Within days, photos depicting Said’s mangled corpse were circulated via e-mail and Facebook throughout the country, causing an uproar.  A major protest was held in Alexandria, drawing approximately 3,000 individuals, while smaller protests were held around the country.  Most notably, Mohammed ElBaradei, the former International Atomic Energy director widely expected to run for president in 2011, joined the demonstrators.

Yet the Egyptian regime held firm.  It surrounded the protests with soldiers.  It arrested demonstrators at the smaller protests, and sentenced one organizer to six months in prison.  The Ministry of the Interior then released an official report of Said’s death, claiming – incredibly, and in contrast to multiple eye-witness testimonies – that he had choked on a bag of drugs.  And when activists protested the government-run newspaper al-Gomhuria for “defending the government blindly,” al-Gomhuria ran a front-page headline accusing them of “attempted terrorism.”  Indeed, in the twisted logic of authoritarianism, protests against violence equal violence.

This is what non-democratic, unfree rule looks like: sporadically violent and constantly in denial.  So on July 4^th in Egypt, I am thankful for my freedom (as well as my blue, eagle-embossed passport), in part because I have observed life without it.

To be sure, had our forefathers been too afraid to sign the Declaration of Independence 234 years ago, America would have probably been freer than Egypt.  King George III was a tyrant, but he was no Hosni Mubarak.  (Yes, I’ll take the sugar tax over Egypt’s emergency laws any day.)

But precisely because our forefathers signed the Declaration, America remains the most potent symbol of freedom in the world.  Even in Egypt, where people never miss an opportunity to criticize American foreign policy, they routinely praise America’s system of government.  For pro-democracy activists in particular, the American example has long been a source of inspiration.

That, however, may be changing.  Indeed, President Obama finds even this kind of American exceptionalism too particularistic, too jingoistic, and too Bush.  So he has replaced inspiration with what he calls “realism”: hugs before human rights in Venezuela; climate change before human rights in China; and budget-cutting before human rights in Iran (and only Iran).

Meanwhile, others are picking up the slack.  Last week, European Union ambassadors issued a joint statement expressing their concern over Khaled Said’s death and, on Saturday, the Egyptian regime finally responded by sending two policemen to trial on torture charges.  As usual, the Obama administration has kept to the sidelines, denying any contact with the Egyptian government regarding this issue.

On this July 4^th, we can do better.  We always have.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to allay these concerns.  Speaking at Georgetown, Clinton declared that the Obama administration remains committed to promoting human rights abroad, but was doing so “pragmatically”:

Sometimes, we will have the most impact by publicly denouncing a government action, like the coup in Honduras or violence in Guinea. Other times, we will be more likely to help the oppressed by engaging in tough negotiations behind closed doors, like pressing China and Russia as part of our broader agenda. In every instance, our aim will be to make a difference, not to prove a point.

A few hours – but six thousand miles – away from Foggy Bottom, another State Department event demonstrated the problems inherent in the Obama approach.  In a press conference at Tanta University, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey declared that Egyptians enjoy full freedom of the press and that Egyptian human rights organizations work in complete freedom (h/t Samuel Tadros).  So: did she “make a difference”? Alas no. This past weekend, an Egyptian court sentenced pro-democratic blogger Wael Abbas to six months in prison in absentia for sabotage.  (As if straight out of Kafka, Abbas is still unsure what he is being accused of sabotaging.)

The Obama administration’s approach isn’t “realist.” It’s useless.

If approved, this resolution will mark the latest failure of President Barack Obama’s remarkably sloppy Middle East policy.  After all, American leadership in brokering peace – or attempting to broker it – has been a cornerstone of international consensus regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict for over four decades.  Even the Bush administration – which was routinely (and unfairly) lambasted for “waiting too long” to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace – managed to bolster American diplomatic preeminence in this sphere by drafting the Roadmap and assembling the “Quartet” as its sponsor.  But with the EU breaking off from the Quartet and developing its own set of policies regarding the conflict, America’s leadership on this issue is severely in doubt.

