Thomas Paine: The Secular Moralist

English firebrand Thomas Paine certainly knew something about revolution - having long advocated for the American revolutionary and serving as one of the intellectual bulwarks that informed his friend Thomas Jefferson (who called him "a corsetmaker by trade, a journalist by profession, and a propagandist by inclination.") and later serving as voice of reason during the French Revolution in his attempts to prevent the execution of the King and the wider reign of terror.  I had intended to mark his birthday, which passed on February 9th, as the character of the Egyptian protesters is very Paine-esque.

I have a special affinity for Paine -  not merely because of his position as a pamphleteer  (of which blogging can be viewed as something of a modern equivalent) and a liberal reformist, but also as a result of Paine's involvement in Urban Planning.  Paine briefly worked a bridge-designer and urban developer in his native England - something between an architect and civil engineer.  It would not be too much to fall back on a trite and overused expression and call Paine a true "Renaissance Man" as indeed, he was very much a beneficiary of that era and it's emphasis on liberalism, rationality, art and science.

The lack of memory of Paine within the American canon (despite seeming near idyllic worship of the other 'founding fathers' of the constitution) is puzzling as Thomas Jefferson himself had a statue commissioned of Paine.  This likely has something to do with Paine's deep hostility towards organized religion (which Jefferson certainly shared).  He made a point of seeing Christianity as simply a new variation of the old creation myths of antiquity, declaring:

The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.

He goes on to compare the idea of Christ to to it's apparent source material of ancient Egyptian mythology, with Christ being compared to Egyptian Messianic figure of Horace.  More importantly, Paine believed in the tradition of secular humanism, inherited from Spinoza and the other secular moralists, that would go on to nourish other great recent moral thinkers, including George Orwell, Albert Camus and Bertrand Russel among others.  Much of this alternative form of morality: built on reason, compassion and empathy underpins the Social Democracies of Europe today and Paine was one of the figures who gave this position substance.

It is time then to perhaps rehabilitate Paine as a figure not just of the left, but of one of supporter of struggles of resistance and self-determination as a whole.  In these heady days in which much of what makes the United States civilized is again trying to be dismantled by the radical right (frequently citing ecclesiastical justification), and repressed peoples are organizing in attempts to force the re-establishment of civil society in many countries, Paine's ideas represent something of a clarion call for those that will listen.

Post Mubarak

The popular movement in Egypt has today succeeded in ousting Hosni Mubarak, with power now residing with the military.  Mubarak had remained in power for the better part of 30 years supervised a regime that was authoritarian and recklessly corrupt.  He will likely be missed by few, however this hardly represents the end of the institutionally abusive power structure that Egyptians took to the street in opposition to. Whether Mubarak's removal from office and expulsion from Egypt augers a new era of genuine Democratic leadership within Egypt - as the United States' UN Ambassador Susan Rice seems to believe at a speaking engagement I attended earlier this evening here in Portland - or whether Omar Suleiman and the Egyptian military will be able to continue to subvert the civil society movement and retain control, reamins to be seen.

I should add here that the celebratory rhetoric of the United States government is incredibly cynical when one considers the failure of the US to take a definitive stance on Mubarak while still providing much of the tear gas and equipment which protesters were subjected to.  Effectively, the Obama administration tried to have it both ways, muddled through, and now has been left trying to appear on the correct side of history.  We shall have to see how easily Egyptians are swayed by this apparent American triumphalism.

In the end, let us hope that whatever government results from this shake-up, that it be responsive to local needs and not be so easily subverted by the previous power structure as the similar protest movement in Tunisia has apparently been.

Thanks to my friend Ascher at Hungèer, Cluod for the above photo, and check out his brilliant portrait of Mubarak here.

Egyptian Fish

Ongoing protests in Cairo's Tahrir Square have seen Egypt's Vice-President, the odious Omar Suleiman threaten or warn of (depending on one's ideological read) a coup d'etat if protesters are not willing to accept the Mubarak regime's timeline for transition from power.  There are questions as to whether the regime is willing to honor this deal that it is advancing, or is simply trying to buy time in order to further advance it's organs of repression and quell the protests indefinitely.

