more harm than good to America – and more importantly, to the cause of freedom and democracy.

Given all the money we have given to Mr. Mubarak and photos like the following how could a new Egyptian government not help but be anti-american.



Maybe the United States should pull all aid to Mubarak and strongly suggest that the dictator step down immediately. That might help the new government from being too anti-american.

[creekster]

I'm in the "B" camp. The U.S. is riding an aging horse in Mubarak, and this movement doesn't seem to be fueled by radical Islam or anti-Americanism.

It is a difficult transition. We cant simply jump up and abandon Mubarak while announcing ourt support for this headless movement that has no real direction. We are in bed with a number of authoriotarian regimes and this would undermine our credibility in a very dramatic way in that area. The Saudis, for example, would be horrified if we did this.

OTOH, Mubarak is toast and the revolt is a vaccuum at the top, which the Bortherhood and other radicals are trying to fill. It ouwld be good to assert our leadership but with which gtoup? It is hard to pick a horse right now.

I think Obama/Clinton are doing about the best they can right now. Clinton's statement referring to a transiition is about as far as we can probabyl go.

Personally I hope we see greater freedom in the country that allows great income and better distribution of wealth earning opportunities. But it will be hard to do.