Also corroborating Richard Dawkin's idea of a shifting moral zeitgeist,
people are beginning to realize that the use of peaceful protest - en mass - as a means to enact progressive change is perhaps more influential than ever imagined. However, this mechanism would 1) not be nearly as affective without morality as defined in the year 2011 and 2) used in conjunction with the interconnectedness of geographically isolated cultures through the internet and global media.
These events have caused many of the typical freedom and democracy-thumpers to divest themselves of their flag covered shell and to speak of caution and in outright opposition to these overwhelmingly peaceful movements against oppressive autocratic, theocratic and kleptocratic oligarchies. Not only do these naysayers soil themselves with hypocrisy since it has been "vital" to spread democracy around the world - often by force - but they are tacitly acknowledging that democracy is only good when it's good for them, which completely dissolves their definition of "democracy" as an inherently righteous system. For many of us, this comes as no surprise as the American government has been supporting brutal right-wing authoritarian regimes for the last century (see: Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, the Taliban, Nicaragua, Chile, Cambodia and many many more and include such individuals as Mubarek, Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Pinochet and Pol Pot and many many more than I can think of at the moment). This wasn't just turning a blind eye to genocide, mass murders or the systematic subjugation of a citizenry, this was direct support by the U.S. government in order to protect and perpetuate these regimes in the name of "our" supposed interest.
The hypocrisy of American democracy-thumpers does bring up an important point, which is the inherent goodness of democracy is predicated on the presumption that the majority view is 1) morally superior 2) displays an affinity toward free markets and 3) like the markets tends to be self-correcting through open and honest elections. Without debating the merits of these points, it's important to note what democracy is NOT, and that is, just like the markets, it's unpredictable and inherently oppressive of minority views. I'm not advocating for another system of governance, but I do want to point out the paradox of promoting democracy through verbalized ideology and supporting the antithesis through action. I'd also like to point out that just like anything else, embracing democracy as a dogma can be a dangerous game (see Hamas).
With that said, these peaceful protests have been a touching portrayal of the human "spirit" and whatever the people want, as long as it doesn't promote violence, irrationality or illogic as a doctrine, it is their destiny (ugh melodramatic) to create; we need to sit this one out. I think if anything, this whole movement is indicative of the short-sidedness and futility of the dogmatic view of militaristic intervention as a force for good.
