Concerning the riots in Tunisia and nearby Algeria, Andrew Sullivan reposts, so one assumes he approves, some one demanding that the Right take a more active interest in the democracy now elements of the riots. The problem here is that the Right has decided that all unrest now has to do with economics. Fox, for example, insists that the riots are primarily about unemployment instead of about the corrupt, incompetent, and undemocratic political system. While it is certainly true that Tunisia's economy stinks, the demand for President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali's, in office since 1987, immediate resignation and his announcement of not running in the next election is more than evidence of economic dissatisfaction but rather of a desire for better leadership. The economy may be a proximate and necessary cause but it is unlikely to be sufficient.
Why are Fox and others on the Right emphasizing the economic and ignoring the desire for democracy? One reason might be the Glenn Beck theory of Soros' revolution. One other might be that they have been casting all unrest, whether in Greece or England, as evidence of the economic losers petulance at the neo-Liberal belt tightening serious politicians.
In other words, rather than admit that the social and political unrest is evidence of wide-spread dissatisfaction with a political class that under the guise of protecting the children from debt are, in fact, gutting education, health, and so forth, while ensuring that the rich continue to prosper. The complaints, my argument is, reflect a rejection of neo-Liberal policies not because of some immediate economic problem but because the neo-Liberal solutions have been tried and found wanting and, whatismore, the neo-Liberal solutions cause immediate harm to the majority of any nation's citizenry without the benefit of improvement further down the line.
Or, in any event, that's how it seems to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment