The Free Thinker

Democracy as Hygiene

Note to Russians and others who are shirking their civic duty to make democracy happen. If you don't change your shirt for too long it starts to stink. It's the same with governments. If they're not changed every so often, they get really rotten. In the worst case, if you have only one shirt (leader), you should at least take it to the cleaner's (the ballot box), regularly-- and make sure you use enough soap (political competition, free press)! But it's still tacky to wear the same shirt every day, so if you can afford it, get a few different outfits (parties), and alternate. If you're too lazy to do this, don't be surprised that the world looks down on you.

Why the Euphemism?

"Libya protests" (BBC):

US President Barack Obama called the suffering of the people in Libya "outrageous" and said the government there must be held accountable for its failures to meet its responsibilities.

Killing innocent people isn't a "failure to meet responsibilities." It's a crime. Why not say the Libyan government must be held accountable for its crimes?

The Human Dignity Conspiracy by Peter Augustine Lawler (via Brothers Judd):

The thoughtful evolutionary scientist Daniel Dennett, in his very positive contribution to the Council volume, says that human beings are different enough from the other animals to need morality, and he adds, contrary to Pinker, that we even need confidence in our equal dignity. He agrees with Pinker that claims for dignity have been basically Christian, and that these claims have been refuted by the scientific discovery that everything we think and do has a material cause. Our beliefs in dignity and the soul have the same status as the discredited belief in mermaids. It is no sillier to believe in a half-woman/half-fish that no one has seen than to believe in a half-body/half-soul that no one has seen.[15]

Dennett, however, has a scientific explanation for why we need the scientifically discredited belief in dignity. We are social animals who have brains big enough to conceive of projects that will enable us to live purposeful lives, but there is no scientific basis for the freedom at the foundation of human conceptions of purpose. So we cannot live well without useful illusions—free will, love, dignity, etc. Even the idea that any particular human life matters at all is merely a fiction—but a fiction worth maintaining. We have seen that nihilism has all sorts of undesirable social consequences; therefore, we need to sustain these illusions in the face of what we know about our accidental, material, and evolutionary existences.

Dennett’s ingenious solution to the incompatibility between scientific truth and our need for dignified belief is that we should justify our allegiance to the useful fiction of equal dignity by acknowledging the good life it makes possible. It is indispensable for the habits and trust needed to perpetuate social and political institutions. We can stop all this pointless obsessing over whether the belief is actually true by just admitting that it is not, but science can still explain why we need to believe it anyway.

Dennett’s pragmatic hope that we can stop caring about whether our belief in dignity is actually true is not shared by any other author in the Council’s book. In fact, the pragmatic philosopher Richard Rorty had a simpler idea: let’s call true whatever belief makes us happy. Rorty, of course, never called his approach dignified. Dennett himself is too dignified to deny the truth of what he thinks he knows, and there is some dignity, too, in his humane intention to spare us the consequences of a dignity-free world. It seems he denies the reality of the dignity he himself displays only because to do otherwise would require admitting that human beings are mysteriously free from nature or materialistic causation. Yet in Dennett’s well-­intentioned confusion, he remains stuck with acknowledging that, in some way, we are the only species that can be held responsible for perpetuating both human nature and the very conditions of life on our planet. Is there really no dignity in that?

Very interesting. The attempt to find an account of ethics based in materialism is not one to which I am sympathetic: it seems to me quite clearly doomed, and also unnecessary, since materialism is false. Still, I am surprised that Dennett concedes as much as Lawler seems to be saying that he does. I would have expected him to insist that materialism can be embraced without such a high cost in terms of the tenability of our ordinary moral intuitions and values.

Free will is foundational: we know it by introspection, with certainty. By contrast, Descartes and Hume and Popper and the skeptics are right that all scientific knowledge, i.e., knowledge derived by induction from patterns in sense-experience, is conjectural. To reject free will in favor of "science" is, at best, to reject better evidence in favor of worse. Actually, it is not even that, for the conceit that "everything" is determined by materialistic laws is fallaciously to transpose a working assumption of science into a conclusion of science, though this is not the sort of thing that science could ever validly conclude. Without free will there can be no ethics because you can't be blamed for what you can't help doing. The converse is not true, however: there could be free will without ethics, although we might not be so intensely aware that we have free will if we didn't have morality to give us a strong reason to resist our inclinations. But what an odd world Dennett conceives of, in which humans have a need to live purposeful lives, though there is no purpose in anything and "even the idea that any particular human life matters at all is a fiction!"

