History teaches us that revolution often leads to something far worse.  Even where brutal dictators are removed from power, often times the new regimes are just has abusive.  Recent events in Egypt are a perfect example.  While many romanticized the protests in Tahrir Square, the outcome for the people of Egypt may not be what they expected or wanted.  Ending the reign of a tyrant is only the first step.  What follows is a long and difficult process towards gaining true individual freedom.

So far, the Egyptian people are not any freer in the post-Mubarak era.  The military has showed a reluctance to share power with a civilian government.  A new round of protests pushed them to hold elections this week, but the results are troubling.  The Muslim Brotherhood won approximately 40 percent of the seats, while the ultra-conservative Salafists won 20 percent. It is also especially disappointing to Westerners and liberals that the liberal-secular parties of Egypt performed so poorly (less than 20 percent support).  To make matters worse, there are reports of voter intimidation and fraud.  To many, this was the worst case scenario in terms of U.S. interests.

The revolution and subsequent election is also a lesson in basic democratic politics.  While numerous Egyptian youth and liberal groups provided much of the energy of the Tahrir demonstrations, they completely failed to translate that energy to electoral success.  Meanwhile the less visible Muslim Brotherhood focused their efforts on organization, grassroots operations, and building a large and stable patronage network.

While the liberal factions had the courage and energy, their focus was almost exclusively on producing a spectacle.  While the Brotherhood organized and campaigned, the liberal groups continued their demonstrations in Tahrir Square throughout the year.

Focusing purely on creating public spectacles is a recipe for disaster.  In the end, news coverage does not equal votes.  Images of men and women celebrating in the streets, dancing on tanks, and crying for freedom, democracy and other such things are just images.  Images can have power when attached to ideas but are not powerful by themselves.

It is a lesson the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement should pay close attention to.  While they may get excellent news coverage and have the sympathy of many in the media and in the Democratic Party – it will not win them political influence.  In contrast, the Tea Party utilized demonstrations and public protests to raise awareness but also spent considerable time recruiting, organizing, raising money, and educating voters on candidates and issues.  These are all things necessary for victory in a republic.

Sadly, so many protesters believe you are not passionate about your cause unless you get arrested or assaulted on television.  In many cases, their objective was not to communicate their message but to create a spectacle by forcing the police to drag them out of the parks.  It created quite a spectacle but there was no coherent message behind all the mayhem.  Most Americans are unsure what to take away from all of it.

Young Americans learn a lot of history through the prism of social movements.  In other words, they are taught large demonstrations, civil disobedience, and spectacles lead to progress.  It is as if the spectacles alone changed the world.  History does not support this notion.  Despite the potent peace movement in the 1960s, Vietnam became the longest American war up to that point.  The anti-war movement also produced numerous violent domestic terrorist groups such as the Weather Underground.  Despite several major political and legal victories for civil rights, Black nationalists continued to foment violence in numerous cities.  After passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, there were race riots in several cities.  None of these acts supported their cause.

Powerful images and video can often distort perceptions.  So much is focused on the aesthetics and symbolism – no attention is paid to the actual facts and events on the ground.  In 2007-2008, Most Americans were in awe of Sen. Obama because of his brilliant oratorical skills.  Their focus on such a superficial quality allowed them to completely ignore his inexperience, controversial affiliations, and highly divisive comments during the campaign.  We are now dealing with the consequences of their carelessness.

In Egypt, the awe-inspiring demonstrations in Tahrir Square have not led to greater freedom or opportunity.  Egypt, along with most of the Arab World, is in the midst of transition.  What exactly it is transitioning to has yet to be determined.  Early signs show Egypt is moving in the direction of a militant theocracy.  Another possibility is the Egyptian military will refuse to share power with the Brotherhood and Salafis, precipitating a civil war.  Neither outcome is good for the United States.

In America, we must be more perceptive about social movements and their ability to impact political change.  The Tea Party was denounced by many as radical, militant, and dangerous.  Their large numbers, unusual attire, plethora of flags, and harsh criticism of the government made many uneasy.  If one had bothered to look closely they would’ve found a fairly diverse crowd of freedom-loving, law-abiding citizens that wished to express their frustration and discontent over policy.  Not only that, they wanted to create energy and increase awareness for their cause – reminding protesters, supporters, and those watching on television to vote in November.

It was not a violent, unruly mob but a legitimate political movement with the means to carry out its will.  In three years of Tea Party demonstrations there have been no deaths, riots, destruction of property or mass arrests.  Violent incidents can be counted on one hand.

In contrast, many were enthralled with OWS.  Early coverage was sympathetic, painting it as an expression of frustration over economic inequality and high unemployment.  It was to be the counter-movement to the angry anarchists of the Tea Party.  Instead, the movement was incoherent, disorganized and violent.  They had no vision, so instead commentators provided their own vision and pasted it on to OWS.  The movement demanded money, space, and things from those around them.  What united all of them was their desire to take from others and tear down.  Somehow, acts of dismantling (or destruction) were going to lead to prosperity.

In only a few months there have been murders, rapes, drug trafficking, assaults, and wanton destruction of property at OWS demonstrations.  Had anyone bothered to look more closely at the supporters of the movement, they would’ve recognized the potential for mayhem.

Egypt is a lesson for Americans as it is for the rest of the world.  It is not enough to just join big protests, wave flags, and scream things.  To bring about change requires a sustained effort of both activism and organization.  It requires coherence to be persuasive.  And just as spectacles can bring about positive change, they can also bring about catastrophe.  It is the substance that matters most, not the aesthetics.

Comments?  E-mail me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .