This weekend, Republicans marked the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan with speeches celebrating his small government philosophy, anti-tax fervor and hard-line foreign policy. But if Reagan was a GOP candidate today, he would doubtless fall victim to violations of his own 11th Commandment , “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Because despite all of the right-wing hagiography , Ronald Reagan ballooned the national debt, repeatedly raised taxes, signed abortion rights legislation and negotiated with terrorists in Iran. For those and so many other perceived offenses, the GOP rank and file – and especially its purity-demanding Tea Partiers – would today brand a reanimated Ronald Reagan a Republican in Name Only . Meet RINO Reagan: Reagan tripled the national debt Reagan raised taxes 11 times Reagan expanded the size of government Reagan supported the “socialist” Earned Income Tax Credit Reagan negotiated with terrorists in Tehran Reagan sought to eliminate nuclear weapons Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants Reagan approved protectionist trade barriers Reagan signed abortion rights law in California Reagan eventually debunked AIDS myths Republicans continued to perpetuate 1. Reagan Tripled the National Debt . As most analysts predicted, Reagan’s massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous “rosy scenarios.” Forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It’s no wonder Stockman lamented last year : “[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.” Sarah Palin’s revisionist history Friday notwithstanding, it was Reagan who put the United States on “the road to ruin.” 2. Reagan Raised Taxes 11 Times As ThinkProgress noted, the inedible image of Ronald Reagan the tax cutter is “false mythology.” (It is also worth noting that it was President Obama and not Reagan who delivered the largest two year tax cut in American history.) While Governor Reagan doubled California’s state spending and signed the biggest tax hike up to that point, as President he raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” 3. Reagan Expanded the Size of Government On Friday, Sarah Palin told the Reaganauts assembled by the Young Americans for Freedom, “We need to stop spending and cut government back down to size.” If that’s the case, her role model should be Democrat Bill Clinton and not Republican Ronald Reagan . As USA Today pointed out five years ago, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product, average annual federal spending dropped far more under Bill Clinton (-1.8%) than Ronald Reagan (-0.6%). And as Slate’s Michael Kinsley explained ten years ago in marking Reagan’s 90th birthday: Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent–a whopping one percentage point. The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president’s policies to take effect doesn’t materially change any of these results.) Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms–less than half as much as under Reagan. As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent–more than double Reagan’s reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind. As the Gipper’s biographer Lou Cannon aptly summed it up, “He was no Tea Partier.” 4. Reagan Supported the “Socialist” Earned Income Tax Credit Both during and after the 2008 presidential campaign , Republican candidates and commentators blasted Barack Obama’s proposals to offer Americans expanded tax credits as “socialism”, “welfare” and worse. If so, they should also be directing their ire at Ronald Reagan. While virtually all working Americans pay the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes ( levies increased by President Reagan ), many don’t pay federal income tax thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted in 2005, the EITC was not only very successful in lowering poverty, the provision “has enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, and President Clinton all praised it and proposed expansions in it.” While many of his conservative heirs now express disdain for the working poor , Ronald Reagan championed the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit. As the American Prospect recalled in 2006: Almost 20 years ago, as he signed into law the tax bill expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, President Ronald Reagan hailed it as “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” 5. Reagan Negotiated with Terrorists in Tehran . Criticizing President Obama as weak on Iran, Sarah Palin declared in December that “just as Ronald Reagan once denounced an ‘evil empire’ and looked forward to a time when communism was left on the ‘ash heap of history,’ we should look forward to a future where the twisted ideology and aggressive will to dominate of Khomeini and his successors are consigned to history’s dustbin.” That would be the same Ronald Reagan whose policy consisted of giving the mullahs in Iran a cake, a Bible – and U.S. arms. The Iran-Contra scandal , as you’ll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weapons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by the United States). In a clumsy and illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, the proceeds of those sales were then funneled to the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as the New York Times recalled, Reagan’s fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from the Gipper himself, including “a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders” and “and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ”opening” to Iran.’” The rest, as they say, is history. After his initial denials, President Reagan was forced to address the nation on March 4, 1987 and acknowledge he indeed swapped arms for hostages ( video here ): “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.” 