Iran and Liberals

Crossposted at Right Minds

The recent elections in Iran have gotten a great deal of worldwide attention, and rightly so. Iran’s mullah’s handled the election horribly—they chose which candidates would be eligible to run, and of those candidates handpicked Mamoud Ahmadinejad to win. It didn’t do a very good job of doing so, and apparently didn’t anticipate any unrest following the election. These oversights gave the world an excellent glimpse of a brutal dictatorship in action.

Nobody much is defending Iran’s leaders. Conservatives, moderates and liberals are united in their disgust and anger over the brutality of Iran’s ruling class. But America’s newfound distaste for Iran raises some questions of consistency. For example, a year ago many liberals and moderates were saying that Iran was worth talking to, and that its ruling class are rational actors. And while Iran rates condemnatory 24/7 news coverage, other countries, countries that are every bit as dictatorial and brutal as Iran, are allowed to skate by without criticism.

When George W. Bush inserted Iran into his “axis of evil,” many, perhaps most, liberals were horrified. Some, perhaps rightly, pointed out that very publicly singling out three widely separated countries as “evil” might not be smart diplomacy. (And in hindsight, Bush was only able to deal with one of them; the one that was the least dangerous, and allowed the more dangerous two to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons). But most were outraged that Bush called Iran evil at all, at any time.

These critics thought that Iran, if not a Western style liberal democracy, was essentially a benign country. Matt Yglesias (who is a fairly mainstream liberal, far from the lunatic fringe) wrote blog posts suggesting that any attempts by Iran to appease the United States would be unwise, since the U.S. (this was during the Bush Administration) was run by neocons (with ties to AIPAC) who would be perfectly willing to attack Iran without provocation. Yglesias also penned a surreal post in which he said that Ahmadinejad had a “pretty sweet hipster style” (because he addressed the U.N. General Assembly tieless), and suggested that Bush might want to try some Iran-style diplomacy.

Yglesias is hardly the only liberal writer to have been so ridiculously easy on Iran—such attitudes were the rule rather than the exception on the Left until the Iran elections made Iran persona non grata in the West. But when considering the Left’s angry denunciations of Iran (now, Yglesias goes so far as to compare Admadinejad to Sarah Palin), it should be remembered that until a few weeks ago, most on the Left were making excuses for the same brutal regime.

Everyone condemns Iran’s brutality. But it is far too often forgotten that in most of the world, such violence is the rule, not the exception. Most countries on Earth are dictatorships; few are democracies. But most Americans are content to shut their eyes to that fact, unless the occasional foreign PR disaster ensures that evidence of dictatorship is thrust in their faces.

China’s government, for instance, is far more evil than Iran’s. (China’s one child policy is just one example). But it also has the capacity (achieved by using what often amounts to slave labor) to manufacture goods cheaply and efficiently. So Americans ignore China’s abysmal human rights record, and happily consume Chinese products.

Or take Cuba. Fidel Castro has ruled that country with an iron first for a half century. But he is admired by many on the Left, apparently for no other reason than that he looked cool forty years ago. Or take Saudi Arabia, whose human rights abuses are tolerated because it supplies U.S. demand for oil. Or Libya, whose human rights abuses are ignored because it is obscure and unimportant.

What is going on in Iran is the norm in most of the world. Those who live in the West forget that the rights they enjoy are very uncommon, and rarely found outside of Europe and America. They are the exception—in most places, dictatorship, corruption, and brutality are the norm.  

4.666665
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

Comments

I have never understood the

I have never understood the Left's tendency to be enamoured by brutal dictators such as Castro and Ahmadinejad. They somehow have this romanticized notion that these are good people in pursuit of a nobel cause.  It is sickening to me to see a young person in a Che Guevara tee shirt. I want to ask them if they know what this man stood for. I wonder if they know about the hundreds of innocent people he murdered and imprisoned in pursuit of his goals. And now he is worthy of having his face on a tee shirt that you parade around wearing? Same with Matt Yglesias falling all over himself to have a cuddle session with Ahmadinejad. What a moron.

