After spending 4 months in the States, I was amazed of the lack of knowledge that we have in Egypt and the Middle East in general towards the United States.
In Egypt the media continuously informs us that the 2 parties in the US are just the same and that there are no real differences.
As a person who likes to read I knew that was not the case and that there were real differences, but I was totally shocked when I was there at how polarized the US political landscape is and at the amount of ideological differences between the Democrats and Republicans.
I found it frightening that in Egypt people knew nothing about that. The Media has for years given people that image of the US and nothing was there to change it. It amazed me that the US spent so much money, time and effort in various Think Tanks and universities to understand the region, whist no such effort was done on our side to understand that Superpower that had a huge effect on our lives.
There are many factors for this lack of information from lack of real Think Tanks in Egypt, lack of appropriate educational systems, failed US diplomatic efforts, or just general bias or hate.
In my view however the most important factor is just poor journalism. The journalist in any Egyptian newspaper is asked to write about foreign policy or internal American affairs and since he knows nothing about it he has 2 options; either he copies an existing analysis in foreign news sources or he fabricates an article based on his limited knowledge.
In the former case this usually is not noticed as it provides general information and analysis by a western media source. The problem exists of course in the creditability of that news source itself as it is common to copy from known media outlets such as newspapers and less likely to know about or follow respectful Think Tanks. It is also pure bad journalism and plagiarism when the article is copied word by word and the source is not mentioned and an Egyptian author’s name is put on the article. This is the case with an article in Al Ahram that was copied from Foreign Policy magazine. The journalist probably assumed that no one in Egypt reads Foreign Policy Magazine.
The later case is however much more disastrous as the journalist just makes up the story he is writing. He is assuming that no one in Egypt follows American internal politics closely enough to know that what he is writing is absolutely untrue.
The most recent example is an article published in El Ahram Newspaper on Monday the 3rd of September by Abdel Azim Hammad. The article given a quarter of a page in Al Ahram is titled: “A New American Era”.
Mr. Hammad basically argues that the Republican Party is history and that we are witnessing the beginnings of a new Democratic era. He gives a bit of background on the Republican Party’s control of US politics for the past 40 years and then gives the indications for his analysis of the Democrats regaining control:
1. In Iowa’s Agricultural Fair, 25,000 people gathered to hear Barack Obama speak, while only 40 gathered to hear Mitt Romney.
2. The Democrats have out funded the Republicans in the Presidential campaign.
3. The Democratic Party is leading the Republican Party in national polls by a 15% margin.
4. The recent Congress elections not only gave the Democrats control of both houses, but they took back the South from the Republicans. This Democratic control of the South has led them to choose their convention venue in the South, IN DENVER, COLORADO.
He then goes on to explain why this Democratic victory has happened and gives the following reasons:
1. President Bush’s failure in Iraq.
2. The Neoconservative program shattered.
3. Democrats giving up on their gun control campaign.
4. Democrats lessening their support to causes that conservatives were fearful of such as abortion and gay marriage.
5. The rift in the Christian Right between Catholics and Protestants.
Climate Change becoming an important issue for religious conservatives more than abortion.
Mr. Hammad’s lack of knowledge of American politics is frightening, but more frightening is his lack of geographic knowledge.
As a person trained on research I did my homework and came with the following info to answer back Mr. Hammad.
1. The definition of what the South is varies amongst US scholars from the Old South, the New South, the solid South, and the Confederacy. Generally it would include those States that seceded from the Union; Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Some people also add Oklahoma and Kentucky to the list. These states together have 142 House seats and 26 Senate seats. The Republican Party has out of these 85 House seats and 21 Senate seats, whilst the Democratic Party holds 57 House seats and only 5 Senate seats. Does this look to anyone as a Democratic sweep of the South???
2. The Democratic Convention is indeed in Denver, Colorado, but Colorado is not by any definition in the South!!!
3. I am unaware of any poll that puts the Democrats ahead of Republicans by a 15% margin. The latest polls conducted by Rasmussen Report Polls shows Rudy Giuliani leading Hillary Clinton 47% to 44%, and Hillary leading Fred Thompson by 48% to 44$, whilst Barack Obama leads Giuliani 45% to 43% and Thompson by 45% to 41%. Does it look like a sweeping victory to anyone???
4. It is hilarious to suggest that Mitt Romney the leading Republican candidate in Iowa would get only 40 people to attend his speech, while Barack Obama the No. 3 Democratic candidate in Iowa primary polls would get 25,000 people to attend his speech.
5. I am not aware of any Democratic move to lessen their support of abortion and gay rights causes. By looking at the positions of the 3 leading Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards on these issues we get the following statements:
Hillary Clinton: Clinton has been a staunch supporter of the legal right of a woman to end her pregnancy by abortion as determined in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973. Clinton believes that the acceptance and availability of birth control and sex education will reduce unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions. National Abortion Rights Action League gave Clinton a score of "100%". She votes in favor of maintaining the legality of abortion with every vote on the subject. In a March 2007 interview with ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper, Clinton said that the U.S. military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was not working and that openly gay people should be allowed to serve: "We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desperately need, like translation skills.
In August 2007, Clinton participated in a forum hosted by the Human Rights Campaign and Logo. When responding to questions regarding same-sex marriage, Clinton said she would move to repeal the third section of the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Barack Obama: In his write-in response to a 1998 survey, Obama stated his abortion position as: "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.
While serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council due to his consistent voting in favor of abortion rights, family planning services, and having female contraceptives covered by health insurance. Since his election to the United States Senate Obama has maintained a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood (as of 2007) and NARAL (as of 2005). While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Obama opposed legislation that required "medical care for aborted fetuses" because the legislation's wording defined the fetus as a child -- a measure he said would "essentially bar abortions.
John Edwards: Edwards supports legal access to abortion. Kate Michelman, a nationally prominent abortion rights activist and former leader of NARAL, has joined the campaign as a senior adviser, charged with outreach to women.
Edwards opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, preferring to leave that decision up to individual states. He does support civil unions and partnership benefits.
This article is just an example of the problem faced. An effort needs to be done to address this issue. In this world that we live in, were globalization has destroyed many boundaries and were the US is the sole superpower whose policies effect the whole world such ignorance is not only dangerous, but can also prove fatal