It is worth emphasizing that Washington’s longtime involvement in managing the Middle East conflict is as much about showcasing American diplomatic strength as it is about minimizing violence between the two sides.  For this reason, the sudden shift in the diplomatic environment is likely to have devastating results.  With the EU recognizing Palestinian claims along the 1967 borders – including to lands on which Israeli settlements stand – it is giving Palestinian terrorist organizations the ultimate excuse for attacking.  Essentially, these groups would argue that they are fighting to end the occupation of their now-internationally recognized state, and the newfound legitimacy of their violence would encourage it.

These developments – and the extent to which they anticipate renewed hostilities – should give pause to those who doubt the relevance of American primacy to preserving international order.  President Obama is one of these doubters.

Conservative journalists and pundits can play an important role in this process.  Yet a number of commentators have prematurely bet the mortgage money on Sarah Palin stock.  On Sunday, Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin unleashed an angry string of accusations against Palin’s critics – that they’re “unhinged”; repeat “familiar plotlines”; and greedily seek “the approving nods of cable-news-show bookers and magazine editors.”  Then Rubin offered this:

It matters not that [Palin] seized the floor in the health-care debate and has a million followers on Facebook who can read her views on energy policy and other issues without the media filter.

Since when does telling an outrageous lie – namely, that the Obama administration’s health care proposal would create “death panels” – constitute “seizing the floor”?” Since when do we measure the governing potential of a prospective presidential candidate by how many Facebook fans she has?  If I remember correctly, one of the best arguments against then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was that he was just a celebrity without “any accomplishment which would entitle him to such regard” (h/t, er, Jennifer Rubin on 7/31/08).

At this moment, Republicans should be in the sorting phase, examining the qualities and deficiencies of potential nominees.  And if a candidate’s best quality is her popularity on Facebook, then perhaps her critics are onto something.

This is partly due to Jordan’s uncomfortable geo-strategic position.  Indeed, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to its west and Iraq to its east, Jordan is uniquely susceptible to the ideological currents and strategic shifts affecting the region’s hottest battle zones.  Moreover, Jordan’s imbalanced demography – in particular, the fact that a Hashemite king presides over a Palestinian majority – makes its monarchy particularly wary of any destabilizing signals.  These sensitivities create a strong bias in favor of non-ideological, interest-based policy-making, with Jordan shifting its priorities – and, at times, its loyalties – in rapid response to the regional changes that it perceives.

In this vein, Abdullah’s sudden insistence that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “the most serious threat to the stability of the region” represents a critical shift in judgment.  Indeed, back in 2004, the Jordanian monarch warned that a looming “Shiite crescent” – a near-contiguous sphere of Iranian influence extending through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories – was the foremost threat to regional stability.  Abdullah was prescient: Iran’s interference in Iraq undermined the U.S. war effort, while Tehran’s increased support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria solidified an anti-western axis in the Middle East.

Of course, the challenges associated with Iranian ascendancy haven’t been resolved, and dealing with Iran’s ongoing pursuit of nuclear capabilities still tops the U.S.’s Middle East agenda.  Still, Abdullah’s shift in priorities towards the Israeli-Palestinian sphere is worth noting, as it constitutes the best open-source indicator that recent Palestinian threats to resume suicide terrorism and launch a third Intifada are not idle chatter.  Naturally, the prospect of renewed Israeli-Palestinian fighting – particularly within the West Bank – is far more threatening to Jordan than a nuclear Iran, and Abdullah’s diversion from his former fear of a “Shiite crescent” suggests that the next, bloody chapter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be fast approaching.

Against this backdrop, one Egyptian scholar’s brave defense of “normalization” with Israel is worth noting.  Dr. Hala Mustafa, editor-in-chief of the journal al-Demoqratiya, recently hosted Israeli Ambassador Shalom Cohen at the headquarters of the state-owned Al-Ahram media group in downtown Cairo.  Shortly thereafter, the Journalists’ Syndicate – the foremost professional organization of Cairo’s media elite – opened deliberations to discipline Mustafa for violating its ban on dealing with Israelis.  Meanwhile, Al-Ahram has launched its own investigation of Mustafa’s activities.

But rather than shrink from this challenge, Mustafa has boldly attacked the cultural boycott against Israel, arguing – correctly – that it hasn’t achieved anything for the Palestinian cause.  She has also criticized Egypt’s closed-minded media establishment, telling the Financial Times, “I think most of the political trend advocating boycott comes through a media which has not changed since the 60s.”  She further lashed out at the hypocrisy of the Egyptian government, saying, “While the Egyptian government is the biggest normalizer with Israel, people who act in the same manner are punished.”

According to Mustafa, the decision to invite the Israeli ambassador to Al-Ahram’s headquarters emerged from discussions among Egyptian intellectuals that followed President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech. This is precisely how the White House should want that speech to be interpreted – as a call for peaceful exchange and tolerance.  For this reason, at the very moment that her career is being jeopardized for promoting cross-cultural dialogue, the Obama administration should praise Mustafa as a voice of reason and moderation.  This simple act would open space for other Egyptian liberals to challenge the orthodoxies of their countrymen and government without fear of retribution – something that must happen if President Obama is serious about combating violent extremism in the Middle East.

Alternatively, if President Obama allows Mustafa to slip through the cracks of her colleagues’ intolerance, it may be a long time before another Cairene call for coexistence emerges.

Today, however, I know who Alan Grayson is for one reason only: he is the latest obscure politician to garner national attention for an intemperate remark.  Indeed, on Tuesday night, Grayson outrageously declared from the House floor that, “Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”  Then, when the anticipated firestorm followed on cue, Grayson fanned the flames: rather than apologizing to his Republican colleagues, he apologized to “the dead and their families,” calling the death of those who lack health insurance a “holocaust in America.”

The rise to national fame/infamy soon assumed Palinesque proportions.  Within hours, Alan Grayson’s outburst had made him the far left’s favorite son, Republicans’ sworn enemy, Arianna Huffington’s latest raison d’talk, and – most importantly – well-known.  The next chapter of this strangely familiar saga seems similarly predictable: Grayson will soon be submerged in a weighty wad of online campaign contributions.  And, most fortuitously for Grayson, these contributions will come at just the right time: he doesn’t have a Republican opponent yet for the 2010 elections, so his forthcoming war chest could deter a challenge.

It almost seems like Grayson had it all planned.  Almost.

Of course, Grayson would hardly be the first politician to recognize that, simply put, there is no such thing as bad publicity.  The problem, however, is that the Age of Hypermedia has magnified the incentives for crude political behavior substantially. Indeed, desperate politicians – particularly those expecting stiff competition in the next election – know that outrageous statements are more likely to get broadcast/blogged/tweeted/posted/forwarded than well-reasoned ones.  They further know that these statements will mostly alienate those who wouldn’t have voted for them anyway, while the die-hards will back them more strongly than ever – and often with cash.  Just ask Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), whose receipts rose substantially after she suggested that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama held “anti-American views”; or Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), who reaped $1.8 million in contributions barely a week after he shouted “you lie” at President Obama during a joint-session of Congress.

The power to change this trend lies mostly with party leaders.  When House Democrats pass a resolution censuring Joe Wilson – or when House Republicans attempt to do the same regarding Alan Grayson – they give outrageous behavior far more credit than it deserves, and counterproductively rally the die-hards to defend the indefensible.  In turn, party leaders might be best served by letting outrageous statements from members of the opposing party speak for themselves.  Most Americans don’t need an act of Congress to recognize that shouting at the President is wrong, and forgoing that act of Congress denies the die-hards their battle cry.

Moreover, party leaders need to discipline their own candidates for uncivil behavior.  This isn’t just a moral issue, but a strategic one.  After all, the more money that flows to a party’s most blustering candidates, the less money available for moderate ones – and the more quickly a party becomes identified by its most controversial members on account of their fundraising prowess.

Naturally, smart gamblers will bet against a peace process breakthrough.  For starters, history suggests that the forthcoming Obama-Abbas-Netanyahu meeting will go the way of previous Bush-Abbas-Olmert and Clinton-Arafat-Barak encounters: nice photos, no results.  Moreover, the two parties seem as far apart as ever on all of the issues – security, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem – that stand at the heart of the conflict.  And then there’s the inconvenient fact that Hamas – an Iranian-funded terrorist organization that rejects Israel’s very right to exist – controls half of the Palestinian body politic.

