One of the lessons of the "Arab Spring" is that having power and governing are not the same thing. Hosni Mubarak, of Egypt, for example, spent far too much time trying to cling to power and too little time governing. He crushed dissent using torture, bribery and naked violence. He funded his efforts with outside (mostly American) money, and so did not rely on Egyptians for his resources; he never really had to appeal to them for much. As a result, his legitimacy eroded over time. Egyptians of all stripes, including, in retrospect, his own military, did not believe he deserved the support he needed to retain his position. Ironically -- but inevitably -- his concentration on power led to his loss of it.
No current American politician equates to Hosni Mubarak. Not even John Yoo ever advocated the kind of widespread use of torture employed by the Egyptian secret police. Not even Karl Rove, one of the most cynical and power-hungry men alive, seeks to refashion the constitution solely to maintain his own power. Barack Obama, no matter what your view of the health care law, is not grabbing permanent power, and Nancy Pelosi may be pushy, but she's not brutal
Over the past ten years, however, and maybe since the 2000 election, too few of our leaders have set aside considerations of pure power for the sacrifice of governing. They concentrate so closely on being elected that they forget what the ultimate purpose of those elections are. The debacle around the debt ceiling is the purest example of this folly, and the debates to come about the budget, the economy, health care, environmental regulation and the use of US foreign policy will all depend of the state of mind of our leaders regarding their final goals.
Over the next few weeks, I intend to focus on these things here, beginning with President Obama's performance in the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment