The Republican Brotherhood

During All Things Considered yesterday, Robert Siegel interviewed an Egyptian parliamentarian named Abdul Mawgoud Rageh Dardery. Dardery is a member of Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party, which is the political arm of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. If you remember, the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that calls for Sharia law while also remaining dedicated to democratic principles. In Egypt’s democratic elections following the fall of Mubarak, the Freedom and Justice Party won over half of the seats in the country’s new parliament, but they also insisted they would not run a candidate for president. This was meant to inspire good will between the Brotherhood and those revolutionaries who had fought for the creation of a modern democracy in Egypt.

Well, last month, the Brotherhood broke their promise and nominated a candidate. Siegel’s interview with Dardery focused on that broken promise, with all of his questions dripping with the West’s distrust for the Muslim Brotherhood. Dardery, I thought, answered every question with aplomb, but his answers aren’t what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about are the questions.

Each question that Siegel had for Dardery implied that the Muslim Brotherhood has an obligation, for the good of its country’s democracy, to find a balance between the forces of moderation and the forces of fundamentalism. Here are the questions he asked the parliamentarian:

  • The prior policy of not running a candidate had been taken by some liberal secular Egyptians or Christian Egyptians as a sign that the Muslim Brotherhood did not intend to monopolize political power and take advantage of their present popularity to do so. Should they be concerned at this point that your movement will indeed monopolize power?

  • The Associated Press reported this week that your party’s candidate for president…promised a group of of ultraconservative Muslim clerics, or at least they say he promised them, that clerics would be given the power to review legislation to ensure that it’s in line with Islamic law. First of all, is that a position, as you understand it, of your party, and isn’t that awfully close to implementing Islamic law as the law of the land in Egypt?

  • The concern that a lot of Americans had since the very beginning of the Arab Spring is that the ideas of the intelligentsia and the ideas of the leadership can be very worldly and very cosmopolitan and very much committed to contemporary thoughts about democracy, but the mass of people who have not experienced life beyond their country’s borders might not see it that way, and there could be real support for a much, much more authoritarian and religious movement running the country.

  • Do you find…that Salafists, who take a much more militant religious view of what government should be, can have an appeal with less educated voters that you have to answer, that you have to respond to?

Again, Dardery answered every question with aplomb, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that each of those questions could be rephrased so that, instead of being addressed to the Muslim Brotherhood, they could be addressed to the Republican Party.

Let’s give it a try:

  • The prior policy of being willing to work with the opposing side to find common ground had been taken by some liberal-secularist Democrats and Christian Democrats as a sign that the Republican Party would not try to monopolize political power and take advantage of their present popularity to do so. Should they be concerned  at this point that your party will indeed monopolize power?

  • The Washington Post has reported that your party’s former Vice President, Dick Cheney, allowed oil executives to review his administration’s energy policy before submitting it to Congress; Bloomberg has reported that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington-based, conservative think-tank supported by the Koch brothers and ExxonMobile, provides “model legislation” to representatives in various state houses, who then help turn that legislation into law; and now, with over 100 new lawmakers coming to Washington last year, corporate lobbyists are flocking to the staffs of Republican politicians in Congress. First of all, is it the position of your party to allow the moneyed interests to write and review its legislation, and isn’t that awfully close to turning our democracy into an plutocracy? 

  • The concern that a lot of Americans had since the very beginning of the Tea Party movement (if not before, with the rise of the Evangelical’s political power) is that the ideas of the Republican intelligentsia and the ideas of the Republican leadership can be very worldly and very cosmopolitan and very much committed to contemporary thoughts about democracy, but the masses of people who have not experienced life beyond their state’s or their county’s borders might not see it that way, and there could be real support for a much, much more authoritarian and religious movement running the country.

  • Do you find that Tea Partiers and Evangelicals, who take a much more militant view of what government should be, can have an appeal with less educated voters that you have to answer, that you have to respond to?

