The Breaking Time

Revolution 1848/2011: What's in an analogy

Photo by Mohamed Abed, Getty Images

Any event as major as the protests rocking the Middle Eastern autocracies (Sudan is the latest) is going to draw analogies like flies on, well, honey (or shit, if you prefer). Blogger Abu Muqawama warns against this:

can we all agree to stop using European historical analogies to describe what is taking place in Egypt? It's not Europe in 1848 or Eastern Europe in 1989 or France in 1789: it's Egypt in 2011.

What is taking place in Egypt today is the result of sui generis social, political, cultural and even geographic phenomena. When we use "western" frames of reference to make sense of what is taking place, by contrast, we a) sound really freaking narcissistic and b) fail to take those local phenomena seriously and thus miss a lot of what is going on.

Excellent point. Most of the time they're used, historical analogies range from insulting to dangerous ("we have to go to war with country X because it's Munich all over again!").

Of course, every uprising or revolution is unique; there's a reason "There is No They" is plastered to the top of this blog. Nonetheless, humans being human, some patterns of conflict do repeat and history can prove instructive. At the beginning of the protests in Egypt, I said (via Twitter and elsewhere) that it seemed like the current wave might be similar to the 1848 revolutions that rocked Europe.

1848 lithography of a German uprising

So, taking into account the important unique factors in this situation, why is 1848 a useful analogy here?

1) The uprisings happened quickly across a number of different nations with cultural connections, who faced similar circumstances. Particularly; established autocratic regimes that kept a tight lid on free speech and used a combination of police and military to retain power.

2) These problems are compounded by poverty and the increasing isolation of the regimes, while new forms of mass media threaten the old stranglehold on information.

3) Said autocratic regimes have historically survived with the backing of a larger international order. In 1848 it was the Congress of Vienna. In 2011 it's tacit approval and military funds from larger world powers.

However, unlike the 1989 revolutions that toppled many Communist governments, these connections aren't in the form of an empire (the USSR) and its satellite states. While the regimes have similar frameworks of support along with some of the same backers, those involved are independent, both in 1848 and today. This makes a total 1989-style overthrow fairly unlikely, because their power is less dependent upon a central authority overseeing multiple nations.

4) The lightning-quick success of the initial revolts leads people facing similar circumstances to stage their own uprisings. In 1848 it was the overthrow of Sicilian and French monarchs, especially the latter. In 2011 Tunisia's Ben Ali proved to be the first to fall.

The speed with which the formerly entrenched ruler is toppled emboldens populaces with decades of built-up resentment, who now think their own rulers weaker than before. The international order that had previously aided said ruler reels from the speed of events, unsure of what to do. Another uprising breaks out, and then another. Each one punctures the myth of invincibility that is a tyrant's most precious possession.

---

Those factors are enough to make the analogy worth a look, while keeping an eye on the things that make 2011 unique. The fact is, we simply don't know how this is all going to shake out. 1848 ended with what initially seemed like counter-revolution triumphant, but on far shakier ground than before. The seeds of tremendous future upheaval were sown in a single year. That could happen this time, but a whole range of different outcomes are entirely possible.

So why does it matter?

To those fighting against these regimes, 1848 is a reminder that it's necessary to organize and develop a clear plan of action for what they want, especially if an overthrow succeeds. Lack of that in 1848 meant a number of revolutions failed to gather the necessary staying power.

For those of us who live elsewhere, 1848 is a reminder that backing autocracies for their alleged stability is a stupid idea that only leads to worse outcomes in the long run.

The similarities to this particular shard of history instruct that it's better to welcome the revolutions and try to shape what happens afterward into a society that's actually better for those within it.

This brings me to the final tie with 1848: it is impossible for these countries to return to the old status quo, even if some rulers do manage to cling to power. Outside their borders, international support for dictators is moving from an activists' issue to a public one, compounded by the budget crunches many world powers face. The political cost of future support will likely be higher than before.

Everything's changing, and it will be a long time before the dust settles.

Want stability? Stop supporting tyrants

Photo via the New York Times' Lede blog

That's the headquarters of Egypt's (not remotely democratic) ruling National Democratic Party, burning.

There's still a lot of confusion about the situation. Al-Jazeera's reporting that soldiers are shaking hands with protesters and that the government apparatus has "melted away," but there's also raging fires and sporadic gun shots. It remains to be seen if this rebellion will succeed — most don't.

But remember that just a few weeks ago, Egypt was the model autocracy: modern, moderate and "stable," with the people's inconvenient grievances successfully buried. I expect to hear analyses about the inscrutable nature of the Middle Eastern people in the coming weeks.