Congratulations Egypt!

Mubarak Leaves at Last (Foreign Policy):

It's frankly hard to believe today's news that Hosni Mubarak has finally stepped down as President of Egypt without a wave of bloodshed.  After yesterday's disappointment and today's anxiety, nothing could have been more welcome.   There will be plenty of time for post-mortems, and there will be an enormous amount of hard work to come to ensure that this actually becomes a transition to democracy and not simply to a reconstituted authoritarian regime.  But for today, it's okay to simply celebrate -- to stand in awe of the Egyptian people and their ability to topple a seemingly impenetrable dictator through massive, peaceful protests.  Nothing will ever be the same, and no Arab will ever forget today's scenes broadcast on al-Jazeera. This was an unprecedented victory for the Egyptian people, and at last a vindication of the Obama administration's patient and well-crafted strategy. 

There is no question that the first, second and third drivers of this Egyptian revolution were the Egyptian people.   The creativity of the youth and their ability to mobilize a wide range of Egyptian society around a common demand against daunting odds are simply an inspiration.  The fact that these massive crowds avoided violence under incredibly tense conditions and under great uncertainty speaks volumes.   This did not come out of nowhere --- Egyptian activists have been mobilizing for change for a decade, with the Kefaya movement deserving enormous credit for breaking the walls of silence and fear and bringing opposition to the Mubarak regime out into the public sphere.  But their success in the face of the power of a strong authoritarian regime was a surprise to everyone -- including to them.   And in the analyses to come, al-Jazeera's role will require a chapter of its own...  time for me to do an updated version of Voices of the New Arab Public!  

Egypt Erupts in Jubilation as Mubarak Steps Down (NY Times):

There is no question that the first, second and third drivers of this Egyptian revolution were the Egyptian people.   The creativity of the youth and their ability to mobilize a wide range of Egyptian society around a common demand against daunting odds are simply an inspiration.  The fact that these massive crowds avoided violence under incredibly tense conditions and under great uncertainty speaks volumes.   This did not come out of nowhere --- Egyptian activists have been mobilizing for change for a decade, with the Kefaya movement deserving enormous credit for breaking the walls of silence and fear and bringing opposition to the Mubarak regime out into the public sphere.  But their success in the face of the power of a strong authoritarian regime was a surprise to everyone -- including to them.   And in the analyses to come, al-Jazeera's role will require a chapter of its own...  time for me to do an updated version of Voices of the New Arab Public!  

A day of joy: Egypt's euphoria (Economist):

JUBILATION is catching. It is impossible, for me at least, to watch the crowds in Egypt, overjoyed at Hosni Mubarak's hotly-desired resignation, with dry eyes and an unclenched throat. The best explanation I have heard today for the mass euphoria rippling through Egypt came earlier this morning when one Al Jazeera reporter, choking back sobs, described the rise of Egypt's people and the fall of Egypt's dictator as "everything I've ever hoped for". Everything! Another correspondent, reporting from Alexandria, described Egypt's collective elation as the release of 30 years of bottled-up emotion. He said he had seen birth, that he had seen marriage, but he had never seen happiness like this, and it is everywhere. This is sublimely powerful stuff. It may be the most powerful stuff...

Whatever the future may hold, this is the happiest many people will ever feel. This is the best day of some peoples' lives. The tiny Dionysian anarchist on my other shoulder is no angel, but I cannot deny that there is something holy in this feeling, that it is one of few human experiences that justifies life—that satisfies, however briefly, our desperate craving for more intensity, for more meaning, for more life from life. Whatever the future holds, there will be disappointment, at best. But there is always disappointment. Today, there is joy.

Egypt and the future of Arab democracy: Get rid of Islamists, and freedom will thrive (Charles Krauthammer):

Today, everyone and his cousin supports the "freedom agenda." Of course, yesterday it was just George W. Bush, Tony Blair and a band of neocons with unusual hypnotic powers who dared challenge the received wisdom of Arab exceptionalism - the notion that Arabs, as opposed to East Asians, Latin Americans, Europeans and Africans, were uniquely allergic to democracy. Indeed, the left spent the better part of the Bush years excoriating the freedom agenda as either fantasy or yet another sordid example of U.S. imperialism.

