Democracy in the US? Not so much.

You know, we're supposed to be all about democracy here in the US--about liberty, freedom of choice, and open electoral process and all that good stuff.  I remember back in 2000 when Ralph Nader was on the ballot.  Do you all remember that?  Well, people can think whatever they want about Nader as a person, or his politics or whatever.  Fine.  But something happened back then that made me quite a bit more cynical about our electoral process: Nader was excluded from even trying to attend the first presidential debate.  The Commission on Presidential Debates did eventually apologize to him--two years later.  Like that does any good.

So, more of the same is happening this year: Green Party candidate Jill Stein was arrested for trying to attend last night's debate.  And she apparently spent 8 hours handcuffed to a chair under police supervision.  Is this our democratic process at work?  Read more about this on Democracy Now.

Here's what Stein said just before she was arrested (from the Democracy Now link):

Well, we’re here to stand our ground. We’re here to stand ground for the American people, who have been systematically locked out of these debates for decades by the Commission on Presidential Debates. We think that this commission is entirely illegitimate; that if—if democracy truly prevailed, there would be no such commission, that the debates would still be run by the League of Women Voters, that the debates would be open with the criteria that the League of Women Voters had always used, which was that if you have done the work to get on the ballot, if you are on the ballot and could actually win the Electoral College by being on the ballot in enough states, that you deserve to be in the election and you deserve to be heard; and that the American people actually deserve to hear choices which are not bought and paid for by multinational corporations and Wall Street.

I think she makes some pretty good points.  Meanwhile, democracy steamrolls forward.

Democracy or Extremism? Political Ideals and Egypt

The US has a pretty confusing--if not outright contradictory--history of foreign policy. On the surface, we supposedly are the champions of democracy, human rights, and freedom. Right? Those are the ideals that the nation was founded upon, and they continue to play a primary role in the political rhetoric and overall idealism of its people.

However, the US also has a history of making alliances with autocratic regimes and/or dictatorships that serve particular short-term interests (Somoza, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the Saudi regime, and of course Mubarak in Egypt). These alliances, while politically expedient, haven't exactly lead to the greatest results--and the histories of Latin America, to name one regional example, speak quite clearly to that. Such decisions also stand in pretty stark contrast to our supposed ideals about governance and freedom.

Anyway, what's somewhat disturbing and shocking is the sheer number of people calling for the continued support of the Mubarak regime, which is a continuation of the same kind of international policy that we have relied upon for far too long. What's this all about? Fear? A belief in the whole "clash of the civilizations" scheme that old Sam Huntington used to peddle? Why have so many politicians, pundits, and citizens of the US (and the west in general) been so hesitant, so wary about the events in Egypt? Are their worries grounded, or are these folks overreacting a bit? And what about all of those American ideals about democracy, human rights, and political freedom?

Enough questions, how about some more Zizek:

Power, realpolitik, and freedom: Egypt and US Ideals about Freedom

What absolutely blows me away is how quickly some folks drop their supposed ideals about freedom and democracy when the people under consideration are far away (like in Egypt, for example). It's shocking, actually, to hear some folks out there calling for the support of Mubarak as a close ally (check the comments section). I don't get it. Democracy, it seems, only applies here at home. When it comes to a distant population like the people of Egypt, it seems that many people are willing to sidestep all of the rhetoric about political freedom and openly advocate supporting a repressive policy state, all in the name of "our interests." Horribly ironic, no? Granted, the situation in Egypt is far from clear, but I definitely do not think that going back to the "support the nearest dictator who will toe the line" model is the way to go. Absolutely not. Anyway, here are some quotes that are apt for folks on all sides of the political spectrum here in the US:

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

-Ronald Reagan

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

-Ronald Reagan

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

-President Thomas Jefferson.

Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine.

Autocrats, democracy, and pragmatism

Over on a political blog that I check every now and again, one of the respondents to this post argues that the US should keep supporting Mubarak (despite that fact that he's a SOB), and that they would be perfectly content if the conditions of the last 30 years continued unabated. This is one strain of realpolitik that has been pretty common in certain circles the last few days, one that is akin to a long-running foreign policy philosophy that has reigned in the US for decades.

I completely disagree with this sort of thinking, for numerous reasons. Mubarak is a crucial part of the problem, and is helping to create conditions that will only make things worse in the long run. Brutal repression doesn't lead anywhere good, and there are plenty of historical examples that bear this out. Seems pretty self explanatory, really. Repressive regimes are rampant throughout the region, and Egypt is just another case in point. These governments only fuel inequality, repression, poverty, and violence. Why is it that we think that supporting an autocratic regime--which represses the rights of its citizens--is in any way an acceptable solution?

In the long run, supporting anti-democratic regimes only undermines US legitimacy and credibility, especially considering all of our talk about freedom, democracy, and liberty. History has PLENTY of examples that bear this out (Somoza was "our bastard" in Central America, and that worked out just wonderfully, didn't it?). But then, maybe all of that talk about freedom and democracy is just a bunch of rhetoric and political theater. That's the pessimistic version of this particular trend.

Eventually, these types of alliances always come back to haunt us--and Egypt could be yet another case. Considering the fact that we have tacitly supported Mubarak for three decades, there is no reason to assume that a new government will necessarily look upon the US with favor. This is a real problem...but nobody should really be shocked, all things considered. Thirty years is a long time.

I definitely agree with anyone who is skeptical about where events in Egypt are heading. Definitely. It's difficult to tell at this point what will happen, and anyone who claims otherwise is being way too naive. This can go many ways, so it makes sense to step back and avoid making unsubstantiated proclamations. Maybe it's a good time for guarded optimism--maybe this will result in democratic change in Egypt. That said, it also makes sense to revisit some of our basic foreign policy philosophies of the past 50 years, and maybe rethink some of the short-term political compromises that the US has been willing to make--instead of falling back on the same old "let's keep the autocrat in place" thinking. What this means to me is that maybe, just maybe, it's best NOT to side with the dictator. A crazy idea, I know.

It's ironic, considering the foundations of this nation, that today so many politicians (and citizens) are willing to aid and support dictators in the name of our supposed "interests." To me, that's just short-term thinking at its finest (and it also flies completely in the face of our supposed ideals and basic beliefs--not that humans aren't always full of contradictions). Seems like we would have learned our lesson by now. Maybe we need to reassess what we mean when we talk about "our interests," all things considered. I am especially surprised when hardcore self-identified proponents of liberty and democracy so quickly backtrack from their ideals when the population under question exists outside certain political and social boundaries. Apparently, it's "democracy for me and not for thee," all in the name of political pragmatism.

I wrote this on another thread, but I'll repeat it here: there is no way that any US citizen in their right mind would argue that we need to support an autocratic regime in the name of political pragmatism HERE, so why is this an acceptable solution over THERE? Short answer: it's not.

/political rant for the day.