6. Reagan Sought to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons In late 2010, hard-line Republicans opposed President Obama’s new START treaty calling for joint reductions in the American and Russian nuclear stockpiles. Sadly for GOP hawks, it was Ronald Reagan and not Barack Obama who declared, “m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” And as the Washington Monthly recalled in 2003, Reagan’s idealism startled and shocked his advisers and allies: Driven by this dream, Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev and initiated a series of negotiations that ultimately alarmed everyone in his administration. Hardliners like Patrick Buchanan, Richard Perle, and Caspar Weinberger reacted in horror to the very idea of engaging the Soviets in such talks, warning against the “grand illusion” of peace. “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as clout,” echoed New Right leader Paul Weyrich in The Washington Post. Administration pragmatists like George Shultz and Robert McFarlane, who supported negotiations but believed in deterrence, were shocked by how far Reagan took them. At the Reykjavik summit, he and Gorbachev almost agreed to the “zero option” to eliminate both sides’ thermonuclear arms. Reagan’s unwillingness to give up his cherished missile-defense program doomed the agreement, though the talks did yield the signature arms-reduction pact of his presidency, the 1987 INF treaty. 7. Reagan Gave Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Immigrants Codifying the growing xenophobia within the Republican Party, the 2008 GOP platform insisted: “We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.” Which is why, as ThinkProgres s again helpfully highlighted, conservatives are now so eager to hush up RINO Reagan’s history on immigration: Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives. 8. Reagan Approved Protectionist Trade Barriers Ronald Reagan believed in free markets and free trade. Except when he didn’t. In 2004, Alan Tonelson praised what he called Reagan’s “trade realism” : Reagan’s tactics were flexible. In autos, machine tools, and steel, his administration subjected foreign producers to so-called voluntary export restraints. In semiconductors, Reagan officials negotiated an agreement to secure a specific share of the Japanese market for U.S. companies, and then imposed tariffs on Japanese electronics imports when Tokyo briefly refused to keep a promise to halt semiconductor dumping. But it was Reagan’s decisive intervention to save legendary American motorcycle maker Harley Davidson which drew the ire of conservatives at the time, if not now. The libertarian Cato Institute groused about the 49.4% import tariff on foreign motorcycles Reagan authorized in 1983: Last spring, the import duties on large motorcycles were raised drastically. By any economic criterion, the new tariff is counterproductive, and the Reagan administration was fully aware of it. The decision is thus an interesting case study in the political economy of protectionism. 9. Reagan Signed Abortion Rights Law in California Despite his paeans to the pro-life crowd, RINO Reagan did very little to advance their radical anti-abortion agenda. As ThinkProgress summarized his record on reproductive rights: As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice. 10. Reagan Eventually Debunked AIDS Myths Republicans Continued to Perpetuate Not wanting to anger his allies on the Christian right when it came to what they deemed the “gay plague,” Reagan remained silent on the exploding AIDS epidemic throughout most of his presidency. And when he did speak up in 1985 (as he did at the urging of staffer and future Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ), Reagan ignored both basic science and basic compassion in setting back the cause of truth and public health: “I’m glad I’m not faced with that problem today [sending children to school where another student has AIDS] and I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it…And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said ‘This we know for a fact, that it is safe.’ And until they do I think we have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.” The next day, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and the chief scientists at the National Institutes of Health called a news conference to correct President Reagan’s tragic error and confirm that AIDS was a blood-borne sexually transmitted disease not spread by casual contact. In what would be the first high-impact celebrity intervention among Republicans, it took a plea from Elizabeth Taylor to get Ronald Reagan to deliver a speech at the 1987 meeting of amfAR , the American Foundation for AIDS Research: As dangerous and deadly as AIDS is, many of the fears surrounding it are unfounded. These fears are based on ignorance… The Public Health Service has stated that there’s no medical reason for barring a person with the virus from any routine school or work activity. There’s no reason for those who carry the AIDS virus to wear a scarlet A. AIDS is not a casually contagious disease. We’re still learning about how AIDS is transmitted, but experts tell us you don’t get it from telephones or swimming pools or drinking fountains. You don’t get it from shaking hands or sitting on a bus or anywhere else, for that matter. And most important, you don’t get AIDS by donating blood. Education is critical to clearing up the fears. Education is also crucial to stopping the transmission of the disease. Five years later, future Arkansas Governor and current GOP White House frontrunner Mike Huckabee still hadn’t got the message. As a Senate candidate in 1992, he called homosexuality “an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.” Huckabee then called for Huckabee called for draconian – and discriminatory – action: “If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague. It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.” Fourteen years later, Senate Majority Leader and physician Bill Frist declined to say whether he thought HIV-AIDS could be transmitted through tears or sweat, as a disputed federal education program championed by some conservative groups had suggested. (For more debunking of the right-wing mythology surrounding Ronald Reagan, see these recent articles from the Washington Post , CNN , ThinkProgress and CBS . For the definitive account of the conservative revisionist history project, see Will Bunch’s excellent book, Tear Down This Myth .) (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …NBC's Andrea Mitchell on Sunday made the preposterous claim that Republicans are trying to appropriate Ronald Reagan for their own political purposes. Appearing on “Meet the Press” with Mitchell, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan struck back and struck back hard (video follows with transcript and commentary): DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Willie Brown, let's talk about politics. Let's talk about the view of government that is being debated in our country right now. And Ronald Reagan, January 20th, 1981, his inaugural address, pretty much made clear his view of government. Watch this. (Videotape, January 20, 1981) PRES. RONALD REAGAN: In this present crisis government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. (End videotape) MR. GREGORY: Isn't this the very debate that we are having today in our debate over spending, debate over role of government in this economy? WILLIE BROWN, FORMER MAYOR SAN FRANCISCO: It is the debate we are having today. But, you know, 1981 was a far cry from when Ronald Reagan actually started in government. It was 1966, 1967. And at that time period, he was not mouthing those kinds of words. Apparently Peggy wasn't writing for him at that time, and therefore he wasn't saying those kinds of words. He really learned about government and the operation of government and what government could or could not do in the eight years that he spent as a governor of the state of California. And they were really incredible learning years for this extraordinary, gifted person. So it doesn't surprise me in 1981 he would be saying the words that we're still living with and trying to address today. MR. GREGORY: And as much as modern-day conservatives, Andrea Mitchell, may take that sentence from his inaugural as gospel and run on that in their own debates with President Obama in Washington today, indeed Reagan was much more of a pragmatist than he was an ideologue when it came to the major issues. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC: Absolutely. MR. GREGORY: Taxes, Social Security, and the like. MS. MITCHELL: I mean, he said, “This is–the sound you hear around my feet is the concrete breaking around my feet,” whatever the exact words were. People are trying–Republicans in particular, obviously–trying to appropriate Ronald Reagan for their own political purposes now. But his vision and his ability to work across party lines was so far broader. He stuck to his principles. He was authentic, which is I think one of the reasons why he's so admired after all of these years. But he knew when he needed to compromise, and he did. And he reached out with Democrats, not just the boll weevils who were the conservative Texas Democrats, but with Tip O'Neill and liberal Massachusetts Democrats as well when he needed to get something done with the help the really–the guidance of people like Jim Baker. But the genius of it all was that Ed Meese was there, there were conservatives there, and, and Jim Baker, more moderate Republicans. And it was a bit messy at times, but he had a range of views. And Nancy Reagan bringing even more people in to the–into play. MR. GREGORY: Would he think the tea party was up… PEGGY NOONAN, FORMER REAGAN SPEECHWRITER: I got to–whoa, whoa, whoa. Republicans are not, I think, trying to appropriate Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a Republican. Conservatives aren't trying to appropriate him. He was a conservative. Willie, he became a public figure in America two years before he was governor in 1964, and he laid out a speech as stern, if not sterner, in its conservatism in which he explained his views on taxes, “Cut them”; his views on the size of government, “Too big, too bullying”; his views on the Soviet Union, “Hold it back, it is expansionist.” This was all very clear. As a president, as a governor, he was pragmatic in his operation. Indeed. NewsBusters shared with readers on Sunday the very speech Noonan was referring to, and it was classic Reagan conservatism making you wonder what Brown and Mitchell were talking about. Or maybe not. After all, it is the Left and their media minions in recent months as the 100th anniversary of Reagan's birth approached that have been trying to not only appropriate him by making him look like more of a moderate than he was, but also working to paint the current White House resident in the Gipper's image to assist him in his re-election efforts. Even worse, all this gushing and fawning from folks like Mitchell go counter to years of media attacks against our 40th President: Remembering Ronald Reagan: The Reagan Legacy VIDEO: How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy Ronald Reagan's Legacy Rewriting Ronald Reagan: Reagan and National Defense Bozell Column: The Media Never Loved Reagan Rewriting Ronald Reagan: Attacks on Reagan the Man Bozell, Hannity Address MSM's Makeover of Obama as Centrist and Reaganesque, Continued War on Tea Party Movement All Three Networks Agree: Obama Sounded 'Reaganesque' in State of the Union Amanpour Hails Obama as ‘Reaganesque’ But Contended Tea Party Too ‘Extreme’ for Reagan After years of bashing Reagan, the press suddenly think the way to get the current White House resident re-elected is by showing esteem for the Gipper while casting him as being very much like Obama. Fortunately for “Meet the Press” viewers Sunday, Noonan wasn't having any of it. Neither are we. Nice job of sticking up for your former boss, Peggy. Brava!
Continue reading …The Obama administration’s official position on the Egypt uprising has been changing almost daily Flexibility can be advantageous in international relations, but there comes a time when it starts to look like dithering. So it is in the US, where the official position on the Egypt uprising has been changing almost daily. The Obama administration’s immediate response was to back the president, Hosni Mubarak, to the dismay of the protesters. Joe Biden, the vice-president, insisted on 27 January that Mubarak was not a dictator. By last Tuesday that position was reversed. Obama abandoned Mubarak an hour after the Egyptian president said he would remain in office until September, saying it would be better if the transition process began “now”. That was the message on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. On Saturday, the US envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, told a defence conference in Munich that Mubarak should be allowed to stay in office during the transition process: “I believe that President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical.” The US state department distanced itself from this, saying Wisner was speaking on his own behalf. Today, the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said America would adopt a wait-and-see approach to the involvement in talks of the Muslim Brotherhood, despite harbouring deep suspicions about the opposition movement. She was speaking a day after she aligned the US with the Egyptian vice-president, Omar Suleiman, whom she backs to lead the transition from dictatorship to free and fair elections – in an apparent move to sideline Mubarak. Obama suporters, in a series of interviews today, said the seemingly abrupt policy changes were needed to allow Mubarak to exit with dignity. Opponents argued they reflect uncertainty at the heart of an Obama administration. Egypt Middle East Barack Obama Hillary Clinton United States Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The people of Egypt should be trusted to choose their own leaders On one side are hundreds of thousands of Egyptians demanding fair elections; on the other side is an authoritarian president mobilising a bullying state apparatus against the crowd. Leaders of western democracies need not have hesitated over whom to support. To his partial credit, David Cameron expressed fairly promptly the view that Egyptians are entitled to political freedom. He also condemned repression by forces loyal to Hosni Mubarak. Less laudable is equivocation over the fate of the president himself. The moral imperative is clearly that he leave office immediately. But strategic considerations – the implications of a chaotic interregnum – have forced Mr Mubarak’s erstwhile western allies to hold back from publicly insisting on his exit. “Orderly transition” is the euphemism of choice. President Barack Obama has been similarly reticent, while coming under intense domestic pressure to direct the outcome of events in Cairo. Washington’s influence vastly outweighs London’s, but the same dilemmas are being pondered on both sides of the Atlantic. The choice is essentially between competing schools of foreign policy – pro-democracy idealism and strategic realpolitik. The idealists see events in Egypt, following similar turmoil in Tunisia, as the revolutionary spring after a long authoritarian winter during which economic and political development in the Arab world was frozen. Their preferred analogy is with the 1989 national uprisings in eastern Europe that tore down the Iron Curtain. By extension, the duty of the west is to embrace the popular revolt with unalloyed exuberance and consign Mr Mubarak to the dustbin of history. By contrast, the realpolitikers see events in Cairo as dangerous instability in a tricky part of the world where, crucially, radical Islam is a factor. In that analysis, the preferred comparison is with the Iranian revolution of 1979, when popular demands for democracy were hijacked by religious fanatics. Then Mr Mubarak looks like a secular leader and long-standing ally who should not be jettisoned to please a fickle mob – at least not in the absence of a clear alternative. It is easy enough to see why the US should want to hedge its bets. For as long as there was the possibility of Mr Mubarak prevailing over the protesters, Washington did not want to sabotage the relationship, not least since doing so would have repercussions for other alliances. Foreign policy hawks have been reminding Mr Obama of other Arab rulers – in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, for example – who, for all their unpleasant domestic political arrangements, are useful in the global campaign against jihadi terrorism. These “strategic partners” would react badly to the US being seen to support or even foment grass-roots civil uprising. If, however, Mr Obama was seen to be propping up a despot in defiance of Egyptians’ democratic impulses, the US would lose any vestiges of moral authority it might have to influence the evolution of the post-Mubarak state. That would make it more likely that radical religious parties might capture the revolution. Meanwhile, there are practical obstacles to holding prompt parliamentary and presidential elections. Egypt’s constitution and administrative system are designed to preserve the existing regime. A poll that enabled Mr Mubarak’s party to reclaim its monopoly on power with a superficial imprimatur of democratic legitimacy would ill serve the people who have bravely insisted on a sweeping change. Western diplomats also fret that a hurried and disorderly election would benefit the ultra-conservative Muslim Brotherhood – active as an opposition force for many years – at the expense of the inexperienced, new secular civil protest leaders. Fear