Beware the Neocon Advocacy of Egyptian Democracy
It is essential to take William (“Bill”) Kristol seriously. He has been so utterly wrong on so many things (America’s ability to run the world, NATO, Turkey, the Balkans, Chechnya, Iraq, Sarah Palin, Russia, Iran, Georgia, John McCain, missile defense . . . ) that his pronouncements merit respect. Being consistently wrong—in the fleeting guise of things measurably empirical, that is—they contain a deeper wisdom. Kristol’s “analysis” is the equivalent of Tetzel’s dropping penny: The form may seem inane, but the message reverberates in faraway places.
Bill Kristol matters, so please bear with me and endure the longest quote I’ve ever copied to these pages over the past decade, because a mere hyperlink won’t do:
[H]ysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.
Nor is it a sign of health when other American conservatives are so fearful of a popular awakening that they side with the dictator against the democrats. Rather, it’s a sign of fearfulness unworthy of Americans, of short-sightedness uncharacteristic of conservatives, of excuse-making for thuggery unworthy of the American conservative tradition…
The idea that democracy produces radical Islam is false: Whether in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories, or Egypt, it is the dictatorships that have promoted and abetted Islamic radicalism . . . Nor is it in any way “realist” to suggest that backing Mubarak during this crisis would promote “stability.” To the contrary: The situation is growing more unstable because of Mubarak’s unwillingness to abdicate. Helping him cling to power now would only pour fuel on the revolutionary fire, and push the Egyptian people in a more anti-American direction . . .
[O]ne of the most hopeful aspects of the current conservative revival is its reclamation of the American constitutionalist tradition. That tradition is anchored even beyond the Constitution, of course, in the Declaration of Independence. And that document, let’s not forget, proclaims that, “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” An American conservatism that looks back to 1776 cannot turn its back on the Egyptian people. We should wish them well—and we should work to help them achieve as good an outcome as possible . . . American conservatives should remember our commitment, in the words of Federalist 39, to “that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”
Egypt turns out to have its votaries of freedom. The Egyptian people want to exercise their capacity for self-government. American conservatives, heirs to our own bold and far-sighted revolutionaries, should help them.
I do not know where to start, so I won’t: All I have to say in response to this is contained in my earlier writings, and plagiarizing oneself is no compliment to oneself.
And yet . . . Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the magnitude of Kristol’s idiocy is so breathtaking that it cannot be accidental. There are 12 to 15 red flags one could grab and exploit for all their rhetorical, logical, historical, legal, and moral worth.
I prefer to leave the parsing to our on the whole astute and intelligent online commentators. Bill Kristol matters. Treat him like one of Will Shortz’s Sunday morning mind games. Enjoy!
Entries(RSS)
"He has been so utterly wrong on so many things (America’s ability to run the world, NATO, Turkey, the Balkans, Chechnya, Iraq, Sarah Palin, Russia, Iran, Georgia, John McCain, missile defense . . . ) that his pronouncements merit respect."
This gives me great hope when I see such neo-con gaggles of goof balls lead by men like Little Bill Kristol not only survive but thrive in today's conservative waters. If these fellows can continue to gather a crowd based on nothing but moods of unworthiness and Clintonian assertions of "we can do better", surely to God a serious publication like Chronicles, with authentic writers and editors, can survive the kiddy siege for years to come. Or as David Frum once put it, describing his own unease among the old guard, "they said they were delighted to see the town whores come to church — even to sing in the choir — but not to lead the service."
Well fellows, if the shoe fits ...
The quote Dr Trifkovic has chosen is indeed worthy of awe. There are few individuals who could, as Mr. Kristol has done here, so succinctly blend historical ignorance, imperialistic assumptions, presumptive illusions and, dare I say, pablum - pumping prose into a synergistic brew sure to intoxicate fellow neo-cons and the sheep stumbling behind them.
Oh and throw in the rodent's panic and core opportunism, too. The neo-con rat is an extraordinary swimmer. Off a sinking ship and looking for a new ride.
In response to Kristol's third paragraph:
Just as the ancient Pyramid texts hold no relevance to modern American religious tradition, so too, the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, etc., have no relevance to modern Egyptian politics. They have nothing to say about a once-Christian civilisation turned Moslem cesspool. Invoking them as authoritative with regard to Egypt is like invoking the Maya heiroglyphic texts as authorities when discussing modern Russian geopolitics. Only a fool would do that.
In other words, it's just so much stupid rambling, showing a total lack of comprehension of the subject he wishes to appear to be an expert on. He may as well shoot up with LSD and babble incoherently in a mental ward somewhere.
Furthermore, it's not 1989 all over again in Egypt. Egypt is not East Germany, or even Ceausescu's Romania.
American universalism, on display here in Kristol's silly words, needs to die a hideous death, along with the neo-con nonsense about our 'victory' in the cold war, keeps them thinking it's November 9, 1989, every time any group of thugs want to overthrow any government.
Perhaps they will change their minds someday, if 1989 happens in, say, America?
Public idiots, Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan's excellent adventure, The Project for a New American Century, born 1997, died 2006 but the neo-con voyage to conquer the Middle East continues albeit without much of an important audience anymore. I think its mostly a ghost ship now. Here we are in the new century, and all the neo-con boys helped accomplish is to already guarantee it won't be an American one. For all the blabber about more (managed pro-American) democracy, please, they don't really dare talk about specific military intervention to enforce it...not like the old days. To me,this is more about setting himself up to appear right about something. Kristol can't have any rational hope this will turn out to be 1776 on the Nile but when it doesn't he can blame his domestic enemies---the American people mainly--for failing to "intervene" early enough to save the revolution. In Kristol's neo-con mix of stupidity and dishonesty its hard to precisely say what flaw dominates anything he says. Is it a failure of reason or something slier? Saving the "Wilsonian/Kristolian" narrative for the dozens still interested?
My equanimity wears very thin for such puzzles . . . especially when it is a neo/nwo-stooge who continually hallucinates.
Not at all accidental. Those who rib so-called “conspiracy” theorists tend to be “coincidence” zealots.
I hope 60% is passing....
Rhetorical:
1. "the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines,"
Morocco has never been considered part of, or even near, the Middle East. It’s on the Western edge of North Africa. Similarly, it’s ludicrous to talking about taking over the middle east from anywhere in it to the Philippines. The Philippines are in South East Asia or Oceania, also fully on the other side of an intervening continent. Everyone knows this. Why the imprecision? One possibility: he’s trying to disparage the idea of anyone taking over the middle east by linking it rhetorically with the idea of taking over such a vast space; meanwhile, with regard to the Middle East proper, people really have been and presently are trying to exert control over it.
2. Who said conservatives were siding with a dictator against democrats out of fear of a popular awakening, whatever that is?
3. Who is excusing thuggery?
4. And getting back to siding with a dictator? Who said anything about taking sides? Isn’t being neutral a legitimate stance? Do we legally or morally always have to take a side and get involved?
5. "Nor is it in any way “realist” to suggest that backing Mubarak during this crisis would promote “stability.”
What’s with the scare quotes? Aren’t there generally accepted definitions of those words? Aren’t violent revolutions overturning 30 years of legitimate, albeit dictatorial powers inherently destabilizing? Isn’t Mubarek more like a king than anything else, so, like a king would worry about a providing an heir in part because he would not want his kingdom to fall into strife over the succession question, isn’t it at least in some way realist to suggest that helping Mubarek --a long term ally, would promote both stability within Egypt and, more to the point, stability within the US-Egypt relationship?
Logical:
"[Glenn Beck's] marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s."
6. Who marginalized those guys? Why? And what do they have to do with the issue at hand? Is this an ad hominem, a smear? Guilt by association?
"The idea that democracy produces radical Islam is false."
7. In the abstract, I agree. Democracy does not produce radical Islam. But so what? Just because that idea is false and it’s contradictory is valid doesn’t necessarily mean other, contrary ideas, like, for example, that democracy produces liberal capitalism with a pacifist foreign policy, are necessarily true either. And of course the assertion ignores the whole current context of what the majority of Egyptians believe. What if they would vote for radical Islam? If so, then, in this case, as applied to Egypt right now, democracy really would produce a radical Islamic state.
Historical:
8. Actually, there really were caliphates and they really did take over or control large swaths of the planet.
"Whether in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories, or Egypt, it is the dictatorships that have promoted and abetted Islamic radicalism."
9. Really? Across the board? Haven’t scores of radical groups been formed with the express purpose of first overturning monarchies and dictatorships? Wasn’t Saddam a dictator? Didn’t he consistently look to crush Islamic radicalism in favor of secularism? Ditto for Mubarek? For the Shah of Iran? For Syria’s King? For Jordan? Kemal Attaturk? Doesn’t one counter-example disprove a theorem? So this is just wrong. The truth is that, some dictatorships, at times, have somewhat promoted and abetted Islamic radicalism. But the fact of the matter is that even the Ottoman Empire under the Sultans had a tension between the political power and radical clerics, in large part because, in contrast to Christianity, Islam does not distinquish as much between religious and political institutions and power.
Legal:
"To the contrary: The situation is growing more unstable because of Mubarak’s unwillingness to abdicate. Helping him cling to power now would only pour fuel on the revolutionary fire, and push the Egyptian people in a more anti-American direction...."
10. Does Kristol have any idea at all what the legal set-up, if any, for succession is in Egypt? Would it kill him to tell us? Mubarek could, of course, resign. But to resign in the face of, and because of, partially violent protests in the street might, more than ‘clinging to power,’ embolden radicals, even Islamic radicals, who would like to ignore and do away with the legal processes, such as they are, in place in Egypt.
