watching a presidential debate in pre-revolutionary egypt

8/6/2019 Watching a Presidential Debate in Pre-Revolutionary Egypt

1/5

Composed During and Directly Following the Sept 30

Presidential Debate on International Policy and Homeland

Security

3AM - 30/09:

The dank Egyptian air hangs hot and heavy as the next

generation of self-selected foreign policy gurus settles in

front of the TV to watch the live overseas broadcast of the

first 2004 Presidential Debate. The smell of stale beer and

cheap scotch coats the furniture like the ghosts of dead

old men.

Im sitting in a big apartment in the Cairo district

of Zamalek. Me and the hundred and twenty or so other 20-

somethings who wait anxiously for the Homeland Security

sparks and War on Terror tremors to fly are one month into

our study abroad program. Interestingly, were also just

one month away from the most important election weve been

alive for, and it seems, constantly just one step away from

combusting in an uncontrolled and rampant national

insanity.

As the hour approaches and host Luke lays down the

ground rules (no talking, arguing, yelling, or being a

dick during the debate!) its impossible not to feel the

it overwhelming the group. It is that intangible but

constantly-present significance which makes base instincts

come out during politically momentous occasions. Itis that

thing which makes you tell your 20-year old self, confidentin your judgment of right and wrong and what that must

mean, that you are willing to man up and take it outside if

need be. It is thatpassion that the once-passionate

relegate to youthful indulgence and the now-passionate

demand they will keep forever. It is timeless, and does not

give a good Goddamn which event or era it comes out in.

With 120 warm bodies full of Cairo night, Sakkara

beer, and comfort in their knowledge of tonights topic,

you can bet that itis on full display tonight. On a couch

across the way, a group of outspoken republicans makes abig W and yells, to which another couch responds with

half-kidding calls of neo-con fucks. This is the circus,

with PBSs esteemed ringmaster Jim Lehrer to snap the whip.

I settled back and wondered what I would see

* * *


2/5

As I sat there and watched the absurd preceding, I

couldnt help but gape, not at the moral villainy or

Orwellian doublespeak of current American politics, but of

the desperate confusion which is absolutely surrounding us

and eating our souls. This confusion certainly has

ramifications for this election, but most of all seems

poised to completely alter the political dynamic for those

of us premaritals over in Egypt, or Japan, or back in

America, learning about the world and our place in it, and

just startingto figure ourselves out now.

What was most surprising and really, insane, about

tonights debate was not to be found in the words of George

Bush. Both his staunchly militaristic and morally defended

positions and incredibly lack of eloquence were well-known

and oft-quipped pillars of American popular culture. His

ideological-empiricism-in-the-name-of-self-defense-and-

preemptive-safety, an ideology that hails the gloriousmarch of freedom into the world of the repressed and

liberty-less as the categorical imperative of American

power was, for him, nothing new. The callousness with which

he levied the term freedom, the very definition of and

situational applicability of which forms the core

discussion of our great democracy, has no equal, save maybe

Mel Gibsons William Wallace in Braveheart, yet still

this was more of the same.

No, what was amazing was that the alternative

presented to this depravity was a John F. Kerry, shroudedin the mantel of days gone by and Cold Warrior glory. His

candor and demeanor were excellent, and it was clear that

his Clinton-admin debate coaches had done their jobs well,

yet his words could not help but feel like a harkening to

the not-so-distant past.

Less than half-way into the night, Kerry stated

clearly and unequivocally that Kennedy and Reagan were

models of his for having used preemptive military prowess

successfully. He said he wished to follow in their

footsteps. Excuse me? Did mine ears deceive me? Did Kerry,the democratic candidate, just reference Reagan, the man

who ushered in the Reagan youth and a new era of hip young

fiscal conservatism and hawkish international involvement?

The strange connection to past republican presidents

and policy did not stop there, either. In discussing the

Iraq situation, the Boston Brahmin made sure to reference


3/5

the (according to Kerry) sagacious wisdom of George the

Elder which avoided becoming an occupying force in the

region. Then, when questioned as to his ability to truly

secure American safety, JFK v.2004 dropped the E-bomb. Just

having received his endorsement a day earlier, Kerry let

the world know that John Eisenhower, son of the original

Cold Warrior, was in his corner. Finally, when asked what

the greatest threat to American security, he jumped

straight to Nuclear Proliferation, saying that we needed to

contain the spread of nukes across borders. The choice of

worse was, in all likelihood, not arbitrary.

