Wednesday, June 22, 2011

In the spring, a young man's fancy turns to revolution

"Behind one door is a beautiful maiden. Behind the other a voracious tiger. You must choose." Woody Allen and Bob Hope, of wildly differing political stripes, would nonetheless agree that the correct answer is "I choose the one with the maiden!" Except of course it doesn't work that way. You can't see what's behind the doors; you have to choose blind, and worse, there is seldom anything as nice as a maiden. 

<sniiifff> Ah, smells like Arab Spring. 

Take Egypt for example: long-term dictator vs impassioned mob crying for justice. We can all be forgiven for siding with the guys who gather in the square without tanks and guns. And I did actually, though I am by no means sure it was the correct choice. Why not? 

Because--hang on, first things first, why do I care at all? After all, I can't claim any sovereignty in Egypt. I can't claim that my own rights are being trampled by an Egyptian dictator--though my taxes have gone to prop him up for 30 years or so, so that's a hook. But no, what really makes me interested is one of my postulates, that governing yourself is the highest good. And if I support it for myself, I have to support it for others. And I believe that, as the world gets both larger and smaller, that has to include Egyptians too. And for the same reason: enlightened self interest. I believe more people who believe in freedom makes the world a safer place, and one in which I am more likely to remain free. 



Alright, so why be reluctant to support the protestors? Well, if you'll note as of this writing, the military is still in charge. They've put a straw poll of presidential candidates up on Facebook, a savvy move no matter their ultimate intentions. So that's point number one. The impassioned mob has not actually replaced anyone yet, they've only DISplaced them. If they turn out not to have the strength to take and hold power, then nothing's been gained. Also, it's not at all clear they have the same definition of freedom as I do. If not, they wouldn't be the first. There are many for whom history has meant the right to bludgeon others as they've been bludgeoned (Puritans, I'm looking at you). 


If they can't actually take power, then my support of them is inconsequential. If they can't hold power, then it's purely symbolic. If they don't actually share my view of self government, then my support for them is counterproductive and even dangerous. So what's to do? Which door do you choose? I put my ear to the door and listened for growling. Then I picked the other door. It could be a snake, a scorpion, whatever. Better the devil I don't know, I guess. 


Of course I'm talking like this choice, a blind hope in the lesser of two evils or even one evil and a not particularly evil, but not all that nice, is unique to foreign policy. But you could substitute Democrats and Republicans and the arguments are much the same. While I have ideals, I am not an idealist. I vote based on my perceived chances of improving my lot over time. "None of the above" seems unlikely to do that. So I pick the candidate I identify with the least evils, or perhaps the least pressing evils, hoping he will undo the work of the last one and be himself undone by the next. 


I'm not throwing away my vote. I'm making a calculated decision to do the best I can. To keep opening doors, year after year, hoping against hope to find a maiden behind one eventually.

2 comments:

  1. Dear Plugh,
    Your posts continue to be great. If I didn't agree with everything you have to say I might have a more interesting set of comments.

    Keep the posts coming.

    ReplyDelete