Unfortunately, I don’t think a single Republican politician would answer those questions with as much aplomb as the representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. Dr. Dardery talked about respecting the views of the opposing parties, of needing to educate the public so that radical views and heavy propaganda don’t brainwash the minds of less educated voters, of having elected officials be the ones who write and decide on laws, of the importance for having people being willing to listen to one another more than they talk to one another, of offering moderate alternatives so the people can see moderation being modeled, etc.

The Republican Party believes in none of that.

Rather than argue policies on their merits, they call their opponents socialists and terrorists.

Rather than passing laws to improve education in the United States and teach ideas that are “very worldly and very cosmopolitan and much committed to contemporary thoughts about democracy,” they promote the antithesis of science and art and multicultural learning.

Rather than helping to curtail radical views and heavy propaganda, their leaders regularly attempt to codify those views into law, regularly placate the most inflammatory voices in their party, and regularly promote a news channel that actively makes its viewers less informed.

Rather than encouraging its members to open their minds and hearts to cultures that may be different from theirs, they attempt to capitalize on xenophobia and ignorance.

Rather than offering their party members moderate choices among their politicians, they chase moderates from the party or challenge incumbent moderates with primary challenges from the far-right of their party, with those challengers (not to mention all the party’s presidential candidates, including the presumed nominee) running on a “brook no compromise” pledge.

Rather than trying to earn support through rational arguments based on facts and evidence, they regularly lie in order to promote a given agenda.

All of which is to say, as a country dedicated to “contemporary thoughts about democracy,” which include requiring politicians of integrity and voters who are educated about the issues and where politicians stand, America needs to recognize that the Republican Party is actively ruining democracy in this country, just as they fear the Muslim Brotherhood will ruin democracy’s chances in Egypt.

The difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Republican Brotherhood is only a question of which type of radical laws they’d like to initiate. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a Sharia state; the Republican Brotherhood wants an ultra-capitalist one.

As Americans who believe in the freedom of religion and the compassion of a social safety net, we should oppose both.

Last Week’s Instapaper: March 16th Edition

As many article junkies are nowadays, I’m a big fan of Instapaper, which is “a simple tool to save web pages for reading later.” I use it to save long-form articles that I come across on the web. After saving and then reading an article in Instapaper, you can “Like” the article or archive/delete it from your account. Here are the articles I “liked” last week. I highly recommend each of them.

  • Making It in America (The Atlantic)
    “How, exactly, have some American manufacturers continued to survive, and even thrive, as global competition has intensified? What, if anything, should be done to halt the collapse of manufacturing employment? And what does the disappearance of factory work mean for the rest of us?”

  • Twitter, the Startup That Wouldn’t Die (BloombergBusinessweek)
    “Throughout its first five years of existence, Twitter always seemed on the verge of committing some excruciating form of startup seppuku… Now something freakish is happening in San Francisco. Twitter, which for years treated the responsibility of earning money as an annoying distraction, may be turning into a viable business.”

The Credentialess College

In an essay for The New Republic, “The Higher Education Monopoly is Crumbling As We Speak,” Kevin Carey writes that “the single greatest asset held by traditional colleges and universities is their exclusive franchise for the production and sale of higher education credentials.” He continues: “Just as people are ultimately interested in buying holes, not drills, higher education consumers aren’t buying courses or degree programs. They’re buying credentials.”

To some extent — hell, to a large extent — Carey is correct. The vast majority of college and university students go to school for purposes related to job training and career preparation. According to this 2009 article from the NY Times, only about 8% of college students pursue a degree in the humanities, and it’s been that way for decades. The rest of the students pursue degrees or credentials in business, technology, and the sciences. You also have to factor in the changing demographics of college students, where adult learners are quickly becoming the majority and where “slightly over half of today’s students are seeking a ‘subbacalaureate’ credential (i.e. a certificate, credential, or associate’s degree).”

