They're called tweets, President Mubarak (a short play)

President Hosni Mubarak
President Hosni Mubarak

The private chambers of EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT HOSNI MUBARAK.  He works at his desk, with paper and pencil.  Enter CHIEF OF STAFF.

SCENE 1

EGYPTIAN CHIEF OF STAFF:  Mr. President, the people are revolting.

PRESIDENT HOSNI MUBARAK: You can say that again.

CHIEF:  No Sir, I mean they are actually revolting.

MUBARAK:  What seems to be the problem?

CHIEF:  They want a middle class, Sir.

MUBARAK:  They’ve got one.

CHIEF:  It’s disappeared, Sir.

MUBARAK:  Disappeared!  You are in the middle class.

CHIEF:  I’m the only one, Sir.  We basically have two economic classes now, Sir.  The poor.  And the billionaires.

MUBARAK:  Who is revolting?

CHIEF:  The poor.

MUBARAK:  That’s good to hear.  I’ve got enough problems without having a bunch of unhappy billionaires on my back.

CHIEF:  I’m not so sure, Sir.  There are so many poor people.

MUBARAK: So where exactly is this revolt?

CHIEF:  In the streets.

MUBARAK:  Then close the streets.

CHIEF:  We’ve tried that, Sir.  They keep moving to another street.  We can’t close them all.

MUBARAK:  Of course we can.  Impose a curfew.

CHIEF:  Yes, Sir.

SCENE 2

CHIEF:  The people are still revolting.

MUBARAK:  I’m sure they are.

CHIEF:  The curfew isn’t working, Sir.

MUBARAK:  Why not?

CHIEF:  They won’t listen.  It’s impossible to enforce.

MUBARAK:  Cut off the telephones.  That’ll stop ’em.

CHIEF:  They aren’t calling each other, Sir.  They’re using the Internet.

MUBARAK:  Excuse me?

CHIEF:  The Internet, Sir.  Computers wired together.

MUBARAK: They can do that?

CHIEF:  Yes Sir.  They also have wireless devices.  And they text.

MUBARAK:  Since when do the common poor use these Internets?

CHIEF:  They use it quite a bit, Sir.

MUBARAK:  And they talk to each other on this?

CHIEF:  Yes, Sir.  Mostly with social networking sites.

MUBARAK:  Why would the common peasant need this?

CHIEF:  Fun, mostly. They share things and tweet.  For example, yesterday I posted some amazing pictures of my granddaughter’s birthday party.  In some ways, I think it makes for a richer online experience.

MUBARAK:  Isn’t that nice.

CHIEF:  They also use these sites to discuss politics and plan protests.

MUBARAK:  Then this is the problem.  What are the names of these so-called websites?

CHIEF:  Facebook.  Twitter.  Youtube.

MUBARAK:  Shut these down!  Immediately!

CHIEF:  I don’t know if that’s a good idea.

MUBARAK:  If it resides inside my head, then by definition, it’s a good idea.  Would you like to have your head cut off?

CHIEF:  No Sir.

MUBARAK:  Then ban these Facebooks and Twitters.

CHIEF:  Yes Sir.

SCENE 3

CHIEF:  Mr. President, the people are really revolting now.

MUBARAK:  Tell me about it.

CHIEF:  It’s not a modifier, Sir.  It’s a verb.  Hundreds of thousands of them are in the streets now, revolting.  I’m afraid they might set this building on fire.

MUBARAK:  Still that middle class bullshit?

CHIEF:  The economic grievances have been building for some time, Sir.  But the more immediate problem now is Facebook and Twitter.

MUBARAK:  I told you to shut those down.

CHIEF:  We did that, Sir.  It made the problem worse.

MUBARAK:  If we turned it off, then why is it worse?

CHIEF:  The people want to Tweet, Sir.  They want to update their Facebook status and connect with their friends.  They’re angry.

MUBARAK:  Have the police arrest them.

CHIEF:  Not an option, Sir.

MUBARAK:  If it comes out of my mouth, then it’s an option.

CHIEF:  The police are on their side.

MUBARAK:  On their side?

CHIEF:  Yes, Sir.

MUBARAK:  But the police work for me.

CHIEF:  Police are people, too, Sir.  The revolt is widespread.

MUBARAK:  So the police are not following orders?

CHIEF:  No Sir.

MUBARAK:  Then call out the military.  I’ve never had any problem with them.

CHIEF:  That may piss the people off even more.

MUBARAK:  Maybe so.  But if we kill a few, the rest of the people will fall in line.

SCENE 4

CHIEF:  The people are still revolting, Sir.

MUBARAK:  I’m well aware of that.  Have we killed a few?

CHIEF:  Yes, Sir.

MUBARAK:  And they’re still up to no good?

CHIEF:  They’re fighting back, Sir.  They’re filling the streets and burning government buildings.

MUBARAK:  Then perhaps we should kill some more.

CHIEF:  You may want to leave the country, Sir.

MUBARAK:  Leave the country?  You think I need a vacation?

CHIEF:  No Sir.  You may need to leave permanently, Sir.

MUBARAK:  You would look very different without a head.

CHIEF:  I’m sure I would, Sir.  But part of my job description is advising you.

MUBARAK:  And you would risk your life by advising me to leave my country?

CHIEF:  Only because it may save your life.

MUBARAK:  Nonsense.  Where would I go?

CHIEF:  South America is always a good option.

