Watching Fox News struggle to frame the demonstrations in Egypt is like watching a man with a split personality have an argument with himself.
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Community’s Assault on Truth
On the one hand, Fox is adamantly opposed to any expression of faith that is not devoutly Christian. They are particularly averse to Islam, which they regard, falsely, as an innately violent religion that is responsible for most of the world’s terrorism. So you might think that they would celebrate the fall of an increasingly dictatorial regime in Egypt that sprung from the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood. And you would be right.
However, at the same time, Fox has reported on the ousting of Mohammed Morsi with a distinct negativity that conflicts with their broader worldview. The angle that Fox has taken is that the failure of Egypt’s new democracy is the fault of President Obama’s incompetent foreign policy. They manage to blame Obama for both the ascendency of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and for its downfall. That’s a thin line for Fox to walk, but they are used to it. They work very hard at characterizing everything Obama does as a disaster. If he eats a slice of apple pie on Friday he is promoting an unhealthy diet. If he doesn’t have a slice on Saturday, he is un-American.
Of course the reality is that foreign policy is a much more complex endeavor than Fox (or its viewers) can comprehend. Just one year ago, the Fox pundits unanimously condemned Obama for supporting the Arab Spring uprising that resulted in the nation’s first democratic elections ever. But today the same pundits are condemning him for not speaking out. What these simpletons fail to realize is that, if Obama were to more vocally advocate on behalf of the protesters, he would give the Morsi government ammunition to dismiss them as pawns of the Great Satan in the United States. So Obama has adopted a more diplomatic approach that allows the demonstrators to pursue their goals, while maintaining support for the role of democracy.
Another example of how the Fox Nationalists have misread these events is their criticism that Egypt’s new found aspirations for democracy have failed under Obama’s watch. First of all, let’s not forget that they blossomed under Obama’s watch. But more to the point, it is shortsighted and simplistic to pronounce them as a failure at this early stage of the game. Egypt has only been a democracy for one year. That is not a long time historically for new democracies to stabilize.
Take the United States of America, for a random example. They declared their independence from a colonial monarchy in 1776. But they didn’t secure their sovereignty until 1783, with the end of the Revolutionary War. Then, they didn’t have a functional constitution until 1789. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791. For much of the next half century, only white, male, property owners were permitted to vote. And in 1861 a Civil War broke out dividing the new nation and taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of its citizens. By comparison, Egypt is doing way better.
Let’s face it, the only reason Fox is reporting on this (or any other) subject is to bash Obama. That’s why they so blatantly stuff inflammatory rhetoric into their headlines. And this one offered them an opportunity to associate Obama with the Muslim religion that they have tried for years to connect to him. In the end it’s just another attempt to revive the birther crap that has been such a big part of their Obama-hate campaign.
Conducting foreign policy is much more complex and nuanced than most Americans know. Good, and smart, foreign policy doesn’t always mean that a leader has to bully other nations, make threatening public speeches about another nation’s government, or launch a military intervention into a foreign nation. It requires someone with patience who is able to think critically and strategically, weighing all of the possible pros and cons of any action. President Obama earned an undergraduate degree in foreign policy/international relations, and he is a voracious reader of history. These are essential tools for anyone who is engaged in conducting a nation’s foreign policy. I’ve studied both history and foreign policy at the graduate level, and I can say that those who are always pushing for the U.S. to flex its’ muscles and/or to dictate to other nations’ leaders what they should/should not do would have us embroiled in conflicts around the globe.
All nations have sovereignty. This means that no nation has the right to dictate policy to another. I’ve noticed that many Americans don’t respect the principle of sovereignty because they’re always doing/saying things that create greater conflict between/among nations, and they do it based on the fact that we’re the world’s only remaining superpower at the present time. One who works to promote peace doesn’t inflame already dangerous situations in foreign nations. It’s not the job of any American president to handle his job in the U.S. and to control what goes on in other nations. Those who think any president should do this have no knowledge of foreign policy, international relations, or history. A wise president knows when to, and when not to, intervene, and his tools are an intimate knowledge of the history of the nation/region, foreign policy tools based on restraint, and thoughtful, strategic planning based on good intelligence information, and good critical thinking skills.
Many Americans still wonder why some nations detest us. They wouldn’t, if they knew the history of our foreign relations with these nations. Take Iran, for instance. The Iranian government has good reason to be wary of us because in the 1950s, our CIA helped the British and Russians to overthrow a democratic republic in Iran because the British and Soviet governments wanted total control of Iran’s oil resources. Mohammad Mossadeq, Iran’s leader at the time, had been successful in nationalizing Iran’s oil industry. This pissed off the Soviet and the British governments who turned to the U.S. for help. President Truman wouldn’t allow the CIA to overthrow the Iranian democracy, but President Eisenhower gave them the go ahead. The toppling of Iran’s democracy led to the formation of an Islamic theocracy in Iran, and the rest is history. Few Americans know this, so it makes it easy for them to urge American leaders to employ belligerent stances against Iran and to support a military intervention.
Not to mention the other conundrum for Fux: sure, they don’t like the MB – but the *policies* the MB espouses (minus the specific imaginary friend) are straight out of the Fux playbook:
* subjugation of women
* outright panic that gay people exist (here’s a great example, that could have just as readily been from any Red state: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/egyptian-conservatives-using-gay.html )
* brutal and systematic attacks on any kind of cultural expression that doesn’t involve praying
Basically, it’s hard for them to root against Morsi because he’s Rick Santorum in a keffiyeh, and he’s been acting out all the theocratic fantasies of the average Fux viewer.
The president could discover a vaccination for cancer and they’s scream “Socialism!” or “Why NOW?”. “What’s REALLY in that vaccination?”.
They couldn’t be any more RIDICULOUS if they tried. Oh well, at least all the scared old white men have something to keep themselves occupied with.
It’s not that Islam is an inherently violent religion…it’s that ALL monotheistic religions are inherently violent. It’s right there in the world “mono” and “theist.” “One God,” MY God, and screw you, traitor, if you think any differently. That’s a pretext for violence if ever there was one.