All They Want Are Jobs

Every nation on earth, when confronted with the poverty and repression common to many Arab nations, is at risk of destabilization. Whether a given nation has the potential to become radicalized depends on the degree of poverty and repression at work. There is a “sweet spot” for positive, successful revolutions.

"Sweet spot" revolutions occur between two extremes. On one hand, anarchic situations coupled with acute moral and material need provides fertile ground for demagogues, warmongers, and fanatics to peddle their simple solutions to complex problems. Religion and rabid ideology offer simple routes to purpose for desperate people. Nothing positive will emerge from such circumstances. Think of Somalia today, or in dozens of recently decolonialized nations of South Asia, Africa, or the Americas from the fifties to the eighties. On the other hand, rich, oligarchic nations with few political opportunities often nevertheless have the time and energy for complex moral, religious and ideological arguments. But at the same time, they have too much at stake not to impose strict martial law. Think of Iran or Cuba.

Egypt is in that sweet spot for a positive, liberating revolution. It is relatively prosperous, but held back by poor governance; free, but repressed where it suits the ruling regime; knowledgeable about the outside world, but unable to aspire towards its promise. The resulting demands of the Egyptian demonstrators are middle class demands, not religious or ideological ones. Egypt in 2011 looks more like Poland in 1989 than it does Iran in 1979, or Haiti seemingly ever.

Religion and ideology don’t put people to work feeding their families, improving their lots in life, or enjoying the simple dignity of an earned day off. The fact that this particular revolution is about work means that, at most, religion will play a supporting role in the events that unfold. Egypt will not become a theocracy.

Iran under the Shah was already prosperous. The Iranian revolution was about morality, making it a perfect candidate for theocracy. It was not economic. The Egyptian revolution is about people demanding a purpose. Would a Yemeni revolution look the same? Doubtful. Yemenis are far from aspiring to the middle class in the same way as modern, outward-looking Egypt. It is difficult for me to imagine these two countries having similar outcomes from a revolution.

From the West's perspective, the real sign that the upheaval in Egypt and other corners of the Arab world is positive will be when leaders (new or old) begin to speak of economic liberalization, attracting foreign investment, improving education, and reducing corruption. If the West supports these ends before their immediate self-interest, they will be rewarded with new markets, ideas, and allies. Given the choice, almost anyone would choose gainful employment over martyrdom.

We should avoid becoming too involved in the political structures of Arab countries. Democracy is not an end in itself, nor is it something that all people in all instances are ready to adopt. Strong democracies have always emerged and thrived out of strong middle classes. People must have economic interests that are similar but independent from one another in order to need a system of consensus or majority rule. Democracy requires a tacit understanding that prosperity involves a balance between competition and cooperation. Where people need food, safety, and shelter, all bets are off. Where people seek some higher morality, there is no point in the endless deliberation of elected bodies. Where people want jobs and opportunity, democracy is all but inevitable. I have a lot of faith in this revolution.

More Fake English

I can't resist:

Warner Bros Journalism

There's something funny about the relationship between Wikileaks and certain powerful governments. It's the resemblance to the relationship between Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner.

You might like one side more than other, but without a doubt, both sides are doing what they need to do in order to get by. It's why they call cat-and-mouse "cat-and-mouse."
Wile E. Coyote is a bad-ass carnivore with an endless budget. He doesn't like to get burned, but he can't give up no matter what. After all, everything is at stake.









The roadrunner is fast. He's either lucky, playing dumb, or he's playing Mr. Coyote for a chump at every turn. And he kind of pisses you off after a while.




(and Acme makes a lot of money.)


But the truth is that cats have to be cats, and mice shouldn't quit being mice just because there's a cat around. May it always be that way.

What does English sound like to non-speakers?

Check this out:



ps. It's totally safe for work.

Case in Point

Six people were killed, and a congresswoman is in critical condition. There’s plenty to be said, plenty of blame to go around among the demagogues. With so many rapid-fire claims to cause-and-effect, there’s nothing I can add to what wasn’t already written within 24 hours of this terrible event. Writing what I did about the recent assassination in Pakistan, and its relationship to American institutions and values, the irony of the Giffords shooting was not lost on me.