Now everyone, even the left, is enthusiastic for Arab democracy. Fine. Fellow travelers are welcome. But simply being in favor of freedom is not enough. With Egypt in turmoil and in the midst of a perilous transition, we need foreign policy principles to ensure democracy for the long run.

No need to reinvent the wheel. We've been through something analogous before. After World War II, Western Europe was newly freed but unstable, in ruin - and in play. The democracy we favored for the continent faced internal and external threats from communist totalitarians. The United States adopted the Truman Doctrine that declared America's intention to defend these newly free nations.

I'm happy to give the Obama administration credit for handling the situation in Egypt well, but Bush and the neocons are definitely being vindicated, too, and Krauthammer is right to drive that point home.  But wow!  What a glorious moment.  And it seems unlikely that it will stop with Egypt.  Subjects and sovereigns worldwide are watching, drawing their conclusions: how to get democracy; how to stop it.  Although the 18 days of protests seemed long drawn out, what's really amazing is that events moved so fast.  Thirty years' rule, overturned in less than one month!  And without too much violence.

One moral of this may be that if the coordination problem can be solved, revolution is cheap for those who do it.  If you're the one revolutionary when everyone else is playing the loyal subject, you'll have a hard time.  But if everyone can move at once, you can get freedom at not too high a price.  Still, you have to be willing to run risks.  It takes courage.

Even more interesting, though, is the role of the Egyptian military.  While they didn't lead the revolution, it couldn't have succeeded without, first, their benevolent neutrality, second, their active intervention at the end.  One thing the Egyptian revolution shows is that the military can win honor and glory by siding with the people.  Coup may, after Egypt, no longer be a dirty word.  People will ask, what kind of coup-- good or bad?  Why did the army side with the people rather than the regime?  Or, from a dictator's point of view, how do you make sure that your soldiers are loyal enough to you to attack the people at your command?  What kind of command structure would make it hardest for the officers to solve the coordination problem and get rid of the boss?

And then there's this exceedingly interesting point: what role did the military-to-military ties between Egypt and the United States play in shaping the Egyptian army's attitude towards democratic revolution?  Did all that aid that the US channeled to the Egyptian military eventually pay off in the form of a more pro-democratic military, one that felt less beholden to their boss, and a bit of solidarity with universal values?  Should the United States try to co-opt other militaries through military-to-military aid, in hopes of affecting how the soldiers will behave in a revolutionary moment?  And will dictators be more wary of military ties with the US, afraid that we will infect their soldiers with democratic ideas?

Another question is: what role did technology play in this?  How important were Facebook and satellite TV?  Of course, the internet and satellite TV, and mobile phones, have been spreading like crazy in recent years.  How vulnerable are other regimes to new means of mobilization?

Anyway, congratulations to Egypt!

Via Instapundit: "Nearly 11 Percent of US Houses Empty." Of course, there are plenty of paying home buyers, or renters, ready to occupy those homes, if only the immigration authorities would let them in. It's the nativists versus the economy, and the nativists are winning.

Egypt and Iraq

Revolutions are exciting, though one should always bear in mind that a lot of them have ended badly. That usually happens because some bad ideology is at work, such as communism or radical Islam. Since communism is discredited and radical Islam has been in retreat for some time now, I am inclined to welcome the events in Egypt without much reservation. Mubarak was not as bad a tyrant as Saddam, but he was/is pretty bad. The latest news is:

President Hosni Mubarak announced that he would not run for another term in elections scheduled for the fall, appearing on state television to promise an orderly transition but saying he would serve out his term. In comments translated by CNN, he swore that he would never leave Egypt but would “die on its soil.”

Television cameras showed the vast crowds gathered in Tahrir Square in central Cairo roaring, but not necessarily in approval. The protesters have made the president’s immediate and unconditional resignation a bedrock demand of their movement, and it did not appear that the concession mollified them. Reports said that thousands of protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square chanted "Leave! Leave!" after the speech.

Mr. Mubarak’s announcement came after President Obama urged him not to run, effectively withdrawing America’s support for its closest Arab ally, according to American diplomats in Cairo and Washington.

