Mubarak under the bus

The New Neo Posted on by

Our Arab allies (yes, we have them) are miffed that President Obama has been so eager to abandon Mubarak.

It’s no surprise they feel this way. They understand that Obama’s actions mean they could be next, and they “fear the U.S. is opening the door for Islamist groups to gain influence and destabilize the region.”

Well, I fear it too, as does any thinking person who knows anything about the region.

Let’s see: Obama fails to support the demonstrators in Iran; his rhetoric is tepid at best. But he throws his weight behind the ones in Egypt and speaks actively and early for Mubarak’s removal. I can think of no benign reason why this disparity would occur, except that perhaps he’s a slow learner. But it is difficult to believe that’s what’s going on. It seems purposeful and strategic, and sends a message to our other allies in the region.

Pride and face are especially important in the Arab world:

Another Arab official from a government aligned with Washington said the Obama administration seems to be humiliating Mr. Mubarak, despite his close cooperation over the years. This could lessen the willingness of Arab states to cooperate with Washington in the future, said the official.

“[The Saudis] are at odds with the U.S. position, publicly pushing Mubarak out. And frankly so are we””this isn’t how you handle issues in region,” said the Arab official. “Egypt needs to be treated with respect.”

A great many of our allies—and not just in the Arab world—could make the same complaint.

Obama faces an extraordinarily difficult set of choices in Egypt, but he seems to be selecting some of the worst possibilities. How much damage can this administration do before it is finished?

[ADDENDUM: Walter Russell Mead provides some excellent historic perspective on the enormous difficulties of knowing which course to take when an ally undergoes a revolt.]

Repealing Obamacare: what goes around may come around

The New Neo Posted on by

Keith Hennessy lays out a multi-step blueprint for repealing Obamacare in 2013:

* Keep up the pressure in 2011 and 2012:
* maintain and strengthen Republican unity toward full repeal;
* repeatedly attack the bill legislatively on all fronts, knowing that most votes will pass the House and fail in the Senate;
* continue legal pressure through the courts; and
* tee up repeal as a key partisan difference in the 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections;
* In 2012 win the White House, hold the House majority, and pick up a net 3 Republican Senate seats to retake the majority there; and
* In 2013, use reconciliation to repeal ObamaCare, requiring only a simple majority in the Senate.

It is a profoundly satisfying poetic justice that the final step of the undoing could involve the reconciliation process. And it would be even more satisfying because—unlike the passage of Obamacare—the argument for reconciliation being valid in this case is stronger.

There are problems with CBO scoring and the like (not to mention defeating Obama in 2012), but apparently they could be overcome. Read what Hennessy writes, and see what you think.

[ADDENDUM: And then there’s the war between the states—and Obamacare.]

Last tangos

The New Neo Posted on by

Maria Schneider, star of “Last Tango in Paris,” has died at the age of 58. She seems to have had a difficult life subsequent to making the film.

I saw that film in a movie theater when it first came out in 1972. It was famously controversial for its time—or even for any time—and highly, highly praised. It was supposed to be some sort of masterpiece, but almost all I remember about it is that I hated it and found it surprisingly dull and stupid.

Plus, here’s another confession: I’ve never cared much for “Tango” star Marlon Brando as an actor, even in the roles that made his name like “Streetcar Named Desire,” when he was a young hottie. I found him mannered and self-indulgent, never believable.

His best role for me was in “The Godfather.” And even then I didn’t like him for much the same reasons. The voice and the mannerisms seemed too actorish, and distracted me from the character, although they did make me forget for a while that I was watching Marlon Brando.

I realize I may be in a tiny minority in this.

The Arab street: who are the Egyptian demonstrators and what do they want?

The New Neo Posted on by

We’ve seen such demonstrations before, notably in Iran. But they were brief and flickered out after the government responded harshly. The same may ultimately occur in Egypt, but nevertheless there seems to be something different about the Egyptian demonstrations.

The NY Times has an article today with some glowing reports:

The protesters have spoken for themselves to a government that, like many across the Middle East, treated them as a nuisance. For years, pundits have predicted that Islamists would be the force that toppled governments across the Arab world. But so far, they have been submerged in an outpouring of popular dissent that speaks to a unity of message, however fleeting ”” itself a sea change in the region’s political landscape…

“The street is not afraid of governments anymore,” said Shawki al-Qadi, an opposition lawmaker in Yemen, itself roiled by change. “It is the opposite. Governments and their security forces are afraid of the people now. The new generation, the generation of the Internet, is fearless. They want their full rights, and they want life, a dignified life.”

It depends, doesn’t it? The new generation can afford to be fearless as long as the government doesn’t decide to put the big fear into them by killing significantly more than one or two here and there. If a government wants to crack down, it has more than enough power to do so, and my guess is that most people would not so heroic as to risk everything for the idea of democracy.

