Two thoughts:
I'm hardly qualified to comment on Egypt, but I can't help but think what's good for Egypt is also good for America. I feel pretty hopeful that this revolution—which is what it seems to be—will bring about only positive change for the region. I think we're past the point of trying to manipulate from a purely self-serving perspective. Indeed, our long-time support for Mubarak seems to have outlived its usefulness (if it was ever useful) to a point where the people of Egypt see us as hypocrites, supporting an oppressive regime on one hand while professing to want to spread democracy on the other. A strong Egypt has, in fact, always been in our best interest. I think it comes down to economic prosperity—ultimately the best weapon against religious extremism. The only goal of U.S. manipulations should be in building non-zero sum economic relationships with Egypt and other progressive mid-east nations.
Having recently read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, I've been wondering if what is happening in Egypt represents a mass movement, built on fanaticism, or a genuine revolution. And it seems to me to be more of the latter since the masses are genuinely trying to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime and that makes it all about liberty. Not only is this is a noble endeavor, but it's a realistic goal worth fighting for.
According to Hoffer, the "fanatic" has lost whatever faith he has in himself, is no longer an autonomous individual, and finds meaning to his existence only by latching on to a mass movement whether it is religious, political, or social. Actually the last thing the fanatic wants is true freedom. He is damaged goods and is only drawn towards unattainable goals.
Hoffer himself distinguishes between the fanatic and revolutionist:
 | | |
| Quote: Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity. | |
| | |
Still More Hoffer:
So the French Revolution was arguably less about liberty and more about equality, the latter being an unattainable goal. The distinction is important. Maybe it spells the difference between the French Revolution, which ended in the Reign of Terror, and the American Revolution which ended in libertarian democracy. So what's it going to be in Egypt?
Tweet This Topic