The night came to an end as both candidates explained

that it was imperative for the still-fledging Russian

democracy to maintain its current institutions and restrain

from implementing autocratic reforms, no matter what the

dire circumstances seemed to require. Kerry, for sure, was

the firmer of the two, and finished his time off with aquote from George F. Will, one of the most prominent

conservative columnists in the country.

So whats the deal? Is John Kerry just a big jerkbox?

A slippery politician, desirous only of his own ascendancy?

Maybe. Theres a good chance, however, that hes just

reading the signs left by a hopelessly confused electorate

teetering on the brink of insanity and nausea cause by a

millennial cocktail of fear, self-preservation, misguided

patriotism, and instability. The post-September 11th Bush

era has been one in which the specter of harm round thebend has ruled the roost. It has been a time in which the

fear of loss and so-you-better-do-thiss has become the

primary political currency. It is reinforced on TV daily,

and it has been picked up by every politician seeking

office. Many of our core values have not changed, but the

way in which we perceive threats to our livelihood and our

willing visceral response to these threats, in words and

deed, is nothing short of staggering. There has never been

an election in which a candidate opposing a socially

conservative foreign-policy unilateralist could move

effortlessly from defending the necessity and morality ofstem-cell research and a womans right to choose to using

the phrase hunt down [our enemies] and kill them three

times without any apparent contradiction.

Indeed, The strange character of this election is that

it is one in which traditional party and ideological

designations are coming apart at the seams and apparently,


4/5

everyone has a hand in multiple political pots. It is

colored by libertarians who will vote Democrat for the

first time in their life, frustrated by the extent of

Bushs involvement in foreign affairs and/or the degree to

which faith-based initiatives are threatening the

constitutional separation of church and state. It is

peppered with socially liberal hawks leaning Bush because,

frankly, since 9/11, I havent cared about anything else.

Then there are the rest of us, the Anybody-but-Bushies, the

Dont-Give-a-Damns, and the Cant-Stand-Any-of-Yous. What

it all adds up to is a big chaotic soup of right-wingers,

leftist activists, nutballs and weirdos all scrambling to

figure out what to do next.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

Hunter S Thompson

A month into Egypt and it seems like my generation is

the most confused and insane of all. The Americans here area self-selecting group, all desiring not only to understand

this region that most people can only know through Fox News

and CNN, but also willing to at least approximate cultural

understanding by learning the language and placing

ourselves in this peculiar situation. Beyond this, however,

there is no consistency of purpose. Some here are avowed

Bush conservatives, intent on proving to themselves the

truth of that deep desire for freedom known so

conclusively to GWB to be exhibit throughout the Middle

East. Others are unabashed liberals, determined to undercut

at least one more layer of media misrepresentation andlearn about this new other of ours direct from the

source. A bunch are nothing more than self-promoting soon-

to-be career politicians. They tend not to care that

theyre here, per se, but only that after theyve left,

they have a piece of paper to prove to other people that

they were here before. Still more are soon-to-be tough-

nosed marines. Orientalists assured of American cultural

superiority, these few are interested in their recognition

of their duty to fight and protect America from her

enemies. As we sat and watched that first debate, all the

groups were well represented.Indeed, in each of these groups, that precarious it is

there, but how it should and will manifest itself in the

years to come will be our great question and our great

responsibility. My optimism and faith in these people often

runs short, but a friend of mine tells me that it takes

all kinds, and maybe thats what our great American ideal

of freedom reallymeans, most simply put.


5/5

Yes, we are young and with wind in our sails. We still

possess the potential of time and hope. Whats more, the

luckiest and most doomed among us possess that

indefatigable naivety which assures us that we can cure all

ills and right all wrongs, and that destiny is a thing of

our design.

watching a presidential debate in pre-revolutionary egypt

Documents