of the Brotherhood lies behind much western half-heartedness in welcoming the new era in Egyptian politics. That fear expresses most of all how little is known about strength of Islamist feeling on the streets. There is plenty in the Brotherhood’s past doctrines and rhetoric to cause alarm. It is an ideological relation to al-Qaida; the question of how distant cousins they are is fiercely debated by clerics and policy-makers alike. The more pertinent question is how relevant the organisation is to events unfolding in Cairo. It did not organise mass protests, nor has it dictated their demands. The crowds in Tahrir Square are clearly not the vanguard of some fanatical religious uprising. They are ordinary Egyptians who want a better life and are demanding the obvious political change – democracy – that will unlock other opportunities. They are in no hurry to replace a repressive secular regime with a repressive religious one. One of the defining features of western reaction to the abrupt upheaval in Egypt is sheer ignorance. The vast majority of diplomats, politicians and journalists failed to anticipate it and lack a sufficiently textured understanding of Egyptian society to forecast what might happen next. Western foreign policy has tended to treat the Arab world as a vast mass of potential recruits for jihad, best warehoused in authoritarian regimes, under rulers whose chief appeal lies in their lack of overt Islamist ideology and their appetite for military and intelligence co-operation. The events of the past few weeks demand an end to that approach. The policy of supporting governments that scorn democracy is a dead end. It makes a hypocrisy of western claims to support the aspirations of ordinary people. It alienates opposition movements, non-governmental organisations and civil society leaders who are the best hope for transition to more stable, plural politics in the region. A clear-sighted appraisal of western interests in the Middle East would reveal that the choice between the idealism and realpolitik is a false one. Putting trust in leaders such as Hosni Mubarak is not a mark of strategic caution, but a reckless gamble and a guarantee of future instability. Trusting people to choose their own leaders in free elections is also something of a gamble. But that approach has a better chance of preserving the west’s moral authority and retaining some popular goodwill in the Arab world. Those are far more reliable guarantors of stability and security. Egypt Hosni Mubarak Barack Obama David Cameron Islam guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Our values and our long-term self-interest demand that we back the struggle for democracy in the Middle East One of the most precious attributes of democracy is freedom of expression, the ability to say what you think about anything you like. Yet as the people of Egypt strive for that right – some of them sacrificing their lives for the cause – there has been a strangulated sound coming from the throats of those who ought to be the clearest advocates of liberty. I am being generous when I say that Barack Obama, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and the rest of the soi-disant “leaders of the free world” have often struggled to articulate a principled and coherent response to the popular revolts that have spread from Tunis to Cairo. As Shakespeare has it: “There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat.” That there is a tide in the affairs of the Middle East is beyond question and whose side we ought to be on should not be in doubt. It is a leap of hope to believe that this has the potential to be as significant and liberating as the revolutions that swept eastern Europe in 1989. It is a leap, but one worth taking. The Arab world has a chance of breaking out from decades of dictatorship on to a much freer and more prosperous trajectory. The demonstrators in Tahrir Square represent a diverse collection of classes and interests, but they have been wonderfully clear about what they want. They do not seek a Chinese-style, totalitarian, market Marxism; they crave not the kleptocracy of Russia; they evince no desire to live in a caliphate. They want what we have in the west: rule of law, enforceable human rights, independent courts, free and fair elections and representative government. For all its imperfections, it is for liberal democracy that they yearn. We ought to be both cheered and cheering. And yet our representatives have often been heard writhing and spluttering. When Newsnight sought the assessment of Alistair Burt, the Foreign Office minister with “responsibility” for the Middle East, he did not aim for Shakespearean levels of eloquence about how to respond to sea changes. Opined Mr Burt: “It’s not for us to work out where the tide is going to go.” Should you ever go sailing on tricky seas, Mr Burt might not be the most recommended of crewmates. Still, it is a bit unfair of me to pick on the stutterings of a junior minister who has “responsibility” for the Middle East only in the sense that we all have some “responsibility” for global warming. In his inability to explain what was happening or to articulate what the British government thinks ought to happen, Mr Burt was only following the orders of his seniors. His boss, William Hague, has issued contorted statements, the normally eloquent foreign secretary hesitating to express a view on the grounds that is not for Britain to pick the governments of other countries. No, it is not. Many of the tragedies of the Middle East can be traced to the days when Britain and other western powers did impose rulers. But it is for the British foreign secretary to have a view about whether democratic government is to be preferred to dictatorship. It is probably not fair to lampoon Mr Hague too harshly when his equivocations mirror those of his superiors. When the pro-democracy protests erupted, the response from