The American response meanwhile, has been to dither as the White House has claimed to support the Democratic movement in Egypt while failing to pull funding from the regime.  This despite a large percentage of Americans supporting Egyptians right to self-determination.  This clinging to the old power order, represents the sort of cynical policy long-advanced by the likes of Henry Kissinger, and demonstrates, as Noam Chomsky notes not so much a fear of radical Islam, but a fear of independence for Egyptians, as doing so may undermine American hegemony.  Indeed, as Chomsky notes, the United States has long backed some of the vilest regimes in region, and particularly those that have advanced Islamic fundamentalism in the region as a means of retaining American control:

A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological centre of radical Islam (and of Islamic terror). Another in a long list is Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan's dictators and President Reagan's favorite, who carried out a programme of radical Islamisation (with Saudi funding).

This in itself may be a null argument.  As I mentioned in my last post on Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, which by dint of it's organization, seems most likely to seize the reigns of power in Egypt in the event of a power vacuum, does not seem to be the fundamentalist group it is made out to be.  While the occasional (though increasingly rare) rhetoric of the group may be worrisome to some Israelis, it remains largely a moderate organization.  A recent interview with several of the group's leaders in the Guardian seemed to indicate that though the group refuses to negotiate with the Mubarak regime (which has outlawed it), the main thrust of the Brotherhood seems to be basic human rights.  Further, there is a real push towards pluralism in the group's position:

"If we can build a wide coalition instead, this would be good," Erian says. "This is our strategy for many reasons: not to frighten others, inside or outside, and also because this is a country destroyed, destroyed by Mubarak and his family – why would the rebuilding task be only for us? It's not our task alone, it's the job of all Egyptians." He adds: "The Muslim Brothers are a special case because we are not seeking power through violent or military means like other Islamic organisations that might be violent. We are a peaceful organisation; we work according to the constitution and the law."

As I have previously noted, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to understand quite fully the implications of Egypt's dependence on the outside world.  Further, the group does not appear to be fundamentalist in any way and instead to be a reasoned a pluralistic body that uses Muslim nationalism as it's fulcrum.  This makes it not particularly different from say, the moderately Islamic Justice and Development (AK) Party in Turkey.

As protests continue, and despite the government's best efforts at repression, Egyptian self-determination is, in many ways, beginning to take on the whiff of the inevitable.  The question has increasingly become, to use an old joke, how much longer will the Mubarak regime play the part of the Egyptian fish: living in De Nile (denial)?

Manfred Max-Neef on Neo-Liberalism

Chiliean economist Manfred Max-Neef, in the brief video below, advances a biting critique of neo-Liberal economic theory in very much the same vein as my recent 'Society, The Economy & The Environment' post.  He argues that much of the development economics taught today is at odds with the implementation of economic policies as experienced by much world's poor.  This has resulted in a 'value-free' science that fails to address the multitude of human needs in pursuit of economic bottom lines and has proven destructive towards communities, civil society and the environment.

In Defense of Powell's Books: A Love Letter

A friend of mine recently told me that, as a child, he used to fantasize about being trapped in Powell's Books.  It's a fantasy that I can imagine myself sharing - to roam the isles in that vast, immaculately organized font of writing.  It is the type of place that can make you forget hunger pains and simply give in to the singular pleasure of the printed word.  For those non-Portlanders that haven't been, it is the sweep and majesty of the place that is what is truly wonderful about it.  Powell's is one of the largest independent bookstores in the country, and unlike The Strand in New York - the only place that comes close to it, is well-organized and easy to navigate.

As an unrepentant and compulsive bibliophile, the Powell's Burnside store represents, not just an institution, but a four-story tall city block of unprecedented pleasure.  I am a veritable junky for the printed word, and Powell's represents the preeminent place to slink for my drug of choice.  My love affair with Powell's began the moment I set foot in the place at the tender age of 14 as a new arrival to Portland and has only grown with time.  Certainly, it has been love/hate at times, especially on those rainy days when I found myself loaded down with new purchases - distraught that I could not find a used copy of a longed for volume and my pocket book stinging as a result. Despite this, it is a love that has always bloomed anew.  The $100 or so there I can drop in a single visit always feel like something of a bargain for the splendor of literature - a tribute to some benign and kind literary god rather than a business transaction.  Being able to browse the store's brimming shelves and extracting that perhaps not-so-rare or previously unknown treasure is part of what makes Portland the livable a place it is.

This said, today's news then that the grand institution was being forced to shed some 31 employees - a veritable 7% of it's total staff came as a shock and a blow.  Powell's has noted, in an internal e-mail memo that:

Sales for this fiscal year are down and we expect this trend will continue. The largest decreases have been in new book sales. We see this as a clear indication that we are losing sales to electronic books and reading devices.

Thus, we are hearing the potential death knell of an institution that I love as sounded by some cynical piece of gadgetry.  Regardless of advancements in liquid paper technology and the rest, there is something I find deeply vulgar about the printed word being replaced by e-book readers.  The technology represents, certainly something new and compelling, but it compromises the whole tactile sensation of reading that partially makes up the experience.  The weight of a book in my hands, the aesthetic and stylistic decisions made by the printers and importantly - the element of discovery - the ability to stumble upon some previously unknown gem on the shelf at a used book store are things that, to me, are worth fighting for.

Indeed, while there is a compelling argument to be made, with continually changing digital formats and the like for the retention of printed documents to insure the permanence of preserving human thought as put to paper - the preservation of Powell's as institution that puts Portland on the map may be of equal importance. While certain scholastic and bookish dinosaurs like myself have nothing but the utmost of resentment for the new digital formats - and Powell's is likely to survive in some form - the idea of it being reduced to a shell of itself, and indeed one that tourists will continue to come to see for years and begin to wonder what the big deal was all along - is harrowing.

This trend speaks to our declining literary and attention spans, our increased tendency to demand instant gratification, and our longstanding cultural decline.  As marvelous as technology can be, it's affects on the language as a whole and on discourse can makes one feel as though the barbarians are pounding at the gate.  Powell's is one of those rare institutions that serves as a bright shining beacon of culture.  The existence of Powell's promotes literacy and a love of words: what cause could be higher?

So, though I am loathe to advocate mindless consumerism, drop by Powell's, browse the still ample shelves and maybe buy a book.  In doing so, you are, in some small way, defending civilization.

John McPhee

One of my heroes, John McPhee, was recently interviewed in the Paris Review as part of the publication's 'Art of Nonfiction' series.  McPhee's great subject was America and his writing has focused on technical, ecological and infrastructure considerations across the United States.  His corpus, when taken together feels as though it might encompass the breadth of the United States.  McPhee was one of the founders of so-called new journalism'.  His style of writing, while including elements of fiction, never devolved into the sort of angry polemic that characterized his most notable contemporary, Hunter S. Thompson.

McPhee has a way of enlightening certain aspects of things that might not otherwise be apparent.  I still remember rereading McPhee's piece on the Atchafalaya river basin from his book, The Control of Nature in late 2005 and realizing that, despite the mismanagement following Katrina, the very idea of controlling a river as powerful as the Mississippi could only be an act of hubris.

The interview linked to is eminently worth reading - as are previous 'Art of Nonfiction' interviewees, which has included the great Ryszard Kapuschinski among others.

Egypt and Tunisia

One of the major developments thus far overlooked by this blog has been the successful Internet organized protest movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen.  Thus far, Tunisia's Ben Ali has been forced into exile in France while similarly long-serving despots Hosni Mubarak and Ali Abdullah Saleh have both agreed to step down.  The use of communications technology as a mechanism for mass organization of protesters has been particularly impressive - especially in Tunisia where controls upon the Internet have been semi-draconian.

Indeed, despite numerous previous protest movements in opposition to autocratic governments in the Middle East and North Africa, one wonders if these protests would have been nearly as successful in their aims.  The Arab world in certainly no stranger to effective protest movements - even before mass dissemination of communications technology, decentralized and rapidly responsive protest movements have seen some success - as was the case of the first Palestinian Intifada, well-documented in Thomas X. Hammes' The Sling and the Stone.  Hammes' a retired marine colonel, characterizes these types of protest movements as '4th generation' asymmetrical warfare. it is clear that the implementation of technology has further allowed for mass resistance, and preferably for more responsive, pluralistic and democratic governments to come.

