Jake Tapper reports that it was pressure from Obama that caused Mubarak to give up and leave.
I have no idea whether that’s true or not. My guess is that it’s not the real reason, and that the real reason was that the army decided the civil unrest was growing too threatening and told Mubarak to skedaddle or else.
But I can tell you this: if Egypt turns out badly, Obama will deny any role. And if it turns out well, he will take the credit.
Hey, did you know that today is the 32nd anniversary of the victory of the Khomeini forces in Iran? It is celebrated there as the national holiday “Islamic Revolution Victory Day,” Iran’s un-Fourth-of-July.
If you follow the timeline of the revolution in Iran, you will see the following sequence of cascading events: huge demonstrations in late December of 1978, the Shah appoints Bakhtiar PM on January 3 of 1979, the Shah flees the country on January 16, Khomeini returns February 1 and re-appoints Bakhtiar on February 4, Khomeini tells his followers on February 10 to ignore a Bakhtiar-imposed curfew and pandemonium follows, and on February 11 the regime collapses and Bakhtiar flees.
One very large difference between Egypt and Iran is that Iran had a ready-made charismatic figure in Khomeini, who was ruthless in his drive to power. Egypt seems to lack a similar figure—so far.
[Hat tip: commenter “sergey.”]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s another anniversary from the history of Iran, one that’s not celebrated by anybody: on November 5, 1978, the Shah went on TV and promised “not to repeat past mistakes and to make amends saying, ‘I heard the voice of your revolution… As Shah of Iran as well as an Iranian citizen, I cannot but approve your revolution.'” Something like yesterday’s address by Mubarak, wasn’t it? And just about as effective.]
It seems that Mubarak really has stepped down this time.
Suleiman came on TV and made the announcement and the crowd went wild. Now the army is in charge of the transition.
I say “now the army is in charge,” but they have actually been in charge the whole time. IMHO they were allowing Mubarak to try to stay in power and allowed him to make that speech yesterday—but when they saw the results, which seemed potentially incendiary, they insisted he leave.
And so he did, putting them in power officially rather than just behind the scenes. This has happened before, most notably in 1952 in the infancy of the Egyptian republic when a group of officers removed King Farouk, an act that ended with the presidency of Nasser. In order to do that, the fledgling Eygptian constitution was abandoned and a new one written. But there was one huge difference: that was a coup, not a popular uprising.
For now, I think Mubarak’s resignation is the best result possible under the circumstances, as long as the army maintains order. I emphasize the words “for now,” because I continue to be very concerned about what will happen next, and especially the outcome of elections. Even if the people in Tahrir Square actually represent a true democracy movement, five and a half months is not exactly an ideal amount of time to build a democratic political system where none existed before. And will forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood be the beneficiaries?
We’ve heard about the Arab street for years. Who would have thought that its most potentially cataclysmic eruption would be against its own governments? The reverberations are spreading around the entire region, and I am certain that heads of state in places such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan are staying up nights figuring out what to do in their countries to avoid a similar fate.
I asked who would have thought it—but I suppose I could say “neocons,” or perhaps “George Bush, that’s who.” But that does not mean that something good will come from this. We simply do not know the end result, and anyone who says that he or she does is just blowing hot air.
[ADDENDUM: I just watched a clip of Suleiman delivering the announcement. He looked like a person officiating at his own funeral.]
Here is the full text of Mubarak’s speech in translation.
There’s a lot in there about “dialogue,” or some Egyptian term that’s translated as dialogue. He sounds like a Democrat already!
And this part seems to be a slap in the face of President Obama:
And I tell you here, as a head of state, I do not find any embarrassment at all in listening to the youth of my country, and to satisfying their demands. But the embarrassment would only lie in the fact — and I would never permit — is that I would listen to any sort of intervention that would come from outside, from the outside world, whatever the source is, whatever the intention behind them are.
[ADDENDUM: John Bradley, who wrote a book predicting the Egyptian revolution, was just interviewed briefly on Fox about Mubarak’s speech and said: “Tomorrow is the first day of the real revolution.”]
Obama can’t say they didn’t warn him.
Mubarak says that the reports of his resignation are greatly exaggerated.
You may note that when I wrote earlier today about the predictions that he’d be leaving, I hedged a bit by saying, “That’s the report, anyway.” My skepticism came not from any special prescience I have about events in Egypt, nor from any particular insight into Mubarak’s mind, but simply from my distrust in the MSM.