But the reaction that came later; the outpouring of support from all camps, the universal revulsion to such a heinous act, and the hangdog expressions on the faces of those who foment such violence for money or votes all combine to say everything that needs to be said about America.

This sort of thing should never, ever happen. No person, whether they are a public official or a private citizen, should face mortal threat for their political views. Valuing expression and human life clearly precludes the legitimacy of certain political views, namely those views that call for violent upheaval. In the name of expression, there are limits to expression. In the name of life and liberty, there are limits to life and liberty. Our acceptance of those paradoxes is elemental to our social contract as a people.

In American rhetoric it’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt. But when someone gets hurt, no one thinks it’s funny. Now, if only our politics were more of a gentleman’s game.

For those who cry out that this incident will lead to a stifling of dissenting views, perhaps they should consider that certain dissenting views do in fact threaten others. One cannot talk about national revolution without also talking about sedition from that nation. One cannot talk about overthrowing regimes without underscoring the need for bloodshed. Only the public and public institutions can judge where to draw the line with any legitimacy. At some point, we all must yield a bit of autonomy for a lot of peace and prosperity.

And if you don’t like it, write your congressman. But don’t shoot them.

Here's Some Really Divisive Politics

Here’s a quick thought exercise. Imagine that the governor of one of the most populous, prosperous states in the union was assassinated by religious fanatics who felt that their way of life was threatened. Imagine the assassin grinning for the camera to cheers and adulation from crowds who have gathered for a glimpse of this killer. Imagine the voices of reason and rule of law, fearing for their lives, quietly positing their opinions on public television instead of offering a forceful rebuke of this brutality.
That's exactly what happened in Pakistan this week. Shortly after gunning down Salman Taseer, the zealously secular governor of Punjab province, Malik Mumtaz Qaziri shouted, “We are ready to sacrifice our life for the prestige of the Prophet Muhammad” to the cheering streets outside an Islamabad courthouse where he’d just been arraigned. Religious fundamentalists overtly approved of the murder, and masses of their followers showered Mr. Qaziri with rose petals and garlands of flowers. No senior officials commented on the motives of the killing. The president, Asif Ali Zardari, himself a close friend of Mr. Taseer, did not attend his funeral out of security concerns. All indications are that an initiative to liberalize blasphemy laws has now been dropped.
American fundamentalists clearly have strong faith in the unerring veracity of their religious views. They usually also hold strong faith in American institutions. For this reason, the thought exercise above seems nearly implausible in an American context. This is not to say that in past epochs of polarization there have not been violent protests, and even more violent reprisals. It’s not to forget the all-too-long list of assassinations of important American figures. But it takes one person to kill someone. The difference is in the reaction of many. Nobody of any authority or stature, religious or otherwise, would dare condone such an affront to our democracy. No ecstatic crowd would ever gather outside the courthouse of an assassin.
Pakistan is not a nation in the classic sense. It’s an artifact of colonialism; the very name Pakistan is a clever use of its constituent territories: Punjab, Afghan (province), Kashmir, Sind, and baluchusTAN. Without a trace of irony, it also means “Land of the Pure” in Urdu and Persian. Sure, we are little different as the “United States” of America, but few of us would consider ourselves ethnic Californians, or the unwaivering vanguards of Arkansas culture and values. We argue all the time over centralized versus devolved authority, but the outcomes of those arguments are mostly respected and upheld by our civic faith.
Pakistan is in real trouble. Its spiraling social upheaval, coupled with its geographic positioning and possession of nuclear weapons, makes Pakistan a greater threat to international stability than perhaps any other nation on Earth. We have few tools to influence the outcome of events in Pakistan. Who has a remedy for righteous contempt of national institutions? In the event of a total collapse of its government, we have few options at our disposal. Do we invade here too? I hope the experts are a few steps ahead of me, because this doesn’t look good.