Rights More Important than Fealty to the Purity of Democracy - Egypt

I had this interaction on twitter with a UK libertarian whom I admire.  In this case we disagreed.

When, as it took place, I Tweeted against the coup in #Egypt, lots of people replied that it would 'restore order'. How's that working out?
— Daniel Hannan (@DanHannanMEP) August 17, 2013

@DanHannanMEP @LibertarianView Pretty well perhaps. Constitutional order requires Muslim Bro'hoo be stripped of power to impose Sharia.
— B Daddy (@BDaddyLiberator) August 18, 2013

@BDaddyLiberator Every tyrant uses the same excuse to overthrow a democracy. You cant support democracy only if you like what they vote for!
— Murray Rothbard (@LibertarianView) August 18, 2013

So @LibertarianView makes the reasonable point that I am not really supporting democracy if I support the overthrow of Morsi by the military, and I agree to an extent.  The tougher question is whether we should support democracy at all costs, even to the loss of freedom.  Morsi had granted himself dictatorial powers.  The Muslim Brotherhood was and is intent on imposing Sharia law, even if that means abrogating rights embedded in the Egyptian constitution.  Even if the rights were not embedded, fundamental human rights such as freedom of worship are never legitimately denied, even in a democracy.

Throughout history, we have seen instances where dictatorship arises out of democracy.  The use of force to resist a denial of rights can be legitimate, even if that government was elected.  One could argue that Lincoln did not have the precise constitutional authority to prevent the southern states from seceding over the issue of slavery.  The state governments that voted for secession were duly elected.  But, as he made clear in his second inaugural speech,  the purpose of secession was to perpetuate the denial of rights to black slaves in perpetuity. This violated the promise of the Declaration.  The response of war to secession was appropriate and moral.

Ultimately, if Morsi had remained in power, there would have been no more elections in Egypt.  Supporting his overthrow does not mean that I am against democracy, only that I support a constitutional form of government that guarantees basic human rights and I value this greater than the purity of the democratic form of government.

Morton's Fork, Egypt, Syria and False Dilemmas

I have read of the foreign policy choices in Egypt compared to Hobson's Choice, which is to say there is no choice at all.  However, it seems more like Morton's Fork, in which one is confronted with two equally bad options, where Hobson's choice is a "take it or leave it" situation. In the case of Egypt, the military has imposed dictatorship in the name of defending the constitution and is in the process of implementing a bloody crackdown against the Islamists.  For its part, the Muslim Brotherhood, through the office of President Mohamed Morsi, was on its way to imposing an Islamist theocracy in violation of the promise of freedom and the constitution that accompanied the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak.  The administration was accused in turn of supporting the Muslim brotherhood and the military, by means of foreign aid.  My personal belief is that the wheels at State turn too slowly for us to respond in any way that is aligned with the foreign policy desires of the President.

Similarly, in Syria, Assad has been accused of using chemical weapons against the opposition. This opposition appears to be an Islamist coalition and sometime front for Al-Qaeda.  A key quote from the NYT: "Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of."  Assad is a brutal dictator in the mold of his father, but the opposition is no friend of democracy either.  The U.S. has vacillated in support of the opposition, and with good reason, there are no obviously good options.

In the case of Egypt, I believe we are faced with a false dilemma.  There is more complexity to the Egyptian political scene than merely Islamist vs military.  There is a large democratic leaning minority.  Right now, the administration is taking a PR beating from that group for our previous support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the name of supporting democracy.  But we don't have to support a democratically elected government that doesn't itself support democracy.  Obama erred in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi.  But we should be clear that we expect fresh elections from the military.  It will be a long time before we have real influence in Egypt, but the only way to achieve that end is to consistently support freedom.

In Syria, our policy is accidentally correct.  We have vacillated in our support of the rebels just enough so that they have not been defeated.  A jihadist victory in Syria, including control of likely caches of chemical weapons, would be a disaster for the west and Israel.  However, Assad's freedom of action is being contained by the civil war.  We can't forget that Bashar Assad and his predecessor/father have made mischief in the Middle East for decades, often in cooperation with Iran and Hezbollah.  If the U.S. were to articulate its policy, it would be to contain Assad and prevent him from using chemical weapons to seek revenge on the rebels.  Until such time as the Syrians come to their senses, this is the best that can be accomplished.  At the end of the day, I find it hard to find great fault in Obama's policy.  There is little to be done in the short term, and we seem to be stumbling towards something resembling the least bad options.

What You Should Be Reading.

• Dean has been keeping us up to speed on the continued obstructionism against the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare being perpetuated by. . . the Obama administration.  This of course is the fault of the Republicans.  The WSJ covers some of the same ground, with less humor, but more depth.  KT proposes the logical solution to implementation issues with the ACA; Hayek would agree with the connection made.
• Why do we need big coal or other fossil fuels?  The answer to that question is probably in your pocket. (H/T Professor Perry.)

Fall of Mubarak

I don't have much to add on the transition of Egypt to military rule. But it is a very dangerous time for our interests, which are served by a transition to democracy. However, I don't know that a true democracy will be the outcome in Egypt. There are many examples throughout history of democratic revolutions devolving into brutal dictatorships, from France in 1789 to Iran in 1979. Egypt's army is well respected, but the groups that organized Mubarak's defeat aren't going to be appeased unless they gain power.

Quick Note On Egypt

It seems that the administration's response to the situation in Egypt is about as good as could be hoped. Given the circumstances, there are only a limited range of options. I saw Secretary of State Clinton on TV urging that Mubarak step down, eventually, and urging adequate time to prepare for elections. This will give a chance for secular parties to get organized, and hopefully prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power. Meanwhile, the largely American trained Egyptian military is staying out of the fray, except to guard key installations. Getting the military involved in ensuring fair elections is about the only path to success, even if a long shot.

It's nice to see Charles Krauthammer and Hilary Clinton in basic agreement. From Krauthammer's latest piece:

The military is the best vehicle for guiding the country to free elections over the coming months. Whether it does so with Mubarak at the top, or with Vice President Omar Suleiman or perhaps with some technocrat who arouses no ire among the demonstrators, matters not to us. If the army calculates that sacrificing Mubarak (through exile) will satisfy the opposition and end the unrest, so be it.

Odds are still long for a reasonable outcome that doesn't end in massive bloodshed for the Egyptian people and a government not dominated by Islamist extremists.

By the way, this is the way it always seems to end for dictatorships. After our invasion of Iraq, there were complaints that sectarian violence between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis was the fault of the U.S. In fact, that violence was inevitably waiting to happen as soon as Saddam fell. The presence of the U.S. actually kept it in check.