In reality, they jail, torture and murder their own people. That is why it is important that the Presidient of the United States calls out these atrocities for what they are and when they happen.  It seems that some people in our own country need to be reminded that shooting peaceful protesters is a really bad thing.

Why does the left in this country think that the Iranians have taken to the streets? Is is because of the speech Obama gave a few weeks ago in Cairo? Of course not. It is because of the hard line the international community, lead by George Bush has taken against them. Bush punished their bad behaivior by seeking sanctions and isolating them from the international community. The people of Iran are tired of being considered outcasts because of the actions of their government. These are educated, thoughtful people with a rich history and they want to be accepted in the international community. They want better relations with the United States.

No, it is becasue their leaders stole an election from them.

Why does the left in this country think that the Iranians have taken to the streets? Is is because of the speech Obama gave a few weeks ago in Cairo? Of course not. It is because of the hard line the international community, lead by George Bush has taken against them.

Neither of these is correct. The Iranians have taken to the streets becasue their leaders stole an election from them and they are very, very pissed off about it. 

Never understood? It's simple... Amb Kirkpatrick had it nailed

The Left and liberals like those despotic leaders because they share a common value: both groups hate America, blame America for everything from global warming to poverty in Africa to the loss of the rainforests in Brazil to nuke proliferation to any anti-American sentiment in the worst, darkest corners of the world --like with the nonsense prevalent inside the Democrat Party last year that the Islamic terrorists attacked the US on 9-11 with probable cause... we had it coming and deserved it.  The sick f*cks.

Hating America and blaming America first unites the farLeft, the Democrats, the liberals and others with fellow-liberal loons on the Earth.  One world, one hate; it's simple.

People who live in glass houses....

You want to use this as an opportunity for a bit of point scoring against strawman "liberals" who don't understand Iran? Well, OK, than I'm going to remind you that just a few days ago you wrote an entry demonstrating that you don't understand Iran. You made the claim (which I called you out on at the time) that Ahmadinejad is the 2nd most influential person in the Muslim world; as it turns out, he isn't even the 2nd most influential person in Iran.

Typical of your deep thought

You think this is the first time an election has been stolen in Iran? You think this is about an election being stolen? Of course not. This goes much deeper. The elections were the catalyst. The issue is that young Iranians are sick of their leaders putting their country into a position of being international outlaws. They want fundamental change.

Do you really think that these protests, this movement, would stop if the elections were voided and new ones were called? Hardly. This is an opportunity for sweeping change, and the people of Iran feel it.

I'm tempted to comment on the delicious irony of Lonestar Bill

I'm tempted to comment on the delicious irony of Lonestar Bill going all "hope and changey" on us, but I'll leave it to everyone to contemplate on their own time.

But, to answer your question, do I really think that these protests, this movement, would stop if the elections were voided and new ones were called? Yes, that is exactly what I think. There is not a hell of a lot of difference between the two men.

Contemplate This

The Iranian leadership has ordered their security forces to shoot and imprison protesters.

I know that you can draw some distorted parrallel in your mind to the Bush administration, and that is where you lose all credibility. I don't rec all protesters being shot and imprisoned in the US over the last 8 years, but perhaps you can. Or maybe you equate terrorists sent to Gitmo with citizen protesters.

Whoa! Why are you projecting W onto this?

I know that you can draw some distorted parrallel in your mind to the Bush administration, and that is where you lose all credibility.

Since I said not one word not made one inference or allusion to the Bush administration, I feel confident that my credibility, therefore, remains intact.

However, I'd be fascinated to hear why you are projecting W into this.

Democrats and liberals are Americans too

 

> Hating America and blaming America first unites the farLeft, the Democrats, the liberals and

> others with fellow-liberal loons on the Earth.

 

What a load of crap. There are now far more self-described Democrats than Republicans. "Michigan Matt's" side is losing badly in Michigan and elsewhere.

---

There is proud Democratic patriotic tradition from FDR via MLK to today's Democratic party. These are good Americans too, although they do not share the political preferences of U.S. conservatives.

 

MARCU$