I happened to be in my car when Mubarak’s speech began, so I was able to listen to most of it (in translation, of course). It became apparent from the first couple of sentences that it wasn’t really a good-bye. My immediate impressions are that: elections will be held in September or before, Mubarak has every intention of playing a large behind-the-scenes role in the transition, and the army will continue to have enormous clout and is willing to be quite aggressive if it need be (if demonstrations threaten to get out of hand, for example). But if things get really hot and heavy, the army might decide to force Mubarak out and not give him the option he took today.
As far as the outcome of the long-term jockeying for position goes, your guess may be as good as mine (or as good as that of our seemingly clueless Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper). But for what it’s worth, my guess is that the army stands a good chance of holding things down long enough to allow elections in September, that those elections will be at least marginally more open and free than in the past (not the world’s highest standard), and that Mubarak/Suleiman may even appear to ease up on the emergency measures that have been in place for Mubarak’s entire 30-year rule and have so angered the people.
If the Muslim Brotherhood is allowed to campaign for office, the outcome of the elections will probably find that group holding a plurality but not a majority in Egypt’s Parliament. This will make them a force with which to be reckoned. Hey, while I’m making predictions, I’ll go so far as to say what percentage of the seats in Parliament I think the Muslim Brotherhood could capture: one-third.
Why one-third? Because I’ve noticed, in many places and many times, that’s often approximately the percentage that seems willing and eager to support more extreme positions. In a multi-party parliamentary system, a one-third win can sometimes lead to coalitions being formed and, in the end, to absolute power.
That’s the report, anyway. He’s about to give a speech some time today to announce his resignation, and according to the Fox article I just linked, the Egyptian Higher Council of the Armed Forces will take over.
Other sources, including the NY Times, report it more likely that his VP, Suleiman, will be the temporary successor until elections can occur in September of 2011.
The army has long been the most powerful group in Egypt. All the country’s leaders since independence and the 1952 removal of King Farouk have come from its ranks. Whoever does take power temporarily and officially, the military will have a huge say.
What of the Egyptian constitution? It dictates that Mubarak’s successor would ordinarily be the speaker of the house, not Suleiman the VP, and that elections must occur within 60 days.
If one is concerned about following the constitution, there is no foundation for a military takeover, which would occur “outside the constitutional framework:”
So they will have to define the format under which they are taking power.”
The source [for this story] did not know how long the military would reign nor what mechanism or timetable would be put in place to end the military’s administration of power, but said that “when (the transfer of power from Mubarak) does happen, they will presumably indicate the direction of the country.”
The source drew parallels with the Army coup of 1952, and the removal of King Faroukh, noting that it took six months before the monarchy was dissolved and the modern republic formed.
The source said this marks “a moment of grave magnitude for the national security of Egypt.”
Indeed.
It reminds me of the period when a lobster sheds its hard outer shell, and it takes some weeks for it to grow another. Till then, the highly vulnerable lobster must slink off and hide in order to protect itself. Egypt has no such luxury, and the predators it must fend off originate mostly from within. Will the end result be more liberty, or less?
[ADDENDUM: I will be busy and away from the computer until some time this evening. Till then, use this thread to talk about developments, which I assume will be coming fast and furious.]
Well, two out of three ain’t bad (hint: scroll down for photo).
Also rather dumb. What married member of Congress would, in this day and age, send shirtless pictures to an unknown woman on Craigslist and use his real name?
Here’s more about a topic we’ll probably revisit many times to come: what are Obama’s chances in 2012?
The fortuitously-named Sean Trende offers an interesting analysis based on how approval ratings affect elections. But I remain convinced that such speculation is so premature at this point as to be almost meaningless. Too many events—including surprising and unforeseen ones—can occur between now and then. And one all-important question mark is who the Republicans will nominate to run against Obama.
For obvious reasons, several people have sent me this link to a NY Times article on the overwhelming presence of liberals in the field of personality and social psychology. Conservatives? This group has barely ever heard of em, except perhaps as subjects to study.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has, however, and he addressed the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s recent convention, confronting members with the fact that their profession is almost completely dominated by liberals to a degree so profound that it is a “statistical impossibility” that it is accidental. He added:
…[S]ocial psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility ”” and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.