The motivations for these resistance movements are interesting in and of themselves. In both cases, shame in response to potential international denigration following revelations about corruption seem to be pressing.  In Tunisia, the prevalent story seems to be that, while Ben Ali was long known to be debauched, it was the exposure of his corruption to the outside world (via the WikiLeaks diplomatic leaks) that motivated Tunisians, largely to save face, to seek his immediate removal.  This was a link drawn by Gaddafi in neighboring Libya, who ever desiring to shackle his fortunes to a proven 'winner', apparently viewed the leaks as 'diabolic' and has stated his support for Ali after Ali had been removed to Paris.  So much for playing to populist sympathies of Tunisians for the colonel then.

As Mubarak's withering regime writhes and grasps for the remaining tendrils of power, largely by visiting violence upon protesters, there remain several pertinent points about Egypt that are worth keeping in mind.  Firstly, the United States has a hand in supporting the Egyptian regime.  We subsidize Mubarak to the tune of around $1.5 billion annually, largely to placate the Egyptian government and insure that it remains on civil terms with Israel and ostensibly to fight creeping "Islamic extremism", most specifically the Muslim Brotherhood.  While some percentage of this money disappears into Swiss bank accounts and the like, some of it has gone to strengthen the military, largely to the detriment of the Egyptian people.  Further, the United States has provided many of the sinews of repression currently being employed by the regime.  The American stance should be one of understanding with Egyptian protesters, less we risk the venom of whatever government succeeds Mubarak.

Secondly, Egypt remains firmly dependent upon outside aid to both feed it's economy (tourism and shipping through the Suez Canal being key) as well as to feed it's population, with Egypt importing nearly 40% of it's food.  This means that, even if a new regime is made up of largely Muslim Brotherhood members, who despite being an illegal organization under the current regime, has it's ranks largely filled with educated professionals, and as a result, is likely to take positions of moderation.  Egypt is dependent on it's interactions with the rest of the World and no regime would be foolish enough to damn the whole of the population.


The Muslim Brotherhood has shifted radically from it's ideology following the state execution of Sayyid Qutb, who according to Adam Curtis (in the excellent The Power of Nightmares mini-series) represents the ideological father of modern Islamic reactionary thought.  Indeed, even the Islamism of Qutb called for ongoing Western-style scientific and technological advancement in the Arab world while simultaneously embracing Islamic legal codes. These Islamic legal norms have their roots in the Ottoman Empire and have historically been a perceived source of fair arbitration in the face of despotic rule, hence the reason for their popularity even among many more secular Arabs.  As a result, even an Islamic regime in Egypt is likely not to be feared and is likely to continue to support modernization efforts.


Thirdly, Egypt is undergoing demographic and humanitarian upheaval.  Much of Egypt - like Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria Libya and elsewhere in North Africa and the wider Arab World - is under 25.  This population is currently of reproductive age and underemployed.  Urban development and infrastructure remain heavily lacking for many Egyptians and large-scale informal squatter and slum settlements represent standard living conditions for many.  One of the reasons for Nasser's ongoing popularity in Egypt has little to do with foreign policy - despite nationalisation of the Suez Canal, Nasser's legacy includes, after all a quagmire in Yemen and terrible losses incurred during the 1967 Six-Day War - and has more to do with his emphasis in investment in the Egyptian population, in both infrastructure and education that saw living standards rise for many.


Given this failure of infrastructure and of despotic governments within North Africa and the wider Arab World to provide adequate services for their citizens, these protests should be viewed as a restoration of civil society.  Denizens of these countries have seen their talents squandered and living conditions deteriorate under the heels of frequently Western-backed regimes that have served as vehicles of corruption and repression.  The West should seek to begin to rectify these errors by supporting the liberation struggles of those resisting today and who are asserting a desire for self-determination and for basic services.  


The movement in Egypt is one that is  popularly rooted and bottom-up and thus represents something radically different from the region transforming power fantasies of the Neo-Conservatives.  This series of popular rebellions across the Arab world has local and personal meaning and resonance to many of those agitating.  The mealy-mouthed, group-think derived real politique that is frequently advanced as sensible foreign policy serves only affluent Western States and fails to address the considerations that these protests are about.  With this emphasis on the restoration of civil society within the region at the heart of these protests, it would be deeply cynical to not extend solidarity to these protesters, whether what new comes of it is secular or Islamic.