Some of the demonstrators had this to say:

“I tell the Arab world to stand with us until we win our freedom,” said Khaled Yusuf, a cleric from Al Azhar, a once esteemed institution of religious scholarship now beholden to the government. “Once we do, we’re going to free the Arab world.”…

“I’m fighting for my freedom,” Noha al-Ustaz said as she broke bricks on the curb. “For my right to express myself. For an end to oppression. For an end to injustice.”

Brave words, words I support and hope will come to be. But if democracy comes to a country such as Egypt, what rough beast will slouch towards Cairo to be born?

I’m old enought to remember 1979 and Iran quite vividly. Some of those same brave voices, that same exhilaration. And we know how it turned out. And that’s why I worry.

That, and polls such as this, which was taken in December of 2010. It indicates that the populace of Egypt may mean something quite different from what Americans mean when we use words such as “an end to injustice.”

Some of the findings:

Egyptians who support Hamas: 49%

Egyptians who support Hezbollah: 30%

Egyptians who support al Qaeda: 20%

95% agreement with religion playing a role in politics, with 48% thinking the role should be large, and 49% thinking it should be small

Of people in Egypt who see a struggle in their country between those who would like to modernize and those who are fundamentalists, 27% identify with the modernizers and a whopping 59% with the fundamentalists.

82% of Egyptian respondents favored stoning as punishment for adultery, and 84% favored death as punishment for apostasy (leaving the Muslim religion).

54% approve of suicide bombing in some circumstances.

It’s sobering, to say the least. When the real Arab street stands up, what will it be saying?

That comingled seating: singing with the choir

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember that bipartisan “date night” seating for the SOTU address? I hear it cut down on the applause, although that surely wasn’t the intent. It seems that some people became confused as to what were the applause lines. Being in a partisan pack and seeing everyone else around them clap and rise ordinarily cues them to the fact that the moment has arrived. Minus that clear sort of signal, the response was more tepid.

It occurs to me that it’s a bit like a choral group, where if members of each section—altos, sopranos, tenors, basses—are clumped with others of their ilk, it helps the weaker members keep to their parts. Sometimes the members are spread out and separated for balance, but that requires more attention and focus.

Since I know next to nothing about choral groups, I thought I’d look it up to make sure I’m correct about that. I discovered that yes, indeed, this is a burning question among choral directors—to group or not to group:?

And then there’s the whole issue of whether or not a choir stands with all the sopranos grouped together, all the altos grouped together somewhere else, etc. The alternative (usually in more advanced choirs, and always depending on the piece of music) is having the sections all mixed up…usually in quartets (one soprano, one alto, one tenor, one bass). The challenge here is that, as you’ve noted, in order to sing next to a different voice part (or three!), you really need to be a strong independent musician — be able to hold your own, even when you’re not hearing someone else sing your part. But that’s really a different situation.

Choir positioning is a tricky thing, and very few directors are able to get it set up just to their liking on the first try (that is, if they care at all…many directors place the singers with the simple instruction “basses in the back, tenors in the front, sopranos on the left, altos on the right…tall singers in the back and short in the front” which may work, if the choir is 80+). So, directors tend to move singers around during the rehearsal process…and I’ve seen more than a few singers get very upset about being moved.

I’ve never really considered the finer points of choir directing, but I’m certain that the intrigue and brouhaha of positioning can get quite intense. Maybe not as intense as in Congress, but intense enough.

Hanson on Obama and Carter

The New Neo Posted on by

Victor Davis Hanson compares presidents Obama and Carter, and finds both wanting.

Check out the last paragraph:

There is one consolation in that the progressive Western Europeans, the United Nations, and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee sometimes appreciate American indecision and self-confession. As a result, this time around our sermonizer-in-chief was given the Nobel Peace Prize without lobbying for it ”” and during, rather than after, his presidency.

Judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s funny how Judge Vinson’s ruling against the constitutionality of the HCR individual mandate has been called “judicial activism” and “overreaching” by the left and the Obama administration.

Here’s an article that points out that it’s not really “activist” to use the constitution to restrain the expansion of the powers of the federal government. To call it such is quite an feat of verbal gymnastics. “Restraint” might be a better word—unless one thinks the judiciary’s purpose is to automatically rubber stamp acts of the legislative and executive branches of government (as long as both branches are under Democratic control, of course).

Chaos, small and large

The New Neo Posted on by

There are heaps of snow outside my door right now, and in that I’m hardly alone. From midwest to northeast we’ve had a huge disruptive blizzard. Some places have had the pleasure of an ice storm as well, which brings with it the threat of a power outage.

These events introduce a small bit of chaos into our lives. That disorder is almost always a mere annoyance, and a temporary one at that. And yet it can still make us very uneasy, because it points out how closely we live to real chaos, which lies just a power grid away for most of us.