Washington, echoed by most of Europe, was to equivocate. It was only when Hosni Mubarak began to buckle that western leaders started to suggest there should be a transition to democracy. One of the tottering pharaoh’s last desperate gambits has been to send out paid thugs to try to cow those campaigning for freedom. Only then did the tone become more robust. At the beginning, David Cameron spoke respectfully of “President Mubarak” and the “Egyptian government”; by this weekend, the prime minister is using the much more pejorative “regime” to describe the crumbling autocracy. Now and finally, President Obama is publicly and explicitly calling for free and fair elections. Sheer shock is one explanation for this slow and initially temporising response. Officials and ministers frankly acknowledge – at least in private – that these convulsions have caught Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels with their pants around their ankles. To the many diplomatic and intelligence errors perpetrated by the US and the countries of the EU over recent years, we can add an almost total failure to anticipate this popular revolt against decades of repression. We could put this down to simple incompetence, but I fear that would be a bit too charitable. It is also the result of an ingrained assumption among too many opinion-formers and policy-makers in the west that certain parts of the world “can’t do democracy”, that there are fellow citizens of planet Earth who are somehow less deserving of freedom or less capable of exercising it. This pernicious prejudice has had adherents in the west over many decades at both ends of the political spectrum. There are the practitioners of rightwing realpolitik who defended vile dictatorships on the doctrine: “He may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.” Elements of the left have been apologists for one-party regimes which call themselves “people’s socialist democratic republics”, a quadruple lie. This hypocrisy has been nowhere more pernicious than in the Middle East, where western governments have prostituted their avowed values for decades as a result of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the location of so much oil in the region, imperial legacies and, especially since 9/11, a short-termist view that “strong men” are the most reliable bulwark against extremist Islamism, al-Qaida and its murderous associates. This “realist” school of foreign policy has always had a bit of a cheek with its claim that dictatorships deliver stability, an argument especially hard to sustain in a region so riven with conflicts as the Middle East. Yet even as the flames of revolt lick their favoured Arab autocrats, the “realists” are still to be heard arguing that President Obama has been too precipitate in urging a democratic path for Egypt. They contend that those of us who dare to hope will prove to be naive idiots. The outcome, they warn, will not be the flowering of freedom on the Nile but an Iranian-style regime, a dictatorship at least as vicious as that of Mubarak, but one hostile to the west’s interests. This spectre is the bogey conjured by Mubarak himself. In fact, anti-western sloganeering and the burning of American flags have both been conspicuous by their absence. My instinct is that most Egyptians are much more likely to see Turkey as a role model rather than Iran. But let us concede that only fools and liars will claim to be sure of the ultimate outcome of the power plays between Egypt’s secular democrats, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and the army. Let us also acknowledge – for we would indeed be naive idiots if we did not do so – that Egypt is unlikely to progress from dictatorship to liberal democracy in one smooth step. It is in the nature of revolutions to be unpredictable and it is sometimes decades or more before we can measure their full consequences. Zhou Enlai famously quipped that it was “too early to say” whether the French Revolution was a good thing or a bad one. Is this an Arab 1789, 1848, 1917 or 1989? It is too early to say and may well turn out to be none of the above, but a transfiguration unique to its time and place. Having conceded that to the so-called “realists”, we must then ask them a question. Are they saying that Arabs are never allowed to aspire to democracy for fear that revolution might go the (highly country, culture and time-specific) way of Iran after 1979? That is a counsel of utter despair and racist condescension which consigns millions of people to the dead end of indefinite dictatorship. Anyone with any sense of history knows the road to liberal democracy can be bumpy and bloody. Britain took centuries to progress from tyrant kings such as Henry VIII to representative parliamentary government. Americans killed each other in a civil war which left more of them dead than any other conflict. The UK and the US have yet to reach a state of democratic perfection. But we also know something else about democracy, something which was best expressed by Winston Churchill: it is the worst form of government – except for all the other ones. Democracy is best at building stable, prosperous, resilient and tolerant societies over the long term. There has never been an armed conflict between two genuinely established democracies. The most promising path to sustainable peace and security in the Middle East and the most reliable bulwark against murderous extremism is not the chimeric “stability” of dictators. It is the nurturing of democracy. Our espoused principles and our long-term self-interest are both served by encouraging freedom. When liberty contends with tyranny, we should be on the side of all the citizens of the world enjoying the precious rights that we so take for granted. It is time that the leaders of the “free world” unknotted their tongues and said that with crystal clarity. Hosni Mubarak Egypt Islam Middle East Andrew