The right-wing punditocracy’s sputtering reaction to the Obama Administration’s Egyptian diplomacy is a new low point in the melt-down of rationality on the right.
I am utterly convinced that had Bush been in power and had gently suggested that Mubarak cede power, the right would have loyally backed him. After all, the Freedom Agenda was a signature Bush policy, if only intermittently realized in practice. Nothing that Obama is doing now contradicts that policy; in fact the nudge towards Mubarak is something that would seem to have been long overdue under the Freedom Agenda. The right cheered on the invasion of Iraq to remove a dictator, with its concomitant risk—temporarily realized–of empowering Islamists, in this case, Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Right is constantly extolling American exceptionalism and our God-given duty to spread freedom throughout the world. The Right has also proclaimed the need to back a war-time president and to maintain a strong executive control over foreign affairs.
But the rule on the right now is: If Obama is doing it, it is wrong. It is as simple as that. So suddenly Mubarak must not be challenged, because the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood is so great and because Israel’s interests require unequivocal support for Israel-friendly Middle Eastern dictators. Leave aside the legitimate debate about whether the Muslim Brotherhood in fact remains committed to violent Jihad. The argument—whether right or wrong–that the longer term protection for Israel is Middle Eastern democracy is now out the window, despite its many exponents among Bush freedom proselytizers.
I am attributing more coherence to the right-wing media’s reaction than it deserves, however. Although the “prop-up-Mubarak” position has recently solidified on talk radio and Fox News, during the early days of the Egyptian crisis, the only clear principle that emerged from the right was that Obama was wrong. The terrible complexity of the situation, the conundrums and impossible trade-offs, were never acknowledged.
Has the Obama Administration been totally consistent from day to day? No. Is it driven more by developing facts on the ground than driving those facts? Yes. And good luck to anyone who thinks that he can do better in this diplomatic and moral morass.
Dubya backed elections in Gaza, even when it meant Hamas coming to power. He’d probably be a bit more circumspect in Egypt, but I don’t think he’d substantively do anything differently. What I dread to think of is how McCain would have behaved.
Equating Iraq with Egypt is odd, since the first was an enemy and the latter an ally. Maybe not a great ally, but an ally nonetheless. In Iraq the risk was exchanging one enemy for another.
I don’t listen to talk radio so your point may be accurate, but I would like to hear a better argument.
I agree with the point, I had noticed myself that most right-wing commentators’ main point against Obama’s reaction was that it was Obama’s reaction.
At the same time, that’s the kind of “point scoring” that’s part of politics. If you stop doing it, the other guys will still do it. It’s maybe a cynical view but the stakes are far too high in the big picture to allow Obama to score a victory on anything – especially after the Arizona shooting provided him with a victory for which he had to do nothing.
They are an ally of circumstance. They stay friendly because we pay them, not because we are compatible cultures.
My impression is that Mubarak is trying to save face. He cares more about his own image than about the dangers of escalating riots. Taking a hard line against him in private might be successful, but a public nudge will just get his back up.
Good post!
Mike H you sir are crazy. How about letting Obama get a victory because it benefits America as a whole, even if it is detrimental to Palin’s chances in 2012. You and I know that the apocalyptic anti-Obama rhetoric is overblown. Just like there was overblown rhetoric about Dubya (although he did start a bullshit war). Still.
You are correct. This would be an excellent opportunity for the right to say, this is what President Bush wanted. Perhaps it was messier than we had expected, and many lives and dollars were poorly spent. But by pushing for elections, we gave the Arab world something around which they could organize.
Really the Bush administration’s forceful advocacy of democracy has dovetailed with the Obama administrations more hands off approach.
What few seem to recognize is that this is a new generation coming to leadership. And their ideals are as different from the radical Islamists who preceded them as the radical Islamists are different from the secular, authoritarian nationalists who preceded them. The right could paint Bush as a sort of prophetic character. But in going after Obama, they degrade Democrats, Republicans, the Egyptians in the streets, and American ideals all.
Until yesterday, I thought Obama was doing as well as could be expected with the situation. Given the embarrassing statements from Pannetta and Clapper, my confidence is slipping a bit. Obama may very well have ticked off Mubarak to the point that Mubarak is thinking “F*** you, pal, I’ll sweat it out until 2013. Hopefully, you’ll be gone.” Not exactly the strategy I’d take at age 82, but I guess pride is more important to him than enjoying his final years on this rock.
How about letting Obama get a victory because it benefits America as a whole…
Gimme a break. Whether Obama “gets a victory” is entirely in his hands. Partisan sniping is par for the course here. As the other poster pointed out, there was hardly any thought of “benefiting America” when the Left was out blood libeling the Right last month.
Obama not being re-elected in 2012 is the main objective in all of political debate until the day after that election as far as I am concerned.
Another four years of Obama and his foolish appointees would be terrible for America and the world. The world won’t end and it won’t be the Soviet Republic of America but it would be bad enough alright.
As far as Palin is concerned, I wish she disappeared from politics. Her continued prominence furthers Obama’s chances of being re-elected which brings us back to point one.
Yesterday the right was crowing that Obama was an enormous failure since Mubarak said he wasn’t leaving. Today, he appears to have left–if true, does that now make Obama a big success to the right?
Let me guess: no.
Maybe the truth is the US is not the world’s puppet-master, and sometimes we’ll just have to try our best, understanding that other people have to set their own destinies.
Not everything is a partisan political exercise, and people who fail to realize that are, among other things, bad Americans and terrible boors.
Today, he appears to have left–if true, does that now make Obama a big success to the right?
Well, his administration certainly wants it to be, even though they found out about it the same way the rest of us did. Unfortunately for Obama, taking credit can be a bit of two-edged sword. It means he’d have to own whatever replaced Mubarak, and it almost certainly won’t be Sweden-on-the-Nile.
we should always support freedom. I am sure Reagan would have been on the side of freedom. It’s really petty to try and attack the President on this. No one likes a constantly angry friend. Give the man a break sometimes
President Teddy Roosevelt said “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Guess which President says “Teleprompt loudly and hoist a white flag!” (To see a related web article that some have banned, Google “Obama Fulfilling the Bible.”)
During the Bush administration, the vast majority of Republicans in Washington voted to extend unemployment benefits no less than seven times. During the Obama administration, the majority of congressional Republicans voted against extending unemployment benefits.
The bottom line for every republican policy debate is not about how it might help the country, but rather how they can hurt president Obama. If it hurts the country in the process, too bad. Saving the American auto industry? Forget about it, not if it might help Obama. Extending unemployment benefits or rebuilding the economy? Who cares, as long as Obama is blamed. Voting against our own policies makes us look like hypocrites? No big deal, as long as Obama doesn’t get credit. Opposing New Start treaty weakens our national security? So what, as long as Obama doesn’t get a victory.
The appropriate analogy of the current situation in Washington is that of a bitter divorce, where one of the parties is perfectly happy and content with destroying himself and everything around him as long as it destroys the hated spouse as well. If the actions also happen to hurt the kids in the process, so be it. The objective of hurting the spouse overrides all other considerations.