"[O]ne of the most hopeful aspects...."
11. This criticism might fit in the rhetorical section too, as here Kristol is making an appeal to emotion based on a bit of deception. We all acknowledge the importance of what a better analyst might call America’s foundational documents, amongst them of course, the Declaration of Independence. From a rhetorical, legal, historical and moral standpoint, however, the Constitutionalist movement, such as it is, makes the point that while those other documents are important, the primacy of place for how to run the Federal government is, of course, the Constitution. Further, they argue, and I agree, ALL other documents preceding that primary document can only provide context, and important as it may be, that illumination should only be sought if there is some lack of clarity. In terms of legal authority, the Constitution would be direct authority, something that cannot be ignored and must be addressed and factor into the decision, while the Declaration of Independence would only provide persuasive authority, or context for interpreting the Constitution. Citing the Declaration of Independence as authority for supporting revolt in Egypt is like citing the text on the Statue of Liberty as authority on immigration policy; neither are binding. Looking to the binding Constitution, we see in Section 2 that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors....” So do we have a treaty with Egypt? Does it say we’ll go on TV and start talking about supporting revolution in Egypt if ever 250,000 persons or more gather in Tahrir Square and throw rocks? Treaty or no, aren’t there, and weren’t there at the time of the writing of Constitution, good and well-respected traditions of international behavior vis a vis changes of government in foreign nations. What does that tradition or other contemporaneous documents have to say about a situation like this? Where are our ambassadors? And of course there’s the whole Constitutional question of acts of war and how far away we’ve gotten from that. Now the President seems to just send aircraft carriers and fleets anywhere he wishes with nary a word from Congress.
Moral:
"An American conservatism that looks back to 1776 cannot turn its back on the Egyptian people.
12. That’s akin to have you stopped beating your wife or, maybe more to the point, Frum’s ‘unpatriotic conservatives.‘
#2: "historical ignorance; imperialistic assumptions; presumptive illusions; pablum"
Mr. Colin, I daresay you have set forth the definitive description of "neo-conservatism."
Undoubtedly Al Qaeda and their numerous affiliates regard Mr. Kristol and the other elitists of this persuasion, as “useful idiots”. I read Pat Buchanan’s most recent book. Pat described how elitists, like Mr. Kristol, penned through diplomacy and media publications two world wars, Bolshevism, Fascism, the cold war, etc. At this time, we don’t how Mr. Kristol’s influential and farfetched worldview will cause unspeakable chaos and heretofore, unthinkable misery.
Say what you want about them, but they are still essentially running what used to be the United States of America.
I have never known Srdja to be so sarcastic. I must say I am rather enjoying it. Of course Bill Kristol deserves it.
#10
But Dr. Wilson when 65% percent of a nations wealth is controled by a few banks and the narrative is controled by a small number of media moguls, you don't need much of a following to run things. You simply need the audacity of a jerk.
Does Kristol not remember the election of Hamas in Gaza? There, democracy exactly produced radical Islam. But if he admitted this fact in his piece, his argument would collapse on that score alone. But there are many others.
The chicken-hawk Kristol should take note of the following quote from Jefferson. Imposing democracy through war or bribery is not in the American tradition.
"The people of a free nation cherish peace and peaceful pursuits and ordinarily have no designs on other nations. They do not wish to acquire the lands of other peoples or impose their rule on them. Least of all do they want to pursue costly adventures in foreign lands that will load themselves up with debt and taxes. Peaceful pursuits lead to happiness and prosperity, whereas wars and conquests only burden the people with misery.
"Our desire is to pursue ourselves the path of peace as the only one leading surely to prosperity." --Thomas Jefferson to G. Hammond, 1793.
The military-industrial complex (which pays Mr. Kristol and his comrades) is very grateful for the universal nature of democracy.
A solid B- to CMC (7) Too perfunctory in the final, "Moral" category, otherwise a solid effort...
Patrick @13:
We cannot expect somebody who said 3 years ago that the Bush presidency had thus far been and will in the distant future be considered "a success" to ever understand or realize those facts, short of a miraculous mental awakening.
It is odd for Kristol to be so eager for the fruits of Egyptian democracy. Did he not get the memo from Israel?
Kristol's article is a giant false dichotomy. Either you believe in freedom/democracy/the declaration of independence, or you are a hysteric who believes in backing every dictator without question because you're afraid of a caliphate being created. No. The concern is that understandable anger at Mubarak's corruption and brutality will be exploited by the Muslim Brotherhood to establish a more radical dictatorship of their own. Islamists represent a significant portion of the population, they are very well organized, and they are very audacious. They might seize control of the uprising against Mubarak, as the Shiite radicals seized control of the uprising against the Shah, and create an anti-Western theocracy like Iran. The best solution is probably for Mubarak to step down and be replaced by a government where the people have some representation but the government is led by a military that prevents extremists from seizing control.
