Of course, this morning's show was all about the events in Egypt, with Hillary Clinton and Mitch McConnell giving their perspectives which were practically the same -- basically they said Egypt has been a good ally although they've never implemented the democratic, liberal changes the American government has for 30 years urged them to implement. So, we've sent billions to Egypt because they've not been a problem regarding our relationship with Israel, and they've kept the canal open, although they've suppressed their people through this thirty years. If I was an Egyptian serious about freedom and economic opportunity, I would not be too impressed with Clinton's and McConnell's assurance that America has been working diligently for thirty years to use leverage to influence a change in Egypt's dictatorial oppression.
The round table discussion was basically more of the same with the acknowledgement that the Information Age has changed the game, but that the Egyptian military might have to use force to stop the looting and chaos -- the looting and chaos which appears to be allowed by the Egyptian goverment so they have a justification for cracking down. I wouldn't be surprised if the Egyptian government is promoting chaos and looting, just so they have a reason to crack down and restore "stability".
So, basically, the status quo perspective is that America should take the middle ground - acknowledging Egypt's, and by extension, Mubarak's, past role as an ally who has not complicated relations with Israel and who has not caused the canal to become a major concern, while leaving the outcome to the will of the Egyptian people. Again, we're missing the opportunity to frame the larger issue, which is that these types of political relationships between countries, which don't take into account freedom and economic opportunity and which are always secondary concerns, must change in the global economy and Information Age -- political pragmatism is no longer good enough when so many people in the world are still oppressed by Gangs of Thugs with official titles and positions of absolute power.
The discussion panel, which again had one token Big Government Republican, Mike Murphy, also talked about the debt and deficit crisis, the SOTU and who will go first to cut spending and reform entitlements. It was the same babble that's been spouted, mostly about political strategy to give the impression that something serious is being done. What struck me, though, is that Mike Murphy's criticism of Obama is that he hasn't come off as a good "economic manager". Murphy's comment represents the Big Goverment Republican perspective, which is the same as the Democrat perspective, that the President is an Economic Manager, and all that matters is whether he/she is a good manager or a bad manager. If the Republican establishment maintains control of the Republican Party, there will be no significant cuts or reforms, and the statist system which created the deficits, debt and entitlement crisis will remain untouched.