Then there’s private chaos of a different sort. We’ve just had a reminder of that, too, within our virtual family here on the blog, with the announcement of commenter strcpy’s very serious illness. When illness strikes, all the usual plans and expectations are thrown into the air and life goes into another mode, a crisis one that focuses on treatments, with a whole new vocabulary and way of being to be learned.

And then there’s public chaos of the type brought about by the demonstrations in Egypt and the resultant instability there. It’s far away, and reaches us only through computer, newspaper, or TV screen. But for the people of Egypt it’s up close and personal, and it must be both exhilarating and terrifying.

I said it is far away for us, and that is true. But, just as the events in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century dominated our foreign policy for much of the latter half of that century, and the ascension to power of a strange mustachioed orator in Germany spelled doom for tens of millions of people around the globe, and the return of the turbaned Khomeini to Iran started that country on a repressive path that included supporting terrorism against us and our allies, so do events in Egypt today have the potential to affect us all in ways large and small. We just don’t know yet what those ways will be.

Lessons for Egypt from Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

Michael Totten has an important must-read interview with Iranian exile Abbas Milani, professor at Stanford, who discusses the Shah, the 1979 Iranian Revolution that led to the present theocracy there, and how it might relate to Egypt today.

Here’s Milani is on the events leading up to 1979 in Iran:

MJT: But what should Carter have done instead [vis a vis the Shah]? Are you saying he was he wrong to talk about human rights?

Abbas Milani: No, he should have talked about human rights, but he also should have understood that you have to go step by step. Concessions need to be made in a timely fashion from a position of power. Carter should have made it clear that he was for change, but not for change at any price. Brzezinski understood this much better than anyone else in the administration but didn’t get his way. And on the other side we had the Shah undergoing chemotherapy and his endogenous paranoia, depression, indecisiveness and vacillation. The result was disaster…

And lurking around the corner was Khomeini who cleverly understood what the Americans wanted. The Americans wanted a more responsive democratic government, and Khomeini promised it to them. I have found evidence of his contacting Americans.

MJT: Who in the US did he contact?

Abbas Milani: The American Embassy in Paris. He also sent a letter to Carter. His allies in Tehran were also in contact with the American Embassy. They were saying Khomeini was not as bad as the Shah was making him out to be. All of them were helped by Iranian intellectuals who have a great responsibility in all this.

MJT: What did you think about Khomeini at the time?

Abbas Milani: I was an opponent of the Shah. I spent a year in prison. For six months I was in Evin Prison. The future leaders of the Islamic Republic were my cellmates.

MJT: You knew these guys?

Abbas Milani: I knew all of them. I spent six months with them. I knew they were bad news. I knew that what they were going to deliver was not democracy.

But most people had never read any of Khomeini’s writings because they were banned. The Shah, instead of making them mandatory reading, banned them. In the 1960s and 70s Khomeini had already talked about almost everything he did. Even in 1944 he talked about how evil democracy and modernity are, how evil the rule of law is. He talked about the establishment of Velayat-e faqih, the rule of Islamic jurists. These books could have been an absolutely clear indication of where his regime would go, but they were banned. Even those who were willing, like me, to actually read this stuff, we dismissed it because we were under the Age of Enlightenment illusion that religion is the opiate of the masses and that there is an inverse correlation between reason and science on the one hand and religion on the other. We believed that Iran was too advanced for these ideas.

Milani and his cohorts can be forgiven their failure to understand what was about to happen. After all, it was exceedingly unusual for a modern and secular (or seemingly modern and seemingly secular) country to become a fundamentalist theocracy. But from the example of Iran we know full well that it could happen in Egypt too, so there are no more excuses for ignoring or minimizing the possibility.

Milani also says:

Governments can no longer rely on fear alone. It’s much easier now to break through it than it used to be.

I disagree. Governments could rely on fear alone—it is just that most modern governments, even that of the ayatollahs, are more reluctant than tyrannies of the past to get out the big guns and use them freely on their own people. When a dictatorship gets to the point where it is reluctant to kill large numbers of demonstrators to stay in power, then it is much easier for the people to “break through,” because the population will always outnumber those in power, who can only stay in power either by serving the needs of the people or by frightening them into submission.

Judge Vinson’s HCR ruling

The New Neo Posted on by

I was going to write a long post about this today but alas, I already got caught up in long-windedness on another topic, that of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. So I’ll just do a roundup.

Putting on my Instapundit hat:

This seems about right to me.

Likewise, this.

Surprisingly, Ezra Klein has a pretty good list of links on both sides of the argument.

South Dakota gets into the act. And it’s not even April Fools Day.

Romney walks a tightrope. But it’s true that states can do things the feds can’t. Not that it’s worked out that well for Massachusetts.

And via William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection we have this handy explanation of what happened: