Opinion

We are in an era of conservative counter-revolution

The Egyptian revolution of February 2011 was one of the most joyful political moments of my life and for many others too. It seemed to show the path forward in countless ways, from the liberator role played by social media to the importance of an educated secular global elite to advancing democracy and breaking up tradition; and today the Egyptian revolution is pure mud, and the Egyptian people are in some great measure responsible. Some large portion of that society or its educated classes signed off on the dictatorship of Sisi in order to have stability and tradition. Maybe they are motivated by security, maybe they wish to preserve an unequal distribution of resources.

But theirs must be understood as  a conservative counterrevolutionary and democratic impulse. Those people overlooked massacres and human rights abuses for the sake of preserving an old order, no problem.

The Trump election must be seen in the same light; and it challenges any progressive’s idea of history.

Maybe history is not something that works out toward greater fairness and freedom and a recognition of abuses. Maybe history in our era, by which I mean the story of civilization as far as we can see it, is in fact a neverending compilation of human abuses in which the privileged bulk of the society seeks to consolidate its advantages and concede as little as possible to new claimants.

Let’s say the left is correct in its alarm over the Trump election: it is fascistic and racist, the spasms of the non-urban white segment of society at the eventuality of the U.S. becoming a brown majority nation. The left says that Trump is illegitimate and also reversible. Like the Brexit opponents: they believe that Trump will be undone.

Maybe they are wrong about that. Maybe it won’t be reversed. Maybe we are actually living in an era of counter-revolution, in which liberties and ideals that the vanguard of society jerks forward to assert and establish are thrown in the dust; and security and privilege are prized instead.

I say an era because it seems to be true all around: Brexit threatens to undo the idealism of a unified and human-rights-loving Europe. Putinism undid the openings of Gorbachev. Whatever the freedom fighters promised for Syria—and I was for them as excitedly as the crowds in Tahrir Square—we see a Syria today where large chunks of the society are obviously conservative: they would rather have a dictator still ruling them than religious radicals. And Trump is sure to agree.

The left says that Trumpism isn’t just about jobs and discontent; but it is aimed at the many liberties that the society has struggled to adopt as norms in the last ten years. Gay marriage, transgender rights, the anti-racist progress of the Black Lives Matter movement and the anti-incarceration movement. And maybe the left is right. Maybe this election is about a broad and majoritarian segment of our society saying, Enough, we like being on top, and we are not giving up power so easily. This is our society and we want to maintain traditions, and we are saying F. y. to all those changes.

I am on the left because I think those freedoms are things worth struggling for, but maybe history is not progressive. Maybe cultural advances and economic fairness are not the end point. Maybe history is actually deeply conservative, as the story is working out in our lifetimes: And maybe these reactions are going to last a long time in an era of shortages, climate crises and mass migrations.

Conservatism is a deep motivation in human affairs. I think we should not forget the lessons of the 2004 election. John Kerry took on an incompetent numskull who had plunged us into a terrible war and Kerry lost because suburban women wanted strength in their leader. They would sacrifice a lot of young people and Iraqis’ lives for the stability of American suburbs; they didn’t care. Today a great number of property holders in Cairo are thankful that Egypt is a police state, because Syria is not. Some of the Palestinian response to Jewish immigrants in the 30s was not that dissimilar to nativist European responses today (and yes I’m aware about Zionism and colonialism).

The election of Barack Obama was in some ways a revolution, as joyous for many in our country as Tahrir Square. He changed many cultural values in our society, and was working at the biggest at the end of his administration: climate change. Now we have elected a climate change denier who to get people better-paying jobs in the Red States will let industry do whatever it wants and punish immigrants. And few of his voters care if that wrecks the planet. People know and they don’t care.

Progressives believe, or hope, that in the end mankind will be motivated by the better angels of its nature; but the world today is telling us that is not the case. These elections are reminiscent of birds that anticipate a storm. If there are going to be violent and destructive resource battles in a globalized warming overpopulated world, it is hard to see how a liberal human rights agenda prospers. Human beings are too selfish. I watched Obama’s press conference yesterday, and my hero seemed depressed, drawn, discouraged. He only smiled when he was leaving.

