Wow. I go away for a few weeks and I miss, what, two revolutions? I guess that’ll teach me.
Well, in case you haven’t heard, change has come to Egypt. Following more than two weeks street protests, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak resigned his office and turned over control to the country’s military leaders. This, only a few weeks after the tiny North African state of Tunisia ousted it’s own president in similar fashion. And those two acts have sparked popular uprisingings all over the Middle East, including Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria and Iran.
Of course, no overthrow of a foreign government – particularly in the Middle East - would be complete without a heaping helping of “Oh-my-god-what-does-this-mean-for-America?” navel-gazing by every talking head with access to a media outlet. But before we prattle on about what change means to us, thousands of miles away, what does a change in leadership mean for Egyptians? For the first time in thirty years, Egyptians will have the opportunity to choose a leader not named Mubarak. Many – if not most – of the protesters in Tahrir Square, in Alexandria and across the country, and the reporters covering the story for the Arab news networks have never known any other leader. Provided the Army commanders are true to their word, six to eight months from now, millions of Egyptians will vote in free and fair elections for the first time, selecting their own leader, instead of having one forced upon them. It is a fantastic moment for Egypt and Tunisia, a triumph of peaceful protest and an awesome responsibility for the citizens of those countries. They will now determine their own future. It will be a difficult process, contentious process and an exhausting process. And they will have to ensure that the results of their efforts will be worthy of the sacrifices made over the past several weeks.
Now, what does a new government in Egypt mean for us? Well, if you’re Glen Beck, it signals the rise of an Islamic Caliphate and the end of Western civilization. But if you are a sane, rational human being, the answer is, we don’t know yet. It depends entirely on the make-up of the new government. Egypt could formulate a government similar to any Western democracy, or they could end up with a situation similar to that of Iran, an “elected” government controlled by a fundamentalist clergy. From our point of view, the former is certainly preferable to the latter, but even among Western democracies, some are certainly friendlier and more supportive than others. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, several things are almost certain. Egypt’s new government is likely to be somewhat less friendly to Israel, end the blockade of the West Bank, and be far more concerned with Egyptian domestic policy than American foreign policy.
Taking the afore-mentioned concerns into account, it was interesting – to say the least – to watch the response of American conservatives to the events of the past few weeks in the Middle East. They seemed to fall into two camps. One group praised the protesters for taking their political fate into their own hand by rising up and demanding the end to a three decade long autocratic regime, and demanding to know why President Obama had not taken a stronger stand in supporting them. The other group, terrified of potentially trading the devil they know and tacitly support (Mubarak), for the devil they don’t (any potential extremist Islamic regime), constantly attempted to cast suspicion on the motives of protesters and protest organizers, and demanded to know why President Obama had not taken stronger measures to support the existing dictator. Had the consequences not been so high it would have been amusing to watch and listen to people who constantly lament the “socialist dictatorship” they claim to live under in this country and who define “real” Americans as those using the word freedom at least twice in every sentence, trying to convince anyone who would listen that we should prefer Egyptians continue to suffer under an autocratic regime, because his successor could be worse.
What struck me about that was how paranoid and paralytic that latter thought process can be. How could a country progress like that, absolutely terrified of everything and everyone around it? How can a country accomplish anything constructive if it believes that all of it’s neighbors are out to get it, and that this, “the greatest republic in the history of the world” is so fragile that the slightest deviation from a myopic world view threatens to bring us to our knees. Either we support the right of people to freedom, self-determination and self-government, or we don’t. There is no room there for support of freedom, only if we the United States are completely comfortable with the determination people have made for themselves.
I’m sorry, I almost just died laughing. Watched Republican Senator Jeff Sessions attempting to explain how the budget cuts outlined by President Obama in the amount of one trillion dollars over the next ten years are insignificant, while budget cuts proposed by Republicans in the amount of one trillion dollars over the next ten years are a serious attempt at deficit reduction. Which brings me to the other topic du jour. This past Monday President Obama released his budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012 to Congress. The proposal calls for a budget of approximately $3.7 trillion, with projected deficit reduction of a little more than one trillion dollars over the next ten years. What it does not include, is any mention of the debt reduction recommendations made by the President’s own debt commission last year. In response to the President’s proposal, Republican Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan commented that, “presidents are elected to lead, and this president just punted.” This may be the first – and only time I will agree with Paul Ryan on anything.
Yes, I understand the politics behind the President’s refusal to tackle the structural budgetary debt in any serious manner. I understand completely that while most Americans claim they want Congress to reduce the deficit, most Americans are also unwilling to stomach cuts to any of the programs significantly contributing to that deficit. Given that fact I also understand that the President gains no political advantage – especially in an election cycle – by proposing unpopular cuts to popular programs. I understand that if he had proposed reductions in Medicare spending or Social Security payments (programs which, in their perfect world, Republicans would like to eliminate), Republicans would have attacked him for trying to pull the plug on grandma and throw grandpa out on the street. I know that if he had dared to advocate reductions in Defense funding above and beyond the $80 billion already proposed by Defense Secretary Gates, Republicans would have insisted he was soft on defense and anxious to see the military projection of American power weakened around the world. And I know that despite all their bloviating about cutting a hundred billion from the budget in their first year in control of the House, Republicans have managed to come up with only $35 billion in cuts, and have not attempted to tackle the difficult issues either. I know all that stuff. I understand it. It is just so utterly frustrating that a President who previously has done such a good job at talking to us like we are in fact adults, decided not to do so this time around.
I am so tired of Democrats ceding tax and budget arguments and allowing Republicans to control the debate. President Obama had an opportunity to wrest control of the fiscal debate from Republicans. He could have laid out a case for why it will be necessary to raise the Social Security retirement age and lift the cap on income subject to the tax in order to keep the program self-sufficient. He could have explained the need to reduce the cost of healthcare and the growth of Medicare in the long term to ensure it is available for the growing number of retirees. He could have championed the merits of a simplified tax code, with lower rates across the board and an elimination of deductions that disproportionately benefit certain segments of society. He could have made the case that this country would not be any less safe accounting for 36% of the entire planet’s defense spending, instead of the 43% we spend currently, when the closes competitor spends less than 7%. But he didn’t. He left it up to Republicans to frame the arguments instead, deciding to play political defense instead of offense. He won the coin flip in overtime and chose to kick instead of receive. Decisions like that often turn out poorly. I really hope this is the exception.
