Democracy was under threat in Egypt before the "coup."

I must confess that listening to, and reading, Sen. John McCain play the “elder statesman” in regard to how the U.S. should react to events in Egypt is a little too much on the pompous side, with little recognition of reality. Egypt was slowly becoming an Islamic “republic” with the strings of “democratically-elected” President Morsi being pulled by powerful clerics intent on creating a society not of freedom but of enforced conformity to one worldview. One only has to read the so-called “constitution” to know that any views that even hinted at secularism or western-style thought were forbidden. 

Meanwhile, the lead story on CNN’s website mentioned nothing of the escalating violence against the Coptic Christian community by Islamic extremists; in fact, attacks on Christians and their places of worship have increased since Morsi became president. Although Christians in Egypt have kept a low profile, they are still viewed as “infidels” by Islamic extremists who see their very existence as a threat to their rule. The Muslim Brotherhood, of course, is only the most powerful and notorious of these extremists. 

The Brotherhood has been portrayed in the media as a “legitimate” political entity, but in fact it was banned from public display for decades because of its fanatical views and history of violence, terrorism and assassination. When the Mubarak regime was overthrown, the subsequent political vacuum and chaos after the initial emasculating of the military and security forces allowed the Brotherhood to re-emerge as a “legitimate” organization. But while the forces of “reform” which were largely secular in their ideology were divided and often incoherent, the Brotherhood and its Islamic allies were bound by an unyielding sense of purpose, which unlike the secularists and their belief in “freedom of expression,” was found by many Egyptian voters—at least initially—to be the only “choice” they had at the ballot box.

There are still those in the media and politics who delude themselves into thinking that the Brotherhood themselves saw their election victories as a triumph of “democracy.” Nothing could be further from the truth; you only have to observe the rise of the Nazis to power to know how it all “works.” The Nazi party was losing votes in 1930, but in taking advantage of discontent caused by the Great Depression, they rebounded as the strongest party in 1932, although still a minority. Conservatives in the German political establishment thought that they could use and control Hitler when they offered him the chancellorship in January 1933, but he had other plans. Within months, democracy and freedom was dead in Germany, controlled by one man and one party. The Muslim Brotherhood has acted on essentially the same “principles”—using elections to gain a foothold in power, then crafting a “constitution” which reading between the lines clearly establishes a hardline Islamic state which was not yet apparent because the Brotherhood had not yet seized control of all the instruments of power, principally the military and judiciary.

Despite what you are hearing from politicians and the media, most Egyptians want the Brotherhood reigned-in, if not abolished altogether, and a true democracy established in their country. The real "coup" was underway when the Brotherhood first seized power, and what has since transpired was entirely predictable. But this is an ancient civilization whose greatest years long predated the coming of Islam, and long was an object of fascination; thus it may be surmised that its people are more worldly than many in the region. As I posted before, democracy and Islamic fundamentalism has never and will never coexist peacefully, and if the latter is permitted to decide what is or isn’t “permissible” in thought and action, than “freedom” and democracy will be dead letters soon enough.