Why are so many important people supportive of the coup in Egypt? Mohammad Morsi received a higher percentage of Egypt's popular vote than Barack Obama did in America last year, in the first free election in Egypt's history. Yet, many American liberals, supporters of Obama, say the coup was necessary. They say the Muslim Brotherhood was bad, that Morsi could not govern; that Morsi promised inclusiveness and delivered exclusiveness, that Egypt would have gone over the cliff before the next presidential election. Why not leave it to the Egyptian "street" then? The street was about to to deliver a popular coup, as it did in 2011. The military then was widely praised for "not losing its bond with its people." It has lost its bond with its people now! The 52% who voted for Morsi are today a hunted people. The popularly elected president is under arrest and the military announced today that arrest warrants had been issued for top Brotherhood officials. Fifty-one Morsi supporters were massacred by the military two days ago. Including the Brotherhood in the next government is not included.
Egypt today presents liberals with familiar paradoxes: Should every democracy be supported? How tolerant should the tolerant be of the intolerant? Not every democratically elected government should be supported. Some, like Hitler's plurality, should be overthrown immediately. And some non-democratic governments, like the PRC, unquestionably have the support of their people. Democracies however assure liberals of some important things, like legitimacy. Democracies are legitimate representations of popular will. It should be, and it is, the exceedingly rare occasion, like in Hitler's Germany, that liberal-minded people should support a military, for godssake, overthrow of a democracy. Militaries are not democracies. Mohammad Morsi's government, after one year, did not fall into that category of the exceedingly rare.
How tolerant should liberal-minded people be of the intolerant? Americans are tolerant up to the point that the intolerant pose a clear and present danger to America. Democracies assure liberals of something important here also: clarity. If a foreign democracy poses a clear and present danger to America, then it is the people of that country who pose the danger. It is not an unrepresentative dictatorship. Democracy clarifies who one's enemies are. The enemies of liberalism in Egypt are the Egyptian people. The Egyptian people did not present a clear and present danger to America under Mohammad Morsi. American supporters of the coup were too intolerant of the intolerant Morsi democracy and are now too tolerant of the intolerant Egyptian military. The supporters of the coup of whom I write are important writers, but just writers, not American governmental officials. No liberal-minded person can be supportive of this military coup under these circumstances.
Egypt today presents liberals with familiar paradoxes: Should every democracy be supported? How tolerant should the tolerant be of the intolerant? Not every democratically elected government should be supported. Some, like Hitler's plurality, should be overthrown immediately. And some non-democratic governments, like the PRC, unquestionably have the support of their people. Democracies however assure liberals of some important things, like legitimacy. Democracies are legitimate representations of popular will. It should be, and it is, the exceedingly rare occasion, like in Hitler's Germany, that liberal-minded people should support a military, for godssake, overthrow of a democracy. Militaries are not democracies. Mohammad Morsi's government, after one year, did not fall into that category of the exceedingly rare.
How tolerant should liberal-minded people be of the intolerant? Americans are tolerant up to the point that the intolerant pose a clear and present danger to America. Democracies assure liberals of something important here also: clarity. If a foreign democracy poses a clear and present danger to America, then it is the people of that country who pose the danger. It is not an unrepresentative dictatorship. Democracy clarifies who one's enemies are. The enemies of liberalism in Egypt are the Egyptian people. The Egyptian people did not present a clear and present danger to America under Mohammad Morsi. American supporters of the coup were too intolerant of the intolerant Morsi democracy and are now too tolerant of the intolerant Egyptian military. The supporters of the coup of whom I write are important writers, but just writers, not American governmental officials. No liberal-minded person can be supportive of this military coup under these circumstances.
