If you want to know what a mule looks like and what it does when hit with a two by four, read the February 6 editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published under the title “Egypt Spirals Down” and the subtitle: “The military government trumps up a criminal case against foreigners, including American citizens.” This being one of the weirdest pieces ever to claim the status of editorial, you will quickly learn that when hit with a two by four, the mule will huff and puff; foam at the mouth and look dazed and disoriented. This is both a comical and a sad spectacle to behold.
The writers of the editorial explain that those foreigners are “...groups that receive U.S. funds to promote civil society and freedom in countries around the world.” They describe them as being: “...people trying to encourage a free press, freedom to worship and political tolerance...” Thus, the WSJ editors editorialize that “...the [Egyptian] government can't ... understand its own interest in allowing the development of political voices other than the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists.” Hmm, really!
That was the huffing part of the mule's reaction which clearly admits that there has been foreign interference in Egyptian politics. Now comes the puffing part where the interference is vehemently denied. To do so, the mule ascribes a motive to the Egyptian government by opining that it is: “...trying to court public support by trumping up a case against 'foreign influence.'” And the mule goes on to call that move: “...the oldest ruse in authoritarian politics.” Clearly then, this mule is not an ordinary mule; it is a full blown jackass.
The WSJ editors go on to warn: “If it stays on this path, the military leadership will lose U.S. money and support and find itself weaker against the rise of political Islam.” Thus, they counsel that to deal with the delusion of being interfered with, one must openly and cheerfully accept being interfered with. Clearly then, this jackass is not only a full blown jackass; it is full of something that is about to blow up and hit the proverbial fan. The editors reinforce this view by saying the following: “The Muslim Brothers could even do their reputation some good by defending the NGOs.” The problem is that they don't explain in whose eyes the Brothers will do their reputation some good. But who cares anyway because after that comes the obligatory threat that is always disguised as a friendly advice. Here it is: “...[the government] seems to have learned nothing from Hosni Mubarak's fall.” Clearly then, this mule is braying like only a jackass can bray. Is it the real McCoy or is it a braying duck?
But enough with having fun and let's get serious because the subject we are dealing with is a solemn matter that can have profound consequences, most of them unintended. In doing this, the first thing that comes to mind is that there is here a problem of perception. Not only do different people – editors of the WSJ and the Egyptian government -- see things differently but the same people (WSJ editors) can be looking at one and the same thing, look at it through different lenses and see contradictory things at the same time without realizing that something is seriously flawed with the approach they have taken. And so, we probe into the how and the where the problems of perception begin to materialize. In doing this, we are drawn to the analogy which exists between real life and the courtroom trial.
Modern court procedures are full of examples where expert witnesses are brought to the trial by the parties to the litigation to voice what is called expert opinions. In reality, however, these witnesses are not neutral observers invited to shed light on matters they normally deal with at arm's length but individuals who are called for the specific purpose of supporting the version of the side that is paying them. To do this efficiently, they are coached by the lawyers as to what is at stake in the upcoming trial, and prepared by them as to the questions that they will be asked both by the prosecutors and the defense lawyers. If the case being litigated is so big as to involve huge sums of money – whether it is a civil case or a criminal one – the upcoming court procedure would be rehearsed by the lawyers to train the witnesses to respond to each question exactly right.
Understandably, some people find this situation to be lamentable because it gives an edge to the side that has the money to hire the largest number of witnesses as well as the best among them. Thus begins a debate in which a counter argument is triggered. It would be to the effect that there is usually a “jury of the peers” in these trials; one that will level the playing field by nullifying or at least attenuating the effect of the witnesses whose testimony may sound powerful and elegant but not feel real or probable. The debate then shifts emphasis and probes the effect that the power, reputation and sharpness of the lawyers may have on the outcome of the trial. This is especially important in the cases where one side may have a so-called dream team but not the other. Thus, it can be seen that there will be no resolution to satisfy everyone in this debate any time soon.
If now, we regard a courtroom trial as being a metaphor representing life, we encounter a few parallels that disconcert us. In fact, an argument can be made to show that a courtroom trial is but a microcosm of what happens in real life where we constantly pass judgment on what we see or what we look at -- and where in turn, we are judged by those who see us or look at us. The good thing, however, is that with time, we tend to mature as individuals and develop a personal approach that helps us to cope with being both the observer of life and the observed by the living. And as we age, we find ourselves passing less judgment on what we see around us as well as worry less as to how the others may see us, especially if we do our utmost to lead an exemplary life.