Bullshit. There is a big difference between "stable" and "waiting to explode." Tyrannies are not only evil, but never truly stable. Supporting them leads to nothing but ill.

The long-term survival of a government is directly tied to how much deep resentment its day-to-day operation creates. This is much higher in regimes like that of Egypt's Mubarak or Tunisia's Ben Ali because there are obvious,violent systems of repression.

One of the leaked Wikileaks cables reveals that police brutality is endemic in Egypt. Because people don't feel free to express anger doesn't mean it goes away, just that they store it up for the day when they might be able to let it out. Repression is excellent at making it seem like everything is peaceful. In reality, it imposes a constant cost and ensures that when all that rage finally comes out, the populace won't be asking for their freedom nicely (why should they?).

One of the underrated reasons for industrial democracies' survival is that free speech and elections create safety valves. People are a lot less likely to engage in open rebellion, no matter how much they dislike a particular ruler, if they can grit their teeth and think "well, he'll be out of office in a few years." Being able to yell about said rulers in the meantime helps too. Whatever their problems, a measure of popular agitation is built in.

We often see governments simply as hierarchies, but this is false.  Governments are human creations and humans end them. Whatever the formal organization, no matter how tyrannical, there are entire social networks that support those structures. The surest way to collapse a regime is when those networks weaken or when opposing networks successfully infect, which is far easier when most people hate a ruler's guts. All the soldiers in the world mean nothing if they're no longer willing to shoot.

Ask the Soviets

This is an old truth. It existed before Twitter, before Facebook and before mass media.

We are not on Egypt's streets. We can spread awareness, but we are not facing death. This is Egypt's revolution, not ours, and we cannot forget that.

But the American government gives the Egyptian regime $1.3 billion a year in military aid. That should end, not just for Mubarak, but for every other bastard who's sold the lie that their cruelty is the only thing keeping back chaos.

The number for the White House switchboard is 202-456-1414. Call your Congressional representatives too.

Let the tyrants buy their own truncheons. It is time to stop pretending dictatorships are anything other than a disaster waiting to happen, and a problem to defeat.

Poems for Friday: Prediction (The Future)

There are jetpacks, naturally. Art by Fred Freeman, 1966

Today's poem didn't strike me as a poem, at first. This piece by Mark Wallace is really more of a manifesto-style rant formed into epigrams. 

But it's too perfect, and too damn quotable, to pass up. Here's a brilliant stab into future-loves' jet-pack adoring heart:

In the future, we’ll plan the future better.

In the future, you can just become your TV.

In the future, your sexual partners will meet all the qualities on your checklist.

And this anxiety you’re feeling now? In the future you won’t feel it.

In the future, technology will always work, and there won’t even be weekend downtime for systems repair.

In the future, Friday night parties will never be boring.

In the future there will be less deadlines and they’ll be easier to meet.

In the future, all pollution will contain its own self-cleaning element.

In the future, if your house burns down, you’ll have another house by the time you get home.

In the future, your insurance policy will actually pay.

In the future, your friends won’t talk so constantly about everything they think they should already have.

In the future, no good deed will go unrewarded.

In the future people will like you just for who you are.

In the future, everyone will have their own sky marshal.

Versailles 2.0: the "new global elite" and its discontents

The Ivy League, Wall Street and now this.

Chrystia Freeland's Atlantic piece on the rise of the new global elite is getting some notice, and for good reason. Here's the central premise:

the rich of today are also different from the rich of yesterday. Our light-speed, globally connected economy has led to the rise of a new super-elite that consists, to a notable degree, of first- and second-generation wealth. Its members are hardworking, highly educated, jet-setting meritocrats who feel they are the deserving winners of a tough, worldwide economic competition—and many of them, as a result, have an ambivalent attitude toward those of us who didn’t succeed so spectacularly. Perhaps most noteworthy, they are becoming a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home. Whether they maintain primary residences in New York or Hong Kong, Moscow or Mumbai, today’s super-rich are increasingly a nation unto themselves.

The piece then chronicles the nature of this apparently new elite, including the world of conferences, resorts and urban cores than constitutes its nation. In this world, to quote one executive, "Beijing has a lot in common with New York, London, or Mumbai. You see the same people, you eat in the same restaurants, you stay in the same hotels.”

Freeland's conclusion about the stateless nature of the elite is extremely perceptive, but the way she gets there is flawed, and what she leaves out points to a situation even more dangerous than this article suggests.

"The insolvent phantom of tomorrow:" King, Eisenhower and balance

Eisenhower prepares for his farewell address, 1961

Today, a holiday and an anniversary collided. The holiday is, of course, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. The anniversary is somewhat less well known: 50 years ago today, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell address.

There, on national television, the President, the former Supreme Allied Commander and a staunch conservative by the standards of the day, said the following:

We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Now, look at this section from King's searing A Time to Break Silence:

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Two very different men are speaking in two very different voices, but the overlap is impossible to miss. By the time King spoke, many of Eisenhower's fears had proven true.

As an exercise in contrast, try to imagine the backlash a president today would face if, as Eisenhower did, they declared "permanent peace" a key goal. Going further, what if they added that, instead of trampling enemies abroad, they wanted "a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect."

Keep in mind too, this was a time when, rather than dispersed insurgents, America faced the very real possibility of another world war, with an actual industrial power as an enemy. The justification for massive military spending was far better then than now, yet far fewer challenge it.

"The very structure of our society" indeed.

It was not the address' only prophetic moment, look at these particular observations:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.

---

As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Hard not to cringe at that last line.

Eisenhower framed his speech around "maintaining balance" as the way to navigate the competing demands of the rapidly modernizing world. Balance here is strength without the worship of raw force. It is brilliance paired with humility. 

Forgotten in King's elevation to secular sainthood is the fact that he too advocated balance, "the need for blending opposites." Nonviolent did not mean powerless, and peaceful did not mean an aversion to necessary conflict. King had his rules, but his movement was out to win specific rights; and fought like hell to get them. Forgetting that lesson is a major reason today's would-be reformers fail to compel balance.

To that end, here's a King quote that doesn't receive the attention it should:

What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic.

To balance, because it's still the best way forward.

A little autarky can be a good thing

People clamor for bread in Cairo. Photo by Jahi Chikwendiu, the Washington Post

Out of France comes a report that, as farms increasingly flee cities and their surrounding areas, metropoli like Paris and Milan might struggle to feed themselves:

Paris used to be a city of food artisans and its suburbs a melange of lush market gardens thanks to the Seine's alluvia. The globalization of the food system symbolized by, among other things, the international wholesale market of Rungis built outside Paris in the late '60s, brought in standardized products at a much lower price. Add to that real estate speculation and the absence of proper agricultural land management and soon farms were pushed farther and farther from the city and converted to better-yielding crops. 

Beyond the loss of patrimony, the disconnect from food production puts the capital in a precarious food security situation. With a food system relying on unsustainable oil-fed transportation, not only Paris but also most cities throughout the world are at risk. If the transport system were to fail, food would run out on supermarket shelves within a few days. 

Keep in mind that the writer isn't talking about a notorious sprawl like Los Angeles, but far denser European cities. 

The majority of humanity now lives in urban areas, a trend that probably won't cease anytime soon. While cities can be more sustainable than their detractors suggest, vulnerabilities like this leave them open to disaster or civil unrest.

Meanwhile, nations around the world practically quaked as China's rare earth embargo promised to deprive materials needed for the electronics societies have become increasingly dependent on.

Autarky — self-sufficiency, in short — has a bad reputation in economics, and rightly so. It is impossible for a society to be completely self-sufficient in any sort of complex economy. The attendant attempts to cut off trade entirely are usually the province of dictators and extremely stagnant societies. However, both of the above cases demonstrate that in targeted areas, autarky is a necessary balance in an increasingly interconnected world.

Remedying these vulnerabilities aren't impossible. Rare earth mines in more locations or writing policy in a way that preserves urban farmland (as Japan has done, with some success) are both relatively inexpensive moves that save a lot of trouble in the long run, without requiring economic cloistering.

Advanced technology and global trade networks are an important part of an evolving world. But the idea that the resources and connections they depend upon are inexhaustible or invulnerable is ludicrous. Preventing collapses depends as much on preparation as innovation.

ID'd: Why should you trust Silicon Valley?

We do love our masks. Photo by Brian Snelson

Well, this couldn't go wrong at all:

To help solve the modern nightmare of trying to control your online identity and keep track your passwords, the government came to Silicon Valley Friday and said it was here to help.

But rather than propose a big government initiative, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and the White House cyber czar Howard Schmidt made clear the feds want the private sector to take the lead.

“Just to be clear: We’re not talking about a national ID card,” Secretary Locke said in a speech at Stanford University. “We are not talking about a government-controlled system, but we are talking about enhancing online security and reducing the need to remember a dozen passwords.”

---

The government’s proposed solution is what the administration calls a “trusted-identity ecosystem.” The idea is to create an environment with a wide choice of trusted-identity providers that individuals can use to log in to a wide range of websites, including ones that handle sensitive data, using a single login.