Rawnsley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Barack Obama sends Mubarak his strongest message yet: it’s time to go Barack Obama today tried to nudge Hosni Mubarak towards the exit, sending his strongest message yet to the Egyptian president that it was time for him to quit. But Mubarak, even after hundreds of thousands took to the streets in Cairo, Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt to call on him to go, remained defiant and showed little sign of preparing to depart. Mubarak earlier this week promised to leave in the autumn but that has failed to satisfy the protesters who want him to go immediately. Obama, taking questions from the media for the first time since the crisis began, used a White House press conference to drop a series of heavy hints that the US regarded Mubarak as having outlived his usefulness and that it would be better if he went. “In light of what’s happened the last two weeks, going back to the old ways is not going to work,” Obama said. “Suppression is not going to work. Engaging in violence is not going to work.” He added that work on an orderly succession had to begin “right now”, had to be meaningful and broad-based, which meant involving opposition groups. The US president stopped short of calling unambiguously for Mubarak to stand down immediately but his comments went further in support of the protesters than his brief statement on Tuesday. He condemned the attacks on journalists, human rights activists and protesters and said he held the Egyptian government responsible for their safety. He appealed to Mubarak to make the right choice with regard to his departure and to think about his legacy. “I believe that President Mubarak cares about his country,” Obama said. “He is proud, but he is also a patriot.” Obama said Mubarak had made the “psychological breakthrough” by announcing he’d stand down in the autumn, seemingly suggesting that the president should not make a fuss about a few more months. US officials confirmed that while Washington publicly does not want to be seen to be interfering in Egyptian domestic affairs, it is engaged with senior Egyptian officers and politicians about life after Mubarak, assuming he leaves soon. The EU also kept up pressure on Egypt’s government for a swift, orderly and peaceful transition today on a day that saw hundreds of thousands rally on the streets. It is possible that after such a huge turnout produced no tangible effect at home or abroad the protests will become harder to sustain – unless the fragmented opposition formulates more detailed demands. Diplomatic sources signalled that if Mubarak was not going to leave and thus deprive the protest movement of a “symbolic victory,” it might still be possible to pursue a dialogue with the government. “There are people digging in around Mubarak but others who are edging in the right direction,” a western official said. European leaders called for an immediate transition to a “broad-based” government, but like the US declined to call explicitly for Mubarak’s resignation. An EU summit in Brussels wrestled over a response to the crisis, with David Cameron urging more robust action in line with Washington while leaders such as Silvio Berlusconi praised Mubarak, and suggested he should continue in office. The UN secretary-general, Ban ki-Moon, demanded new elections be held as soon as possible, and not in September. US officials are proposing that a transitional government fronted by the military invite members from a range of opposition groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, to begin work to open up the electoral system in an effort to bring about free and fair elections. “We have discussed with the Egyptians a variety of different ways to move that process forward, but all of those decisions must be made by the Egyptian people,” said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. But the limits of US pressure were graphically illustrated by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, when he warned in an ABC interview against any move to reduce the $1.3bn (£800m) in annual US aid to Egypt – apparently in response to calls that the funding be cut if the governmental transition in Egypt does not happen soon. “There is a lot of uncertainty out there and I would just caution against doing anything until we really understand what’s going on,” Mullen said. “I recognise that ($1.3bn) certainly is a significant investment, but it’s an investment that has paid off for a long, long time.” The US and Egyptian military are closely intertwined through extensive joint training and exercises in support of US interests in the Middle East. The US would suspend aid immediately if the Egyptian army was to crack down on peaceful protesters in the way the Iranian Revolutionary Guard did in 2009 and the Chinese military did in 1989. Mullen, defence secretary Robert Gates and other senior Pentagon figures have been in regular contact with their Egyptian counterparts all week. The largely trouble-free rally in Cairo suggested the government had acted smartly to rein in the pro-Mubarak demonstrators who caused mayhem and attracted international condemnation this week. The defence minister, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, paid a very public visit to Tahrir Square and talked to protesters and military commanders — conveying the message that Egypt’s most powerful institution was sanctioning the rally. Egypt Middle East Hosni Mubarak Barack Obama United Nations European Union Ian Black Ewen MacAskill Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews appeared on Morning Joe, Friday, to slam President Obama's handling of the escalating crisis in Egypt, saying it made him ” ashamed as an American .” Matthews, who famously declared Obama gave him a “thrill” up his leg, excoriated what he perceived to be the President's disloyalty to Egypt's leader, Hosni Mubarak. The Hardball host