Olive Craner's Politics.
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bring back the rajavi cult british law firms in north korea burchill on diana condoleeza rice dagestan gulnara karimova hersh on kissinger hitch on clinton insurrectionary anarchism it'll be like penman on jacko lukashenka lives! mailer on marilyn miller on greece neocon strategies only better quasi-fascist scooter libby shawcross on cambodia something of the night the aliyev clan the communist party of wales the mahfouz scandal the mek yulia tymoshenko
luka
Well-known member
also interested in what you think should be done about the brotherhood. you either have elections and they win becuase of membership base, funds, popular support etc or you have elections and ban them which isnt democratic, or you dont have elections which again is hardly promoting democracy in any meaningful sense of the term. i have trouble understanding you point of view sometimes.
craner
Beast of Burden
Ok, briefly.
1) As in, expressing the general view of these events, which Obama was channelling.
2) How the US engages the Brotherhood, and if and when it does, are complicated questions, particularly now they will "run" the country, bar another military coup. The point being made is that, in 2009 Obama chose to court the Brotherhood rather than the liberal, conservative and left democtratic opposition in Eqypt.Condi did the opposite, by championing Ayman Nour.
3) The unmentioned tension in that piece is between rhetoric and action, which never exactly track. But in the case of both speeches, I briefly suggest ways in which the speechs of Obama and Condi overlapped with actual foreign policy and its implementation. A speech on its own doesn't mean much, but I was analysing the differences in the two speechs, and this spoke for the difference between each administration.
4) The US doesn't determine the Egyptian elections; it has a say in how these elections are conducted, indirectly through NGOs and election monitors and diplomatic pressure.
5) The different definitions, or expectations, of democracy are addressed in both speeches; Obama tilts towards "self-determiniation", Condi clearly defends "liberal values" -- I don't go into it in great detail, because it is not a very theoretical piece. But the question -- what kind of democracy? -- hangs in the air, with no easy answer or single definition.
That's part of what's happening: the Brotherhood obscure their reactionary and anti-democratic instincts and values by setting up a political party called the Freedom and Justice Party. Fine, that's the way it goes; I see no reason to invest great hope in this arrangement.
1) As in, expressing the general view of these events, which Obama was channelling.
2) How the US engages the Brotherhood, and if and when it does, are complicated questions, particularly now they will "run" the country, bar another military coup. The point being made is that, in 2009 Obama chose to court the Brotherhood rather than the liberal, conservative and left democtratic opposition in Eqypt.Condi did the opposite, by championing Ayman Nour.
3) The unmentioned tension in that piece is between rhetoric and action, which never exactly track. But in the case of both speeches, I briefly suggest ways in which the speechs of Obama and Condi overlapped with actual foreign policy and its implementation. A speech on its own doesn't mean much, but I was analysing the differences in the two speechs, and this spoke for the difference between each administration.
4) The US doesn't determine the Egyptian elections; it has a say in how these elections are conducted, indirectly through NGOs and election monitors and diplomatic pressure.
5) The different definitions, or expectations, of democracy are addressed in both speeches; Obama tilts towards "self-determiniation", Condi clearly defends "liberal values" -- I don't go into it in great detail, because it is not a very theoretical piece. But the question -- what kind of democracy? -- hangs in the air, with no easy answer or single definition.
That's part of what's happening: the Brotherhood obscure their reactionary and anti-democratic instincts and values by setting up a political party called the Freedom and Justice Party. Fine, that's the way it goes; I see no reason to invest great hope in this arrangement.
craner
Beast of Burden
6) Yes, I agree with that, his speech had a function, and he was playing a role; I have some sympathy for this, but I also pick apart some trends in the speech that reveal a very old and conservative and almost abject policy tilt within a speech titled "A New Beginning".
7) I don't think he's a buffoon, I was only being flippant with Jim on Twitter!
7) I don't think he's a buffoon, I was only being flippant with Jim on Twitter!
craner
Beast of Burden
Flat, and yet hyperventilating? Look, if that's true, then it's a stylistic achievment anyway.
I think you have failed to appreciate the way in which I have made one narrative out of two seperate events. I only bother to research and write something if I want to read it myself and nobody else has done so -- like, a lurid technicolour portrait of Gulnara Karimova, or a machinic mauling of the MEK. Who else has made such a careful and expansive comparison of these two Cairo speeches, one of which reacts to and reflects upon the other in such a critical it occluded manner? Nobody has, except for me.
I think you have failed to appreciate the way in which I have made one narrative out of two seperate events. I only bother to research and write something if I want to read it myself and nobody else has done so -- like, a lurid technicolour portrait of Gulnara Karimova, or a machinic mauling of the MEK. Who else has made such a careful and expansive comparison of these two Cairo speeches, one of which reacts to and reflects upon the other in such a critical it occluded manner? Nobody has, except for me.