MUBARAK:  And who would lead my people?

CHIEF:  They want to select a different leader.

MUBARAK:  I don’t understand.

CHIEF:  The people are ready for a change, Sir.

MUBARAK:  After 30 years — the best years of my life — and this is the thanks I get?  That’ll be all.  You can leave now.

CHIEF:  They want change in their government.

MUBARAK:  You’re talking gibberish.  You may go now.

CHIEF:  It’s been a pleasure, Mr. President.  I’m going to Paraguay.

MUBARAK:  Paraguay!  What’s in Paraguay?

CHIEF:  Google it.

MUBARAK:  What does that mean?

CHIEF:  Goodbye, Sir.

He exits.

end of play

Can't we all just grow up a little?

The Obama protesters — a noisy bunch — strike me as folks who don’t understand how democracy works.

They are horrified by Obama’s agenda — but it’s not new. This is what he campaigned for.

During the campaign, they made fun of “change,” saying Obama just liked to give ‘pretty speeches,’ accusing him of using ‘rhetoric’ (dismissing rhetoric as something undesirable — when, in fact, it’s something quite useful and necessary).

No — it was actually change.

The push for health care reform should not be a surprise. Many of us gave money and walked many miles canvassing — precisely for this “change.”  We had an election. We won. That’s the way it works.

Granted, he didn’t plan on beginning his presidency with bailouts. Nobody liked that.

But…don’t we want our President to deal with a crisis? Would we have preferred another Great Depression? I think not.

Am I stating the obvious? I think so.

Is this outrage real? If so, it’s perfectly legal and okay — but it’s a little late. That energy should have been channelled into the McCain campaign. Is the outrage strategy for future elections? Possibly. I don’t know.

I feels more like a bunch of babies who don’t know how to lose.

It’s almost as if some people don’t understand what elections are, and that if you care — and I know they do — sometimes your candidate still loses.

In fact, losing is normal and complete victory never happens. Even when your candidate wins, it’s a mixed bag.  We have a pluralistic system in which his or her agenda — particularly in domestic matters — is never completely realized.

Recalling a few Presidential elections:

1972. I was a junior in high school. The Saturday before the election, my older brother dropped me off at a strip mall in Kannapolis, NC. Kannapolis, at that time, was not known for its diversity. Let’s call it a “conservative” area. I’m Jewish.  My hair was long, very curly, and unruly. My partner was another long-haired guy with a heavy accent — our Finnish exchange student.

I don’t think we won George McGovern any votes that day.

I liked McGovern. He said something like ‘We’ve tried getting peace with bombing. Let’s try getting peace with not bombing.’  Something like that.  As a sixteen year old who would soon be registering for the draft, I wanted the war to end ASAP.

I remember, about the time the polls closed on election day, talking with the local newspaper reporter who covered politics.

I remember still hoping that McGovern could win. This reporter told me he thought McGovern might win a few states, but that winning was “out of the question.”

I still remember hearing that cold prediction and not believing it. A few hours later, of course, his forecast was confirmed accurate. The next morning, on the way to school, a friend told me, “Don’t take it so hard. Nixon’s not that bad.” I was not to be consoled.

1990.  Here in Salisbury, we had an anti-Jesse Helms rally.  We marched from the Democratic headquarters, on South Main St., to the courthouse steps on North Main, where we made speeches.  Across the street, Helms supports shouted back. It was crazy — but at least it was before the Helms-Gant election, not after.

1992. I took my daughter to Clinton rallies and to the inauguration. We had a blast. Thus began the indoctrination of another generation.

2000. The debate was held in Winston-Salem, and I took my children.  We watched it in an auditorium, on the large screen, with lots of other Democrats. We saw Al Gore ride by in the motorcade.

In 2004, I spent quite a few evenings on the phone, calling swing states. On Saturdays in the fall, I took my daughters canvassing.  It seemed that every door we knocked on (all registered Democrats) was opened by a hardened, pro-war, Bush supporter.  We canvassed all day on election day, in a slightly more sympathetic neighborhood.  Even in a hopeless effort, which North Carolina clearly was, I like to feel that I’ve helped out a little.

That night, when Bush defeated Kerry, these daughters of mine, and one of their friends who was at our house that night — all of whom had worked quite hard all day — began to sob.

It took me a minute to realize that their grief was real. They were really this torn up about an election. I blamed myself for taking this too seriously and transferring that emotion.  Some things in life are more important than others, and at this point in my life, a national election seemed too abstract to take personally.

“Geez,” I said. “It’s not that bad. It’s just politics.  The pendulum swings back and forth. Maybe we’ll win the next one.”

No words could comfort these three girls, sitting on our living room couch, balling uncontrollably.

I realized that I was caught up in the history as much as the cause, whereas they were devoted entirely to the cause.

I’ve always taken comfort in the advice given by Timothy Gallwey in The Inner Game of Tennis, which goes something like this:  ‘If you pay attention to the score, losing is the norm.  Even so, winning isn’t that great and losing isn’t that bad.’  The idea is that one can win all the time by redefining what it means to win.  Full effort and improvement is winning.

And that’s the problem with folks now. Winning can happen — but it’s rare.  Losing is the norm, and it’s not worth going crazy and having a tantrum.

Politics is fascinating, but we seem to have a decent system that is somewhat self-correcting.

So c’mon, Republicans. Get a grip. Grow up. Play fair. It’s better for the country. There will be more elections, and your day will come again.