The message was delivered by Frank G. Wisner, a seasoned envoy with deep ties to Egypt, the American diplomats said. Mr. Wisner’s message, they said, was not a blunt demand for Mr. Mubarak to step aside now, but rather firm counsel that he should make way for a reform process that would culminate in free and fair elections in September to elect a new Egyptian leader.

This back channel message, authorized directly by Mr. Obama, appeared to tip the administration beyond the delicate balancing act it has performed in the last week — resisting calls for Mr. Mubarak to step down, even as it has called for an “orderly transition” to a more politically open Egypt.

I'm inclined to think Obama has handled this well. I think he learned his lesson from Iran, where he made the mistake of seeming to side with the Ahmadinejad regime. This time he's helping to get the tyrant out, while not giving the protestors exactly what they want. It's definitely risky. One thing about revolutions is that they involve people solving a coordination problem. If the protestors say "good enough" and go home, then Mubarak backtracks, Obama could look like he lied to people struggling for their freedom in order to keep in power one of America's more nefarious allies. On the other hand, an orderly transition could give the silent majority and liberals time to organize. But I don't really know.

I've been surprised to see realists coming to the surface and saying we should back Mubarak. Maybe this doesn't make sense, but I thought Bush had shamed away the old cynical realism forever, by identifying even Republicans with idealistic foreign policy and spreading democracy. Of course, after Iraq a lot of people started declaring themselves "realists," but I see now that I didn't believe them. I thought it was just a way to say "don't blame me!" about the largely inevitable chaos and cost of the transition there. I guess they meant it.

The really interesting question here is how the Iraq War affected this. I don't know the answer, all I can do is speculate; however, I think one answer can be ruled out, and that is that it had no effect at all. The Iraq War was the cause celebre of the last decade. Everybody followed it, thought about it, talked about it, argued about it. It occurred in the heart of the Arab world. Egyptians were certainly paying attention. It altered people's expectations about the use of American power, still an important factor in the region. It gave people a model, certainly not a wholly appealing model, of what Arab democracy could look like. Possibly it delayed the revolution by making people fear the anarchy of regime change. That's certainly more likely than that it had no effect at all. But more likely still, "Iraq the Model", as the name of one blog has it, helped to bring on the Egyptian revolution. (It may not have much affected Tunisia, which is further away and closer to Europe, and obviously Tunisia was the immediate trigger for Egypt. But still.)

I don't exactly mean that Egyptians were saying to themselves: "Look what the Iraqis have got! We want that too!" But even to the extent that Iraq is partly a cautionary tale-- how regime change leads to anarchy and bloodshed-- that might still encourage Arab democrats. If the worst that can happen is Iraq, a few years of violent unrest may, after all, be a price worth paying for a future of freedom, especially for the young, who have less to lose and more to gain. And Egyptians may hope, not implausibly, that they can get the best of Iraq-- free speech; a democratic constitution; real elections and a more honest political life-- while avoiding the worst part, particularly the violence and insecurity (and of course, foreign occupation). Egyptian democrats may feel more confident, having the opportunity to learn from Iraq's experience.

The Iraq War may have affected Egypt in another way too, namely, by creating a tacit credible threat that Mubarak took into account. Mubarak might have been able to hold onto power (might still be able to hold onto power, though it seems unlikely) by a bloody crackdown with large-scale massacres that would have made his regime like Saddam's. Before the Iraq War, that might have been a more appealing option. Now dictators like Mubarak see another possibility: that they'll be overthrown in an American-led revolutionary war and hanged by their despising people. Better to go quietly.

Whether or not the Iraq invasion was a good idea, Tunisia and Egypt and maybe Yemen, etc., show that Bush was prescient in his vision of a democratic transformation of the Middle East. But Egypt also clarifies a couple of things. First, it is a reminder that the old cynical realism which some of Bush's less appealing critics shrieked with rage against him for abandoning, was actually still being practiced, alongside the new, idealistic freedom agenda. We were still allied with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf emirates, Pakistan's Musharraf, and so forth. The Iraq War puts us at least partly on the side of the rising Arab democrats. Yes, we kept channeling aid to Egypt's dictator, but we also expended blood and treasure to remove Iraq's dictator and supervise a difficult transition to democracy there, so we're not totally against the idea of Arab freedom. Arab democrats have at least a reason to be confused about whether we're a friend or an enemy, rather than sure of the latter.