Smart people have written a number of good pieces on this topic already, so I won't repeat too many of their points. In short, it's not hard to see this creating a very limited number of gateways to the biggest online services. Something like a Google ID could, by stumbling steps, become a required form of verification much like a Social Security number.

Here's another wrinkle: to put it nicely, Silicon Valley's record on privacy isn't stainless. From Facebook to Apple, the default response seems to see users' info as a tool for profit and their own as untouchable. Its biggest players generally act much the same way large, amoral corporations in any industry do.

The recent events of the Wikileaks battles don't bode well either. With no formal charges filed, major online companies happily shut down accounts, turned over information and failed to challenge gag orders. Twitter alone showed some spine in this department.

So there's precious little confidence when these entities are set to cooperate with government on something as volatile as identification. If these plans advance, the backlash will be like nothing Silicon Valley's faced before.

Imagine the following scenario: online identification for most major services is shuttled into a few trusted providers, who profit heavily off their role in the "ecosystem." Given their relative power, said companies could then exploit much of that data as they saw fit. Sure, tech-savvy people will figure ways around, but most people aren't tech-savvy. 

Furthermore, the government (or a company) could simply have that trusted identification turned off, regardless of whether the person in questions has been convicted — or even charged — with anything. 

Don't think that's likely? Look how drastically asset forfeiture is misused. If history is any lesson, the incentives here are not on the side of the angels.

Then, of course, all this is a boon for the very hackers and spies it's supposed to deter. Even if it's better guarded, now only one stolen identity is needed to open up a treasure trove of connected information. Hell, a smart thief won't even need any particular expertise; just bribe a low-level employee.

To avoid violating this blog's motto, I should note that "Silicon Valley" is not a monolithic entity. Plenty within its ranks differ widely in philosophy and practice. But the major actors are primarily out for their own gain.

Should you trust them to handle a matter this ripe for abuse? I don't.

We will not walk in fear

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords thanking supporters after her first primary win, 2006

Earlier today, a gunman shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords in the head in Tucson. She remains in critical condition, and at least five others are dead. The suspected gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, is in custody.

Giffords, a Democrat, was a supporter of causes ranging from gun rights to healthcare reform. Her backing of the latter saw her face death threats and vandalism.

She did not hide. When shot, she was holding a "Congress on Your Corner" event to aid her constituents with nuts-and-bolts questions. In last year's election, she fended off a Tea Party-backed challenge, including Sarah Palin targeting her district specifically in militant terms that are now the target of a backlash.

Despite rampant speculation, there is simply very little evidence right now concerning Loughner's motivations. Some information indicates he may simply be stark-raving mad, without affiliation to any recognizable cause. That does not make the events any less tragic.

I appreciate people trying to draw much-needed attention to the real-world consequences of violent rhetoric, but pre-fact conclusions leapt to in the wake of violent tragedy are often dead-wrong.

Instead, hope for recovery and justice. As more information comes out, judge and act accordingly.

Giffords refused to bow to fear. So press for every member of Congress to follow her example: call for them to hold a Congress on Your Corner event as soon as possible. Show that constituents and representatives alike refuse to let violent lunatics run our lives.

Everyone has the right to see their elected representative in peace. Bullets can't kill that. Fear can.

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the moment, unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate their responsibility."
-Edward R. Murrow

Poems for Friday: That the Science of Cartography is Limited

Famine road in County Galway, Ireland

It is interesting to see other points of view, not simply for all the usual reasons, but because they end up placing common sights within an entirely new context. That fact has been on my mind this week for a number of reasons, contrasted with navigating between cities using directions spat out from a computer.

Looking out my window, I wonder what has happened beneath, what is forgotten in the piles of structured stones now breathing slowly in the half-snow. There are some views that will never be mapped. Eavan Boland has the heart of the matter here:

-and not simply by the fact that this shading of 
forest cannot show the fragrance of balsam, 
the gloom of cypresses 
is what I wish to prove. 

When you and I were first in love we drove 
to the borders of Connacht 
and entered a wood there. 

Look down you said: this was once a famine road. 

I looked down at ivy and the scutch grass 
rough-cast stone had 
disappeared into as you told me 
in the second winter of their ordeal, in 

1847, when the crop had failed twice, 
Relief Committees gave 
the starving Irish such roads to build. 

Where they died, there the road ended 
and ends still and when I take down 
the map of this island, it is never so 
I can say here is 
the masterful, the apt rendering of 

the spherical as flat, nor 
an ingenious design which persuades a curve 
into a plane, 
but to tell myself again that 

the line which says woodland and cries hunger 
and gives out among sweet pine and cypress, 
and finds no horizon 

will not be there.