It’s been a busy week at DC and in the world, thus a slight delay in this post.
Indeed, last week has been “restlessly eventful,” as Robin Wagner Pacifici might put it. The main event has been in the Arab world, particularly in Egypt. But closer to home, President Obama gave an important State of the Union address. In both cases, we can see that something new is emerging, that tomorrow will be strikingly different from what yesterday was. Change rather than continuity is the storyline.
Obviously, Egypt appears to be more consequential. It would seem that there is real democratic promise and a promise of an end to stagnation, in a country and region with a history of great cultural and political achievements, mostly frustrated in the recent past. The outcome is uncertain, who wins and who loses is unknown, but clearly a page has been turned.
Less dramatically, President Obama for the first time seems to have been understood on his own terms, as a creative centrist, making advances in changing the nature of the center in the United States. Given the power of the United States, this may indeed be eventful.
Egypt and Beyond
I particularly appreciate the post by Hazem Kandil. He points out how conventional ways of understanding politics and history, not only in the media but also in academia, did not anticipate what is now happening before our eyes. I would underscore two aspects of this, which in fact coincide with my last two book projects, The Politics of Small Things and the forthcoming Reinventing Political Culture.
Kandil illuminates the gap between past and future, as Arendt depicted this. All the studies of Egypt as “thoroughly Islamized,” with powerful “mosque networks,” “social welfare circles,” mired by “identity politics,” and informed by and organized around symbols and rituals, suggested that the culture of political culture points in the direction of authoritarian continuity. His note demonstrates how we must consider cultural creativity, along with cultural continuity in political and not only in artistic matters.
Now, look again at the Muslim Brotherhood. Note that it is endorsing the transitional leadership of Mohamed ElBaradei and seems to be working in a way that recognizes the pluralism of Egyptian society. Then critically evaluate whether Egypt’s future now will replicate Iran’s future in the past.
And I think Kandil is absolutely right about the need to question the notion that recent events are caused by the new technologies and global media events (i.e. such as the WikiLeaks dumps). It is crucial that people are speaking to each other, developing a capacity to act together, empowering themselves to a point that they are likely to overthrow a police state. Media sometimes facilitate this, the politics of small things, but key is people interacting, not the form of mediation.
I expressed concerns about the outcome of the events in my post. I worried about how and what people were saying to each other on the streets as their protests to expel the dictator proceed. Recent reports from Egypt suggest that they are saying more than “no” and that people with differences are working with each other, respecting their differences. This far from assures a happy ending, but it is a good sign. As Arendt notes in politics the means are a significant part of the ends. In terms of my Central European comparison, Cairo may not be Warsaw, with a long and extensive experience with democratic opposition before the fall of communism, but it is clear to me that it more resembles Prague than Bucharest.
Now prediction: I think that Egypt, along with Tunisia, may actually be at the vanguard of real and substantial democratic development in the Middle East, proving that the way this happens is through civil action and not war. It is time for citizens and governments, including my own, inside and outside the region, to recognize this as a possibility,. Action based upon such recognition can facilitate this major positive transformation. There are significant dangers, to be sure, but cynicism gets us nowhere.
Other Posts
A few words about the State of the Union address, about Dayan’s interpretation of WikiLeaks and about Carducci’s post on “the art of the commons:”
Given the very favorable response to the State of the Union Address, it is clear to me that Obama is now addressing and helping shape American commonsense, as has been his long term project. This is good not only for his short and long term political prospects. It also may help him move the country from the center right. There is a real possibility that the Reagan mantra, that the government is part of the problem not the solution, will be reconsidered by a significant portion of the population, as the Republicans offer ideology (Ryan) and comedy (Bachmann) as the alternative to Obama’s leadership.
I do, though, have concerns about how far Obama is willing to go, or more specifically, about his caution about moving the country to a more reasonable center when it comes to foreign affairs. There are the wars, and now there is the alternative to wars. I hope that the administration sooner rather than later places emphasis on the promise of Tunisia and Egypt, and supports democracy in a fashion other than that of the previous administration. Gestures matter, as Dayan explores in his recent post and will explore more extensively in his next one. We need Presidential leadership that gestures publicly, visibly, in favor of democracy. Not hidden realities but the public gestures are significant for the political moment.
And note public space in a center of a domestic crisis is also of crucial importance, as Vince Carducci’s post on art of the commons in Detroit reveals. I hope that this contribution is one of a continuing series of posts on the arts, as they help us consider the problems of the day, from Carducci and other contributors. Suggestions are welcome. My intuition is that this dimension has not been insignificant in Tunis and Cairo.
Jeff has raised the issue of leadership a number of times as it relates to the President Obama and the Republicans. As an old change agent, figuratively and literally, I have read the State of the Union comments and responses with interest. Rather than describe Representative Bachmann’s response as “comedy,” I think that somewhat simplistic might better. The issues that she raises and her solutions are meaningful to large numbers of people.
Representative Ryan in my opinion offers more than ideology. In transformational type communications, I (and most other change agents) look for following elements: measurable goals; a clear vision; guiding values; compelling reasons for change; and prioritized actions. My analysis of Representative Ryan’s remarks found that all of these elements are present. They were presented briefly in a clear and logical manner, and in a comforting tone. It combined timeless elements with focused actions. While not a charismatic speaker, Representative’s Ryan’s remarks have a transformational aspect to them although many might disagree with the transformation he proposes. Many may agree with how Representative Ryan proposes achieving his vision, but it is difficult to argue with his goals which include, “… unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper … “to pass onto our children a nation that is stronger, more vibrant, more decent and better than the one we inherited.” The shorter length of his speech and focused nature make its messages accessible to large number of people.
President Obama is a gifted and accomplished orator, but there are some issues with the delivery of his speech, its form and content. President Obama had a chance to leave more of an impact by including the major elements of transformational speeches in a shorter speech spoken from the heart rather than from the teleprompter. All of his details could have been included in a written document for Congress and he could have chosen to deliver comments in shorter form from bulleted comments than allowed the following elements to stand out: measurable goals; a clear vision; guiding values; compelling reasons for change; and prioritized actions. By engaging these points in spoken rather than read remarks he could have reached into the hearts and minds of more viewers.
“Win the Future” lacks transformational elements. The future never comes, and his measures for success are not fully developed and therefore are only partially measurable. President Obama’s vision for America could be sharpen and started in a few memorable sentences. This is facilitated by clearly stating the values that will drive all of his administration’s values supported by focused compelling reasons and focus on prioritized actions. Out-innovate, out-educate, out-build, and take responsibility for our deficit and reform of our government are intriguing, but get lost in all the other rhetoric that his includes.
President Obama uses some powerful images and phrases which get lost in the totality of his comments. Long speeches, like this one, contribute to people having difficulty remembering and supporting what is proposed.
What comes next is most important. Successful transformational leaders that I have known understand the important of individual and collective initiatives; the power of unleashing creativity and initiative; and seeking consensus. I’m not at all sure that efforts will be made to seek consensus, which is the one mechanism which will ultimately open the way for his initiatives. My guess is that we will be timid about approaching the impending deficit crisis; and there isn’t nearly enough work being done on a comprehensive energy approach which helps get us to a desired end state. The world situation clearly demonstrates that unless a nation’s financial house is in order, little or nothing else can be achieved. Most experts that I know understand that an orderly transition is needed to shift from current energy approaches to alternative ones. In this case a little more pragmatism might actually lead to the more idealistic goals in a shorter period of time.
I felt that Obama’s State of the Union Address was clear. Yes, we can make steps towards reforming government to be more efficient and reduce spending, but we need more jobs now and in the future. Education, innovation, and infrastructure are necessary to create the environment for businesses to emerge, grow and hire. I felt the use of individual examples compelling. Ryan’s speech was short, because it’s very easy to just say “No We Can’t. We’re broke.” He left out one big reason why we’re broke. The Republican position is to “starve the beast.” Ideologically, they believe that if the government just stays out of the way, the free market takes care of everything. This has proven not to be the case. The rich get richer and the little people lose. Obama has a more pragmatic, honest approach to government. Republicans ignore the facts and make up their own. They feed people’s fears, and assume people can’t understand economics beyond their personal checkbooks. Bachmann was comical because of her presentation, but the ideology she embodied was no different from Ryan’s. Of course, my hope is that cynicism and ignorance won’t prevail, and now that Republicans have some power, people will see the choice more clearly in the next election.