berated, ” And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling.” He added, “I believe in relationships…You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them.” Matthews has previously lauded the authoritarian Mubarak.. Pointing out Mubarak's stand against Hezbollah and other extremist elements in the region, the anchor on January 31 wondered, “How can you say he'll easily be replaced? This guy's the George Washington of peace over there.” [See video below.] Deriding immediate calls for Mubarak to step down, Matthews lamented, “Character and planning…I feel shame about this. I feel ashamed as an American, the way we're doing this. I know he has to change. I know we're for democracy, but the way we've handled it is not the way a friend handles a matter.” Matthews even attacked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's performance: “I watched Secretary Clinton today. I don't get anything. I don't see anything other than two and two are four. I keep waiting for five. Show me you've done your jobs over there.” A transcript of his answer to Joe Scarborough's question, which aired at 8:22am EST, follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: Chris, a statement yesterday from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, real concern among Arab states, if this is how we treat our ally of 30 years and I know it's tough to bring these facts up to people who want to call for his immediate lynching, but if we treat an ally of 30 years this way, demanding that he leaves quote “now,” Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, are other allies in the region start questioning America's character [sic]? CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, I think that's the great word, Joe. It's character. Our national character. We do is have a character. And Americans think about ourselves as the good guys and being good friends and loyal. And these are values that mean a lot to us as people. You don't walk down the street and watch your friend get gunned down and not do anything about it. We're not Kitty Genovese here. We're not a situation in New York or something when somebody gets mugged and we watch it happen. Was he our friend for 30 years? Are we denying that? I remember, Joe, when he came to one of those afternoon events they had in the House Foreign Affairs committee back in 1981 after Sadat had been assassinated. And, of course, we Americans loved Sadat. There was a great emotion towards him because of what he had done for peace and his courage. And we just loved his dignity and his personality. And Along came Mubarak, this strong personality. We thought things might come apart over there and he held everything together. He was strong. I was with Tip O'Neil that day and I walked aback from that meeting with him and I said, “He's a strong guy.” And we were just chatting about what an impressive figure he was and we've been with him for 30 years. And now we're saying, it's time for the gate. Well, we should have known this. My second point of view about this, it's friendship. He's 83 in May. He's getting old. We should have prepared this 10, 20 years ago. In friendship, where was the State Department? Don't we have hundreds of people sitting over there in Foggy Bottom with no other job except to know what's going on in Egypt, with no other job, but to know the culture and politics in that country and to understand who the potential leaders and factions that might off set the Muslim Brotherhood? What are they doing? I watched Secretary Clinton today . I don't get anything. I don't see anything other than two and two are four . I keep waiting for five. Show me you've done your jobs over there . And I just wish, in our friendship, we should have been smart and I think we don't have a plan B. I mean, the guy's almost 83. His plan was Gamal]. I was talking to Secretary Powell while ago. I hope it wasn't off the record, because he said it rather clearly to me. I said, “What do you think of Mubarak?” He said, “He's like every other leader in the world there. All they think about is primogeniture.” They want their oldest kid to be their successor, whether it's Gadaffi or Bashar Assad. They call themselves Baathist, monarchist, whatever, Islamists. It all comes down to the same thing. They want their oldest kid to replace them. And what was the plan for transition for our friend? Did we ever talk to him about it? Did we talk about it, encourage him? That's my view. Character and planning. And I don't see- I feel shame about this. I feel ashamed as an American, the way we're doing this. I know he has to change. I know we're for democracy, but the way we've handled it is not the way a friend handles a matter. We're not handling as Americans should handle a matter like this. I don't feel right about it. And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling. I believe in relationships. I think we all do. Relationship politics is what we were brought up with in this country. You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them. And when they're wrong, you try to be with them. You try and stick with them. As the great old line was, “I don't need you when I'm right.” You've got to help out people when they're in trouble and all I'm seeing is transaction. Who we going to get the next deal with? And, by the way, we don't have a plan for the next deal, so we're not even good at transactions, let alone relationships. What are we good at here? That's what I keep asking. What have we done as leaders and friends? Nothing except watch. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Wow! — Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter .
Continue reading …Michael Tomasky wonders how far Barack Obama should go in facing down Hosni Mubarak, explores the reasons for Jon Huntsman’s resignation from his role as ambassador for China and gives his prediction for this Sunday’s Super Bowl Michael Tomasky
Continue reading …