Carey’s argument is that institutions of higher learning face a threat in the rise of a model “where the education itself costs students nothing—the availability of free open educational resources is constantly growing—and students only pay small fees to cover the cost of assessing their learning.”

All that might be true, but as a humanities kind of guy, I’m less interested in an education whose result is a professional-level certificate and more interested in an education whose process creates open-minded individuals capable of finding and creating meaning in their lives and in the lives of their fellows.

Six or seven years ago, when I was an undergrad at an environmental liberal arts college in Vermont, I designed a three-credit, independent study in the concept of memes (not “internet memes,” but “memes“). Now, the college I went to charged roughly $2,500 for a three-credit course. According to Kevin Carey, as a higher education consumer, I was hoping to receive some sort of professional benefit from designing that course. But as you can probably tell, unless I was to go into sociology or some branch of evolutionary studies, I wasn’t about to get a job or learn a valuable skill from pursuing the concept of memes.

So why I did design it and pay for it? Because it was a concept that interested me and I wanted to learn more about it. The studying of the subject was the value of the subject. I basically paid $2,500 — or really, when you factor in my Bachelor’s degree and my Master’s of Fine Arts degree, over a hundred thousand dollars — for the right to stop being a productive member of society and instead indulge myself with intellectual pursuits.

Unfortunately, we all seem to have an obligation to produce something for society. Ideally, for people like me, that means producing some sort of end result from each intellectual pursuit, a kind of travelogue of my mind’s journey, one that shows people either the value of following a similar path or wards them from chasing one of their similar thoughts into a dead-end. In reality, it means writing, publishing, and teaching.

But here’s the point. Kevin Carey’s article reports on the way the Internet is giving rise to a business model where the education is free, but the assessment will cost you. For people like me, however, where the assessment and credentials are not what interests us, the Internet provides an unlimited (and free!) education (and intellectual forum). The trick, I suppose, is to figure out how to build a business model on the idea.

I suppose I’m talking about a creating a kind of retreat…or monastery…where people pay for the privilege to be separated from the mundane drudgery of having to shelter and feed themselves while they explore the wonders of the human condition. They don’t receive a certificate from this experience, nor are they required to produce anything tangible as a result. What they’re paying for, in short, is spiritual and intellectual indulgence.

It’s a business model that would only appeal to those who can afford it, of course. But that’s essentially the business model of the entire vacation and tourism industries, and they seem to be doing okay.

Now I just need the land…

Religion For Atheists

From Aengus Woods‘ review of Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion

It is utterly impossible to get any sort of consensus on what we poor secularists need from religion. The beauty and danger of organized religion has always been its authoritarian aspect: It tells us what is wrong and what is right, what is healthy and what is impure. Apply these edicts to the secular world, and they begin to look suspiciously like indoctrination. Where is the place of criticality here, and exactly whose values get to be promoted?

Decaf Lifestyle

Back in December, I went through a small health issue that, among other things, resulted in my giving up caffeine. Prior to December, and for the previous ten years or so, I’d been a relatively hardcore coffee drinker. For most of that decade, I worked from home, so every morning, I’d brew a full pot of coffee and proceed to drink the majority of it by noon, which means about 12 cups of coffee a day. When I began a new job this past October that got me out of my house, I just replaced my (inexpensive) coffee pot with refills at the coffee shop across the street. The source (and cost) of my coffee had changed, but the volume remained the same.

But then my little health issue came along, and I decided to cut out caffeine.

The first day was the worst. The headache came on around 10am and didn’t leave me until I went to bed (and not even then). I popped some ibuprofen to dull the pain, but that only dampened the sharpest parts of it. I still had an all-around “ache” in my head. The second day was better. I took the ibuprofen first thing in the morning, re-upped in the afternoon, and pretty much got through the day without having to verbally complain to my wife about my pounding head. The third day, I forewent the ibuprofen, and the headache, while still present, was less of an ache and more of a nuisance.

And on the fourth day, it was gone.