But there is more to life than the personal conduct of people on which to pass judgment. In fact, what we do all day long is that we assess every situation in which we find ourselves without being too conscious of what we do, and without appreciating the fact that to assess a situation is to pass judgment on it. At the end of the day, the assessments that we make and the cumulative effect of the decisions that we take as a result of these assessments will have an effect on the outcome of the situations with which we deal. This, in turn, affects our lives and the lives of others but lucky for us, everyday situations are so ordinary in their reach that the decisions we take about them will usually have little or no consequence. At other times, however, the situations we tackle turn out to be so extraordinary that the decisions we take about them can lead to profound consequences.
But where do people begin when they start the process of assessing a situation? Like it or not, most people rely on the opinion makers who establish a sort of “common wisdom” that the common and not so common people use as the basis upon which to assess the situations they encounter in life, and thus shape their daily decisions. This says that the opinion makers who are in the business of publicly pontificating on the various subjects, play the role of real-life expert witnesses, thus help shape the events which are of interest to the public. In turn, that same public plays the role of jury and hammers out -- not exactly a legally binding verdict – but a generally accepted stance to which everyone more or less consents to live by day in and day out.
Now comes the big question: How good are the opinions of the opinion makers? In trying to answer this question, we realize that we cannot give a simple answer because real life is somewhat different from the courtroom trial after all. The main difference is that the cases which go to court deal usually with past events that are frozen in time and thus stand as being static situations. The testimony of the expert witnesses, therefore, seeks to explain something that is not changing. By contrast, real-life events have narratives which are still in evolution. Not only that, they would have come to the forefront and would be dealt with as controversies because they are currently subjected to forces that seek to alter them. Therefore, the testimony of the expert witnesses here would be to do something that is different from the courtroom setting.
When we understand this, we accept that the opinion of a real-life expert is by its nature based on the prediction that he or she will make with regard to the future development of the subject being discussed. This being the case, we see that the quality of the opinions expressed will depend not only on the strength of the expertise that the experts bring to the subject but also their prowess to look into the future and see how the subject will develop. For example, a car designer may have impressive expertise in the related applied sciences and in product design; and yet, he may judge the marketplace so badly as to produce a car that the public will reject during the year in which it is produced. But the project could then be revived ten years later and become a great popular success. If this were the case, the car designer would have shown to be not so good at predicting the development of public taste either in the near future or in the far future.
Undoubtedly, that designer will suffer as would the car company that employs him. But what happens when the public opinion makers shape a “common wisdom” that is so fundamentally flawed, an entire society is made to stray away from what is reasonable, and do damage to itself and to others. To begin with, we ask if something like this can really happen, and the short answer is yes, it can. To wit, we had great movements in history that led to such systems as Nazism, Fascism and the like. These systems came in response to the common wisdom of the time; wisdom that was thought to be good for the society that spawned it if not for the whole of mankind. In fact, something like this happens all the time except that it does not always lead to a movement so powerful as to change the course of history for good or for ill.
And when you consider that we now live in the age of the mass media and the social media, you realize that such thing can happen as easily as starting a fad, a fashion, a style, the flavor of the month or what have you. What is common to all these situations is that you have behind them someone who is determined to bring about an idea and make it stick long enough to effectuate an agenda that may or may not remain hidden till it gains enough traction and becomes common wisdom.
Where then do the editors of the WSJ fit into this presentation? You get a hint as to the answer when you read an article that was dispatched from Cairo by David Kirkpatrick and published in the New York Times on the same day. It is titled: “Egypt defies U.S. by Setting Trial for 19 Americans on Criminal Charges”. You find this contention in it: “Western diplomats have often observed that previous Egyptian governments ... have found it expedient to rally support by stoking feuds with Washington...” which, if you'll remember, echoes the contention in the WSJ to the effect that this is: “...the oldest ruse in authoritarian politics.” But this frothing at the mouth was shown to be nothing more than the braying of a jackass.
The fact of the matter is that interference in the internal affairs of another country happens all the time even among friends; and we know this very well here in Canada. In fact, the latest row concerns the American NGOs who come to this country with gobs of money and agitate against many things, among them the oil sand projects which happen to be a vital component of our economy.
Nobody rejects that such things happen all the time except when it comes to Egypt. This is when an accusation is automatically leveled against the government there. Luckily, something else happens at the same time which tells you how it all begins. It says that because the accusation is echoed over and over by the jackasses in the media, it can only mean that it is the work of the Jewish propaganda machine because that is the only demonic contraption capable of organizing a coordinated campaign of this magnitude.
When you come right down to it, you find that the situation does not affect the Egyptian people or their government in any way, shape or form. What it does is affect us here in the English speaking world because to have to hear this all the time is to have Jewish syphilis injected in our ears all the time.
It is a disgusting situation to which we must all say in unison: enough is enough.