Haidt illustrated that atmosphere by quoting letters and emails he’s received from conservative grad students in the field, who see the need to keep themselves closeted in order to have any hopes of advancing in their chosen profession.
To us it all sounds so familiar as to be glaringly obvious. But it’s easy to forget that, although some of this discrimination is conscious and purposeful, many of the rank and file who are safely cocooned in the bosom of that sort of group have no idea what’s going on. To them, if they notice the phenomenon at all, there’s a simple explanation (and one I’ve heard many times about many other fields of endeavor): that liberals are just smarter than conservatives, and also more interested in people and how they work. The possibility of systematic selection, or discrimination, or indoctrination, or self-fulfilling prophecies, is just too difficult to entertain or accept (even, or maybe especially, for social psychologists, who ought to know better) when it’s one’s own group that’s being accused.
I don’t know whether research would back me up, but my theory is that there’s at least a two-part process going on. The first part is that, as in many other professions such as that of therapy and journalism, the subject matter of certain disciplines does draw initially appeal to a disproportionate number of liberals. Many if not most of these fields are artistic endeavors, and/or are concerned primarily with feelings rather than hard facts or practical and technical matters.
Personality and social psychology is a research science, but of the exceedingly soft variety; you might call it the science of the study of feelings, especially as they are expressed in group dynamics (personality psychology does the same for individuals), and as such it would be no surprise it would appeal disproportionately to liberals. Here’s a definition of the group’s areas of interest as explained on the Society’s website:
How do people come to be who they are? How do people think about, influence, and relate to one another?…By exploring forces within the person (such as traits, attitudes, and goals) as well as forces within the situation (such as social norms and incentives), personality and social psychologists seek to unravel the mysteries of individual and social life in areas as wide-ranging as prejudice, romantic attraction, persuasion, friendship, helping, aggression, conformity, and group interaction.
There’s something ironically satisfying about such a group’s inability to understand its own prejudices and demands for conformity. That brings us to part two of the phenomenon, which is that the natural tendencies within the profession that draw more liberals to it in the first place are augmented by a purposeful selection process by which professors and researchers favor certain types of studies which get certain types of results. Therefore, when hiring and giving awards, they tend to choose people who have biases that mesh with the their own.
Each part of the process amplifies the other. The more unitary the group becomes the stronger the selection process becomes, unless there is a giant effort to reverse it. So Haidt has suggested that the group begin a affirmative action hiring policy for conservatives in order to offset it, and a few members (although not the executive committee) have even agreed that it would be a good idea to set a goal that by 2020 the Society include a whopping 10% conservatives.
Wow, talk about tokens! It’s hard to imagine that the affirmative action one out of ten would feel especially welcome around those casual discussions that tend to feature the knee-jerk dissing of conservatives and their political position. I know; I’ve been there too many times.
Haidt has a suggestion for that, too, although it’s a sly one. He gave the assembled psychologists an assignment: “to overcome taboos, he advised them to subscribe to National Review and to read Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions.”
Watch out, social psychologists! In Haidt, you not only have a conservative on your hands, you’ve got a subversive. By suggesting you actually read some of the best of conservative thought (including a work by a figure you would have thought chimerical, a leading black conservative), Haidt is setting the stage for the possibility not just of acceptance of conservatives in your ranks, but of potential political conversions among the in-crowd.
You may think you are immune to such things (and the majority of you probably are), but some of you may end up with the surprise of your lives. Some day you, too, may wake up and find yourself outside the circle dance.
Here’s a little traveling music:
…except for the fact that Joel isn’t there.
So say goodbye:
[NOTE: I became a huge fan of “Northern Exposure,” although I was a bit late since I’d missed it the first time around. I watched all the episodes in reruns on TV. Until this scene came on, I had no idea I was watching the final episode. But when Iris Dement’s plaintive voice started singing “Our Town,” I was suddenly gripped by a near-panic at the thought that the series was ending, and that it might be I who was going to have to say good-bye to people I’d grown to (I had to admit it, though it was a bit embarrassing) love.
Especially affecting for me was the segment in which Maurice, usually a comic character, stops on the stairs and gazes around with a deeply contemplative stare. And by the time Marilyn had pulled the shade down in that ante-penultimate moment, tears were streaming down my face.]