As a hardcore coffee drinker, I’d always scoffed at people who drank decaf, but for the past three months, that’s basically the only coffee I’ve had (my wife decided to kick caffeine a little after I did, but after seeing me deal with the headache, she decided to ween herself instead of going cold turkey, so for a couple of weeks there, my first cup of coffee in the morning would be a home-brew of half-caf and half-decaf, with all the following cups being full decaf from the coffee shop). Some have asked why I’m drinking coffee at all if I’m drinking decaf, and the answer is: because I love the taste of coffee in the morning.

The problem with the decaf lifestyle is that…well…I’m tired in the afternoons. You know that friggin’ 5-hour Energy commercial, the one that talks about that 2:30 feeling? Well, that shit is true. At 2:30 in the afternoon, virtually every day, I get smacked in the face by a big ol’ bat of tiredness, and it pretty much doesn’t go away until after dinner. In fact, for the past two months or so, dinner has usually been followed by a cat nap…and it’s only after the nap that I feel anything resembling energy flow back into my body.

The solution to my mid-afternoon crash is simple, of course. Instead of requiring caffeine to fuel my day, I should exercise and use the body’s natural endorphins. Exercise fights fatigue and boosts energy. We know that. Now I just have to act on that knowledge.

Or…you know…I could just take another nap.

Last Week’s Instapaper: March 6th Edition

As many article junkies are nowadays, I’m a big fan of Instapaper, which is “a simple tool to save web pages for reading later.” I use it to save long-form articles that I come across on the web. After saving and then reading an article in Instapaper, you can “Like” the article or archive/delete it from your account. Here are the articles I “liked” last week. I highly recommend each of them.

  • Those Fabulous Confabs (New York Magazine)
    “To judge by TED’s remarkable success, we may well be living in a golden age of ideas, a time not just of counter-counter-­counter­intuitive concepts but of their exhilarating democratization. Yet it’s also possible to see in TED’s recent growth strategies the marks of desperation and dilution. With more and more conferences fighting over the same speakers, sponsors, guests, and ideas, the sustainability of the movement has begun to look increasingly tenuous. Might there be a cap on the number of interesting ideas in the universe?”

  • The End of Wall Street As They Knew It (New York Magazine)
    “Banks have always had occasional bad years, but the sense on Wall Street is that this bad year is different. Over the past several weeks, I have had wide-ranging conversations with more than two dozen senior Wall Street executives, traders, bankers, hedge-fund managers, and private-equity investors. And what emerged is a picture of an industry afflicted by a crisis it would not be flip to call existential.”

  • The Hunter Becomes the Hunted (Esquire)
    “You don’t know his name, and you’ve never seen his face. But this year, as America leaves Iraq for good after eight years of war, we also leave behind a man believed by our military and intelligence agencies to be the best terrorist hunter alive. He’s still there, hunting. And so are the terrorists.”

  • Elaine Pagels on the Book of Revelation (The New Yorker)
    “Pagels shows that Revelation, far from being meant as a hallucinatory prophecy, is actually a coded account of events that were happening at the time John was writing. It’s essentially a political cartoon about the crisis in the Jesus movement in the late first century, with Jerusalem fallen and the Temple destroyed and the Saviour, despite his promises, still not back. All the imagery of the rapt and the raptured and the rest that the “Left Behind” books have made a staple for fundamentalist Christians represents contemporary people and events, and was well understood in those terms by the original audience. Revelation is really like one of those old-fashioned editorial drawings where Labor is a pair of overalls and a hammer, and Capital a bag of money in a tuxedo and top hat, and Economic Justice a woman in flowing robes, with a worried look.”

  • Obama, Explained (The Atlantic)
    “Has Obama in office been anything like the chess master he seemed in the campaign, whose placid veneer masked an ability to think 10 moves ahead, at which point his adversaries would belatedly recognize that they had lost long ago? Or has he been revealed as just a pawn—a guy who got lucky as a campaigner but is now pushed around by political opponents who outwit him and economic trends that overwhelm him?”

  • How Your Cat Is Making You Crazy (The Atlantic)
    “The ‘latent’ parasite [in our cat’s urine] may be quietly tweaking the connections between our neurons, changing our response to frightening situations, our trust in others, how outgoing we are, and even our preference for certain scents. And that’s not all. He also believes that the organism contributes to car crashes, suicides, and mental disorders such as schizophrenia.”

Letter from the Front

The night was thirty-two degrees
and a despicable wind shook the trees,
stirred the flames inside the pit,
froze the men and knocked their knees.

The colonel’s tent stayed tight and fit,
the ropes strapped down with pegs befit
to restrain Goliath, even seizure seized;
it would last until the wind remit.

The colonel’s hand, all gnarled with age,
released the pen and turned the page,
“Oh dear wife, this wind,” he wrote,
“seems born from a god consumed with rage.

“I can taste the anger burning His throat
“and smell the cinders, if only a note,
“but fear most, dear wife, what I cannot gauge,
“why He wants my men to float

“across the deep dark river of the newly dead?
“As if our enemies, battling in His stead,
“carry all that righteousness can imbue,
“and we, the downtrodden, evil-led

“army raised of peasant sympathy and hue,
“deserve nothing but pain for our stillborn coup.
“But confirm, dear wife, what my mind most dreads,
“that our Great Leader, indeed, has flew

“the capitol city, where I once raised a toast
“to celebrate the death of the man hated most,
“who robbed our banks and polluted our streams,
“and murdered children from the farms to the coast,

“a man who you once told me never had dreams,
“never experienced the mind’s great extremes,
“or the surreal illusion of a woman engrossed
“in positions to match pyschological themes?

“Is it true, dear wife,” the colonel penned,
“that our Great Leader’s fate has met its end?”
The colonel’s eyes watered with thoughts
of his hero retreating cowardly; poor friend.

The colonel pushed his tears, sniffed his snot,
regripped the pen, wrote, “It’s all for naught,
“that I will die before I amend
“my wrongdoings; but such is my lot.

“Remember when this started? The trip to Rome
“and the Great Leader’s speech beneath the dome
“(‘course he hadn’t become our Great Leader yet,
“just a man we knew from someplace back home)?

“But there he was, all fire and sweat,
“telling us of ills we could not forget,
“inspiring us to raise up guns of chrome,
“and charge into battle against powers unmet

“by any other power that ever bled the dirt:
“not Khan, not Ceasar, nor the Soviet curtain,
“nor the thundering hooves of the dinosaurs.
“Our only power was that we struck in concert,

“and we fought with a savageness that the mind abhors;
“we weren’t too good to pile scalps on the shores,
“or too squeemish to write blood squirt
“messages that confirmed their wives as whores:

“we’d get personal if we had to, and had to we did,
“for their might and their numbers scared us, though hid,
“so we raped their women and murdered their sons,
“and our Great Leader laughed at the display of our id,

“told us he understood and thought our actions in fun,
“despite it being against his principles, for one,
“and the principles of proper warfare, forbid!
“But still, he allowed us to go until done.

“Tell me, dear wife, could our actions, do tell,
“be the reason the god plays out our death knell?
“We brought freedom, it’s true, our dear liberty,
“but maybe we carried it too long through Hell

“and soiled it with the blood spilled most bitterly
“by the enemies of the Leader’s inspired liturgy,
“not to mention the women who would scream and yell
“as we tore them apart outwardly and inwardly.

“Could a revolution ever sustain
“a beginning so evil and so profane
“as the beginning we gave it back in the Spring,
“when my soldiers and I caused such anguish and pain?”

Outside the wind with cold words sings,
and inside the colonel’s eyes start to sting
as he realizes what he’s done to bring down the rage
of the god who would soon put an end to this thing.

“Dear wife,” he writes, “Forgive me.”