The natural ending of these thoughts it that I myself am becoming a conservative. That is not the case, or not yet anyway. I am too engaged on social issues of tremendous unfairness ever to abandon them: the liberation of Palestinians from the Israel lobby and Zionism; and my wife’s work on incarceration. Both these issues are steeped in racist history; so I cannot turn my back on the left, on its analysis or program.

But I conclude that I’m not a humanist. I love liberal ideals but I think given the chance any human beings of whatever color or religion would behave as white Americans did in this election.

60 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It is worth analyzing these revolutions/counterevolutions to see why they occurred.

In Egypt, its true that the overthrow of Mubarak was populist [although there are hints it was a western backed ‘color revolution’]. But there was a fear that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to impose a fundamentalist order in accordance with its orientation. People did come out in the streets in large numbers to protest Morsi. Millions of Christian Copts didn’t want to get repressed like Christians are under ISIS or in Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian coup on the other hand was secular, but Al-Sisi did not arrive with an election. So in a sense it is hard to say what was left and revolutionary and what was reactionary and counterevolutionary. Maybe the counterevolution began even before Al-Sisi, and with Morsi’s party’s own conservatism.

In the US, Obama could be seen as progressive, but his term came to an end, and there was a chance for Bernie, but we have the DNC leaks showing that the DNC and Clinton sidelined Bernie. So maybe that was the real initiation of counterevolution, not Trump’s victory. Like Al-Sisi, Trump got some support because some of his positions, like not wanting to invade Syria on behalf of Assad’s fundamentalist rebel opponents, were more progressive than Clinton’s. I agree with Trump when he says about the rebels – “I don’t know who these guys are.” Namely, how much of the FSA are fundamentalists and how many are secular like Assad is. So in a way, Clinton was seen as the establishment and hawkish, while Trump was seen as a Hope for Change (like Obama’s own slogans).

Therefore, to create a mindset where Clinton is “revolutionary” and “Left” and Trump is “counterevolutionary” and “reactionary” could be quite misleading in understanding their policies or the forces in the public that supported them.

Libya could be the best example of this. Kaddafi decades ago was seen as Left and Revolutionary. Are we to see his overthrow under right wing rebels and NATO forces as “Left” and “revolutionary”?

“But I conclude that I’m not a humanist. I love liberal ideals but I think given the chance any human beings of whatever color or religion would behave as white Americans did in this election.”

Gee, if that’s the case, looks like “liberal Zionism” will fit you down to the ground. Why fight your custard?

we see a Syria today where large chunks of the society are obviously conservative: they would rather have a dictator still ruling them than religious radicals.

Is that really so obviously conservative to prefer a secular dictatorship over religious Muslim radicals (who could actually turn out to be dictatorial in power)?

You know the saying “In Soviet Russia…” (everything is backwards)

In Soviet Russia, bringing a secular “dictatorship of the proletariat” to Central Asian republics was seen as revolutionary, whereas older forms of society in Central Asia that repressed women and minorities were seen as conservative.

PHIL- “I say an era because it seems to be true all around: Brexit threatens to undo the idealism of a unified and human-rights-loving Europe. Putinism undid the openings of Gorbachev. Whatever the freedom fighters promised for Syria—and I was for them as excitedly as the crowds in Tahrir Square—we see a Syria today where large chunks of the society are obviously conservative: they would rather have a dictator still ruling them than religious radicals. And Trump is sure to agree.”

You live in a “liberal” fantasy world. Your interpretation of reality is so at odds with actual empirical reality that it is pointless to argue with you. You continue to camouflage the ugly reality of empire with lofty rhetoric, the self-deception of the privileged. Your liberalism is the liberalism of empire. You remain part of the imperial doctrinal system and will likely never change. Unless, of course, your comment was meant as sarcasm and I failed to recognize it as such.

Putinism undid the openings of Gorbachev.
—————-

This is completely wrong.

The “openings of Gorbachev” were undone not by Putin, but by Yeltsin &co, the “West”, predatory neoliberalism, shock therapy, and the geopolitics of global U.S. military dominance. That led to complete economic and social collapse and the deaths of MILLIONS of Russian. The fact of this colossal crime are virtually unknown int the West. Putin represents a counter-revolution, imperfect of course, against that horrific neoliberal destruction, The Western “conservative” vs. “liberal” dichotomy is simply not appropriate for understanding Russia.

Phil, unfortunately, appears to have adopted wholesale and utterly uncritically the Establishment propaganda on Russia.