Who Could Have Predicted It?

Islamist Group Is Rising Force in a New Egypt blares the headline in the Times.

In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.

Huh...so those cosmopolitan, democratic activists speaking on behalf of those demonstrating in Tahrir Square aren't really in charge over there? Could it really be true that David Brooks might have miscalculated when he observed that "we’ve seen Arab people ferociously attached to their national identities. We’ve seen them willing to risk their lives for pluralism, openness and democracy."? Could he have possibly jumped the gun when he proclaimed Victor Davis Hanson flat-out wrong for claiming that Arab people "do not hunger for pluralism and democracy in the way these things are understood in the West."?

And Frank Rich is no longer with the Times, so we can't really expect him to apologize to Glenn Beck for ridiculing his negative view of the mideast 'democracy' movement: "[Beck's] strenuous recent efforts to portray the Egyptian revolution as an apocalyptic leftist-jihadist conspiracy have inspired more laughs than adherents." Well, that statement - about more laughs than adherents - might have been literally true at the time - but who's laughing now? Ok, I might be chuckling a bit, but it doesn't feel that good.