Rather than admit how wrong he was about Egypt — he was sure the despot was firmly entrenched — Daniel Larison, The American Conservative‘s resident foreign policy maven, is berating me for mentioning his prediction that the Egyptian despot would survive:
“It’s true that I doubted that Mubarak was going to leave. When I wrote that, three days after the protests had begun, that seemed reasonable. So, yes, I got that wrong along with maybe 90-95% of observers. The larger point that the regime behind Mubarak wasn’t going anywhere seems to have been basically correct.”
The conventional wisdom always seems “reasonable,” even when it’s totally wrong. What separates the wheat from the chaff is the ability to see through to the emerging reality. Surely having been wrong about this would cause an honest observer to question a pundit’s other prognostications — especially given how many words (thousands!) Larison has committed to “proving” that Mubarak would a) remain in power, and b) ought to remain there. It might even provoke some self-reflection on the pundit’s part.
Instead of being such a crybaby, Larison should look in the mirror and question some of his own assumptions. It is one thing to inveigh against what he calls “democracy promotion” by the US government, and an indigenous upsurge of democratic forces. Larison is so locked into his obsessive opposition to what he calls “democratism,” that he can sit there and watch the young people of Egypt stand up to tanks and the truncheons of the secret police and remain unmoved.
This is ironic, given his alleged “hyper-realism,” which supposedly eschews all ideology. Looks like “anti-Democratism” as an ideology can be just as disabling as “democratism” itself — and the evidence is the long trail of blog posts he has written over the entire course of Egypt’s 18-day revolution, disdaining the prospect of the tyrant’s overthrow and shamefully joining with the more extreme neocons in scare-mongering the Muslim Brotherhood issue.
Ouch! You got it right in this case Justin, but Larison is one of the good guys – albeit human and therefore fallible and not without his own specific biases – so it would be better if you went easy on him.
I agree. Mr. Larison was arguing from traditional conservatism-that established authority ought to remain in power, lest the masses send society into a tailspin. Elitism has always been a huge part conservatism, that society needs to be controlled from the center, whether paleo or neo.
Was he wrong? Yes, but don't be a jerk Justin. You could lose a valuable ally in the future.
"… foreign policy maven…"
They are strutting peacocks and ever so full of themselves. Damn uncomfortable when their nakedness is brought to light.
maven |ˈmÄvÉ™n|
noun [often with adj. ] informal
an expert or connoisseur
Connoisseur is just another word for arrogant asshat.
Now, my friend, could you please explain the word asshat to me? Seriously, what does it mean?
Hi Heathcliff:
Okay here's the webby definition-
"Asshats – Asshole (or arsehole in British English and Australian English) is slang for the anus and is usually used as an insult. …
(slang) one who wears their ass as a hat, ie has their head up their ass"
taken of course from the Google thingy
The word simply seems a shade more polite than just using the Amerikan vernacular of "asshole."
Thank you.
So, how shocked was I when Kagan and Kristol – the special K's of neo-conservatism – came out in full throated support of the Egyptian people right from the git-go? Very surprised.
What's up witih that? Too embarassed to take any other position? I do not think so because the liars all took the same out which involved raising fear of the "brotherhood" as a reason for not supporting revolution.
So, how shocked was I when Kagan and Kristol – the special K's of neo-conservatism – came out in full throated support of the Egyptian people right from the git-go? Very surprised.
Hedging their bets, these two slimy, unprincipled grifters. Apparently well aware, deep down in what little heart and mind either has, that the imperial jig is up, they're determined to come out on what they see as "the winning side of history," hoping in the process that the majority will forget about their long warmongering, empire-worshiping ideology. Fortunately, they're both citizens of a nation with the shortest collective memories possessed by the human race and stand a very good chance of having history favor them if all turns out as they planned.
Bravo, Justin!
The philosophy I developed in my college years was that the US should–on principle and in practice–view its allies (I prefer the word friends) in any country as the people, not the politicians or the despots. There are many examples in history of monarchs and dictators being overthrown. Ultimate power, even in a non-democratic state, always resides with the people.
We should recognize any government (even the one in Cuba) that has legitimacy, and withdraw support and recognition from any government (even if the dictator is friendly to us) that loses it.
Every so often you'll read something out of the mouth of a paleo that makes sense- and just when you think they are rational and just when you think- hey- these guys might be on to something- they'll expose themselves for the cheap weirdo racialists they are. They will never get over their fear of non whites- and their leading luminaries can always be counted on to stir up racial and religious hysteria that just so happens to bolster the mega state.
This is why I mainly hold them at arms length. Farther would be preferable.
Racism and religion are used to bolster the megastate-whether federal, state, or local.
That being said, Larison was hardly being a neocon in his objections; just quite paleocon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer
I'll take Larison's dispassionate over your cheerleading and petty point-scoring anyway.
Fortunately, they're both citizens of a nation with the shortest collective memories possessed by the human race and stand a very good chance of having history favor them if all turns out as they planned.
As the game progressed more competitions were held and events have been split into three disciplines, slalom, trick and jump. Aggressive water skiers compete against their very own gender and inside their very own age group, some competitive water skiers are of their 80s so its by no means to late to participate! My Genes Reconnected