But even if these traditional barriers to Middle East peacemaking weren’t enough, President Obama has – through his own policy decisions – erected another.  Indeed, by reinforcing Islamists’ version of history and calling it “public diplomacy,” Obama has systematically alienated the Israeli people, who have increasingly backed Netanyahu’s more skeptical approach to both U.S. policy and peace making.  Polls currently show that Netanyahu’s approval rating among Israelis is at 65% – staggeringly high, especially by the standards of Israel’s fractious political system – while only 4% of Israeli Jews see Obama as pro-Israel.

How might this affect Obama’s ability to forge Middle East peace?  Try this thought experiment: put yourself in Netanyahu’s shoes and assume that, like most politicians, your top priority is political survival.  Do you take the risks associated with immediate peace negotiations and more closely align yourself with an American president who is deeply unpopular among your constituents?  Or, do you stick with an alternative approach that a strong majority of your countrymen endorse?  The answer should be obvious.

Of course, none of this is news to the Obama administration.  In recent months, it has attempted to counteract Israeli skepticism by pressing Arab regimes to make friendly gestures towards Israel.  But, once again, Obama’s own policies have gotten in the way: Arab leaders have refused incremental “normalization,” using the administration’s earlier demand for a complete freeze of Israeli settlement expansion as an excuse for doing nothing at all.  And, strategically, this makes perfect sense for them.  Just put yourself in the shoes of an Arab leader: when the U.S. President naïvely affirms your long-held contention that Israeli settlements – and not terrorism, nor your own rejection of Israel’s right to exist – are the primary obstacles to peace, you run with it.

It is worth repeating that, even without Obama’s policy blunders, Israeli-Palestinian peace would be highly improbable.  Still, Obama is supposed to be the “realist” president who, according to his most erstwhile defenders, prioritizes strategy and interests above principles.  If so, how has he failed to understand Arab and Israeli leaders’ interests and decision-making so spectacularly?

I am somewhat ambivalent on this question, but I’m inclined towards thinking that Republicans should not endorse the concept of universal coverage.  The key principle for Republicans on healthcare should be keeping costs low through a competitive private healthcare insurance market, and mandating that all Americans buy health insurance (with or without subsidies) will substantially increase demand, thereby raising prices.

To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.

The Constitution promotes and requires the equal protection of law of all citizens in its Fourteenth Amendment. To ensure that protection, there are situations in which race in some form must be considered; the courts have recognized that. Equality requires effort, and so there are some situations in which some form of race has been recognized by the court. (Emphasis mine.)

To understand just how far Sotomayor veered from the Court’s longtime interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment as it pertains to affirmative action, a brief history is in order.

Historically, affirmative action has been challenged before the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.  In two landmark cases – Bakke (1978) and Bollinger v. Grutter (2003) – well qualified white students who had been rejected from graduate schools argued (convincingly, according to the data) that they would have been admitted under affirmative action had they been minorities.  In short, these white students argued that they had been treated unequally on the basis of their race, and that this treatment was unconstitutional.

Though the Court ultimately rejected their claims, it provided strict guidelines as to the means and ends that affirmative action programs must satisfy.  In this vein, the Court asserted that “the attainment of a diverse student body” was the only constitutional justification for affirmative action.  It further held that admissions committees could use race as only “one of many factors,” since race comprises only one component of intellectual diversity.  Meanwhile, in both cases, the Court rejected one of the most common, hackneyed defenses of affirmative action policies – namely, the notion that racial preference can be employed to “remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice.”  As Justice Powell stated in his Bakke decision, “there is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons … to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making.”

Well, apparently someone forgot to tell Sotomayor.  Of course, we already knew from her infamous and often-repeated “wise Latina” remark that Sotomayor believes in the link between an individual’s ethnicity and intellectual outlook – a premise that the Court, regrettably, has long accepted in upholding the constitutionality of affirmative action programs.  But the likely future Supreme Court justice further believes that promoting equality as per the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires the privileging of minority students to ensure their “protection” – which suggests that race should be prioritized in admissions decision, as opposed to being considered as “one of many factors.”

Indeed, this is a startling, though subtle, constitutional invention.  And thanks to the Democrats’ supermajority in the Senate, it is one with which we will soon have to live.