I saw a wonderful quote on another blog earlier today:
The esteemed Herr Doktor Professor Kistol will no doubt soon demand that we send in the marines to uphold free erections and demoncracy, and - as in other areas from sands of Sadr City to the strategic poppyfields of Pashtoonistan - assist the devout Darwinian secularists of the Muslim Brotherhood in making sure their little slice of the Ummah is safe and secure for sodomy and feminism.
I heard some of the protestors calling give me liberty or give me death. A lot of these people are young people who are not very religious and want a secular state. I saw plenty of Coptic Crosses in the demonstrations as well. I don't know where this revolution is going, but Mubarak is long past his buy sell date. The neocons traded Trotskyite worldwide communist revolution for a so called worldwide democratic revolution. That's their main problem. The world can run itself without help from the USA. Most places that we have backed dictators have ended up worse off. Let Egyptians and the rest of the world decide their own future. We can't even run this country with any sanity.
I don't get it. Dr. Trifkovic has been giving the finest conservative analyses of the Egypt fiasco, and yet dudes like Justin Raimondo are beside themselves with glee over the idea that the middle east may go up in flames with Europe and the US soon following. I'm still not sure I understand why Raimondo somehow connects with Chronicles. Don't get me wrong. Some of the finest journalism and honest reporting come from Antiwar.com. And I love Justin. But those guys have no moral ground. They're ideologues and revolutionaries and I'm not sure what makes that conservative. I too would love to despise government and fancy myself an anarchist, but reality always kicks my ass back into gear. Moreover, I find it embarrassing that all the while Raimondo and Rockwell et al lambast the political process, they can't keep themselves from investing their hopes and dreams in Ron Paul and the promise he and those like him represent. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. What gives?
I'm not Frank in #9.
The US Copts appear to be supporting the revolution. I've been hoping a small Coptic state would eventually result, not that I know enough of the area to predict such a thing.
I'm inclined to think the US shouldn't meddle there, though I hate seeing the Egyptian artifacts and mummies destroyed.
Kristol’s problem is that while Mubarak has been in power there has been no call for the U.S. to invade or bomb Egypt.
If and when "democracy" produces Gaza-like results in Egypt, Kristol will be among the first to advocate invasion & bombing, of course.
I love nearly every single word that Mr. Trifkovic writes but, "Tetzel's dropping penny," a reference to the apocryphal;
As soon as the gold in the casket rings
The rescued soul to heaven springs,
was a jarring, discordant, and unnecessary note, and it distracted me from his otherwise typically excellent column.
I'll credit my reaction to my Catholic militancy but the truth about Tetzel is complicated and history has treated him most unjustly.
Michael Ledeen was once described as "the most influential and unabashed warmonger of our time", he was considered one of the brains (or brain fragments) behind Neo-con foreign policy. Here are a few of his choice theories to view the developing chaos in Egypt as something to be desired. Onward American soldier to Iran, Damascus and Cairo?
"Therefore the only coherent strategy for the United States is one that defeats the Islamic Republic and the PLO, along with the other terror masters in Riyadh, Damascus, and Baghdad. The talk about peace, and the endless "plans" that emerge from one capital or another, are no more and no less than stalling tactics by those who oppose the president's vision. (That would be the W. Bush vision thing) Peace in this world only follows victory in war."
"the level of casualties (in Iraq) is secondary"
"we are a warlike people (Americans)...we love war"
"Change — above all violent change — is the essence of human history"
"the only way to achieve peace is through total war"
"The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people"
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business"
The fact that these birds of a feather flock together gives us some sense of what the word, "conservative", has come to mean in our time.
Considering how well the protests were organized, that Mubarak did not use force to stay in power as if he were told not to, it would seem that this was all planned by neocons and the CIA. What exactly are they accomplishing by removing Mubarak for thier own project, that is the $64 question.
"None are more helplessly enslaved than those who believe that they are free" Goethe
Kristol is indeed an intellectual clown, but those in charge seem to have changed tactics. They are experts in propaganda, misdirection, and masters of illusion. Look at what they have done to the populace of US and Europe in terms of rigging the political system. You still have a vast majority of saps that truly believe that they really have a voice in what their government does. The folks in the Middle East are democratic virgins, so they will be very easy to swindle( like the Russians, Ukrainian, etc). Another possible reason for allowing or even starting these revolutions is the hope that Islamists win and thus perpetuate the "bogeyman" to scare the populace of the West into giving up even more of their freedoms in the name of security. I think too many conservatives and libertarians write off the neo cons as being dumb. They might come off as being naive in their trying to put an intellectual face on a bold grab for power, but they are not stupid. In either scenario, they look like winners to me, which, is not good for the world at all.