By Shaun Tan

Perhaps the main lesson the US can take from the current crisis in Egypt is “Be careful what you wish for”. For years the US has advocated democracy.  For years it has publicly encouraged citizens of repressive regimes, calling on them to push for their rights, to speak out, not to be afraid. Last week many Egyptians decided they didn’t want to be afraid anymore. For the past two years the Obama administration has sought to rekindle the audacity of hope, and now suddenly hope has emerged from the unlikeliest of places. Suddenly Egypt has that rare moment that comes only once in several generations: when the government fears its people more than its people fear it. Surely a President would kill for this opportunity.

But the US response has been less than inspirational. In his speech on Friday President Obama called on the Egyptian government to “refrain” from harming peaceful protesters, to institute “reform”, to conduct “a meaningful dialogue” with its citizens. Obama committed the US to working “with the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people”, as if the continued rule of President Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, a party that has kept itself in power for the last thirty years through repression, corruption, and electoral fraud, should be treated as a fait accompli. Nowhere in his speech did Obama criticize the Egyptian government for its violence against peaceful protesters or mention penalties for repression. On the contrary, Obama’s ambivalent response suggests that the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people should be reconciled, and for all America’s past espousal of democracy, it now seems afraid to even mention “The D-word”.

Why? The main reason behind this is America’s fear of Islamic extremism. If Mubarak’s regime falls, a more extremist regime could take its place--one that may not see itself as an ally in America’s War on Terror. Mubarak’s regime knows this. It is wily; over the past three decades it has learned which of America’s buttons to press, and now it presses them hard. It portrays the ominously-named Muslim Brotherhood as the only alternative and waves it as a political scarecrow. And so far this strategy has worked, as Mohamed ElBaradei told the New York Times: “For years the West has bought Mr. Mubarak’s demonization of the Muslim Brotherhood…the idea that the only alternative here are these demons called the Muslim Brotherhood who are the equivalent of Al-Qaeda.”.

It seems, therefore, that America’s lukewarm response to the Egyptian protests is because it fears Islamic extremism more than it loves democracy. That when faced with the certainty of despotism and the possibility of extremism, it will choose the former. And that for fear of an uncertain future it is willing to consign the Egyptian people to a repressive present.

However, US reluctance to actively support the Egyptian people is based on a short-sighted foreign policy. Promoting democracy may conflict with curbing extremism in the short-term, but in the long-term the two complement one another. The ousting of Mubarak may indeed prove to be a setback, a new government may be less cooperative in the War on Terror, and may make it more difficult for the US to police the region. But in the long-term the US is engaged in an ideological war, where the battlefields are minds, and the weapons are principles and ideas. Such a war cannot be won through violence, whether directly carried out by US troops, or tacitly-supported by a friendly despot. Policymakers acknowledge that victory can only come through the goodwill of the Muslim people, and then repeatedly sacrifice that goodwill for the goodwill of their despots. The only way to gain the goodwill of the Muslim people is to earn their respect, and the only way to earn respect is for the US to stick by its principles instead of abandoning them whenever it seems convenient to do so.

The US has publicly committed itself to the principle of democracy. US policymakers are willing to follow their principles in general, but now hesitate because doing so may work against America’s interests. But the point of a principle is that you follow it, even if that may work against your interests. US policymakers are willing to promote democracy in general, but now show reluctance because they are uncertain who the Egyptian people might elect. But the point of democracy is uncertainty; unlike with an autocracy, it is unclear who will end up governing, because although wealth, power, or connections may be an advantage, they do not guarantee victory. Indeed, NYU political scientist Adam Przeworski described democracy as ‘institutionalizing uncertainty’. The next President of Egypt might be Nobel laureate and former Director General of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei or someone from the Muslim Brotherhood, and the nature of democracy lies in this uncertainty.

These standards may seem inconvenient, but they are the standards the US needs to hold itself to if it is to achieve ultimate victory. Because the US cannot win a battle of ideologies if its overriding philosophy is self-interest, it cannot win respect if its byword is “He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch”. The US should take a more active role in supporting the Egyptian people. It should work to restore Internet and cell phone services with or without the consent of the Egyptian government, possibly working together with the UK, given that it was Vodafone, a British cell phone provider with 28 million subscribers in Egypt, that agreed to suspend its services. If the Egyptian government continues to violently harass peaceful protesters, the US should step up threats to cut aid to Egypt, which has totaled more than $28.6 billion since 1975. Such measures may cost the US in the short-term, but it is by its principles that the US must suffer short-term losses so that in the long-term it can enjoy credibility against extremism.

As someone who has and continues to believe in America’s capacity to be a moral force in the world, it’s been frustrating to hear US policymakers talk about the importance of winning over hearts and minds, and then proceed to do everything to sabotage that effort. It’s depressing to see so many Americans who can no longer be proud of their foreign policy. It’s disappointing to see a man who once inspired the world no longer daring to hope for a better future for Egypt.

But such reluctance to act is not Obama’s alone. It is symptomatic of the malaise that now permeates America as a whole, that stands between the country and exceptionalism and is the cause of the current state of the economy: the unwillingness to endure short-term losses for long-term gain. It is this unwillingness that needs to be overcome. The crisis in Egypt presents the US with a rare opportunity. But if it deals with this crisis in the usual way, it can be sure it’ll get the usual results. And if the past few years have shown us anything, it is that America cannot afford to have more of the same.

SHAUN TAN is a first-year Masters student in International Relations at Yale University. Contact him at shaunzhiming.tan@yale.edu