Actual Democracy Promoters Support Obama’s Approach
An excellent point from Spencer Ackerman:
Amazingly, someone who doesn’t think Obama’s statements about Iran have been detrimental to democratic impulses is Jack Duvall, the president of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, a non-governmental organization which provides tools and training for political reformers and democracy activists around the world. Duvall told me that Obama’s statement yesterday about Iran was “extraordinary,” in a way that I hadn’t considered. “He shifted the frame,” Duvall noted, “from [the question of] ‘were the elections fradulent’ to ‘what’s the responsibility of the Iranian government for peaceful dissent?’ That lays down a marker going forward: this is how we’re assessing you. He doesn’t have to send that in a giant shell shot out of a Howitzer, but it’s a matter of record.” In fact, Duvall said, Obama’s statement was “the first time you’ve heard a president articulate” that “how governments respond to the clamor of their people to be heard should be a measure of how we assess their legitimacy.” While the Bush administration surely wouldn’t have disagreed, he continued, Obama sharpened the point by “focusing it and giving it such visibility” during the largest protests in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
You actually see this time and again, where people who work full-time, all-the-time on the difficult issues of democracy, human rights, and humanitarianism are much less interested in tough talk and posturing than are political pundits who like to parachute into situations and start demanding maximalist rhetoric. The appropriate test of US policy toward the Iranian political crisis continues to be whether or not it actually improves the situation—helps save lives, helps promote political change—not whether or not it’s deemed adequately expressive.
33 Responses to “Actual Democracy Promoters Support Obama’s Approach”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 17th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I’m beginning to think that some of these political pundits don’t actually care about the effects of the actions they promoting. They just want to score political points.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Oh c’mon now, of course the Bushies would have disagreed. Look what they countenanced at the 2008 GOP convention. They wish they could club Matt Yglesias and the other bloggers in the face then kick them in the balls.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I’m beginning to think that some of these political pundits don’t actually care about the effects of the actions they promoting. They just want to score political points.
For them, when Obama does the right thing it is a bug, not a feature.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am
The most generous reading of the Iraq hawk/neo-con position is that they think there absolutely nothing – and I mean nothing – that will help the green protesters gain the popular and institutional support they need among the Iranian public and elite in order to effect meaningful change, more than a great, big, sloppy, belligerent wet kiss from the President of the United States.
As Bill Buckley used to say, “I’d take you at your word, but that would be an insult to your intelligence.”
June 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Upping the ante, the latest neocon argument seems to be something like that Obama’s failure to wrap the protesters in the American flag–for their own protection, of course–is not just excessively timid, but in fact is a positive indication that Obama actually wants the protests to be crushed as soon as possible so that he can get back to his plan of selling us out to Ahmadinejad.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Whats_100000_or_so_deaths_to_retain_political_and_professional_credibility.html
June 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I don’t think they can tell the difference anymore.
These are the same people who think that their blogs are a front in the War on Terror.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Andrew Sullivan points out that the Mossad wants Ahmadinejad.
“”The reality in Iran is not going to change because of the elections. The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate [Mir Hossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element…It is important to remember that he is the one who began Iran’s nuclear program when he was prime minister.”"
Is Sullivan a “neocon”? He was for Obama and is pretty gung ho on the “Green Revolution”. I didn’t think it was cool when the left would mock the “colored” revolutions in Lebanon, the Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Or mocked the Buddhists in Burma. Because the American empire doesn’t like Burma.
But it is notable that Mousavi is keeping the protests peaceable and that the authorities aren’t doing a full crackdown a la China/Burma. And it is notable what Obama said.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The appropriate test of US policy toward the Iranian political crisis continues to be whether or not it actually improves the situation—
No, no, no! What a ridiculous test. The true test is of a policy is whether it allows nerdy, flabby right-wingers to compensate for the slights of their boyhoods by giving them a way to feel manly and macho via proxy.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Stefan,
To be fair, some of them may just want a book deal.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Oh, absolutely. A chastened one, to be sure, maybe a little more reality-based, but he has the same fundamental view of foreign policy that he had in March 2003.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
All irony aside, it *really is* a mystery to me what the hell McCain and Pence and all these other yahoos think they’re accomplishing by criticizing Obama for doing exactly what the Iranian opposition wants him to be doing.
I think some or all of the following factors apply, but I have no idea how much weight any of them carries:
1. They honestly believe that they know how to handle Iranian domestic politics better than the Iranian opposition does, and they believe if the President spoke out strongly on behalf of Mousavi this would not be successfully used by the regime to undermine the opposition as American stooges, as virtually all reform-minded Iranians seem to believe.
2. They haven’t given a moment’s thought to what the Iranian opposition thinks or wants. They know in their guts that American Presidents can alter the course of history through the sheer force of their resolute, manly will. Therefore, Obama should OBVIOUSLY make a bold stand in favor of freedom and the American way, because this is always the right choice in any situation.
3. They neither know, nor care, whether Obama is doing the right thing in regard to the outcome of the situation in Iran. What matters is the situation in the US, and the goal is to win the news cycle by convincing Americans that whatever Obama did today is not only wrong, but also totally gay and objectively socialist.
4. They believe diplomacy itself is totally gay and objectively socialist. Bomb the bastards!
5. These people are dumber than a bag of rocks and are reading from talking points handed to them by someone in categories 1-4.
Frankly, out of all of these, I find #1 to be the least convincing.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Nobody was mocking them, Poptarts. We were mocking you.
You, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Congressional Republicans, and various other third-hand hangers-on to those revolutions, who tried to pretend they not only understood them, but that they had something to do with them. We mocked the hell out of you guys, but not really the Lebanese, the Ukrainians, the Gerogians, and the Burmese Buddhists.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I’d say
6. They believe that defeating the Democrats requires fighting against every single action taken or statement given by Barack Obama, leader of the Democratic Party. Any hint of compromise or quarter harms their future electoral prospects.
They’d be doing the exact same thing with the exact same level of moral outrage if the president had taken in a show in new york. oh, right.
Iran’s irrelevant to the choices made by Republican leaders and their pundits.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Somehow I missed that was (3). I think it fits their actions just about perfectly.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Didn’t we go through a dress rehearsal of this last summer?
Didn’t Georgia, egged on by the neo-cons, make aggressive moves in South Ossenia, the Russian Army retaliated, McCain got on his high horse, the Russian Army doubled down, thousands of Georgian were killed, the Georgia president humiliated.
That worked out well, didn’t it?
When is the WaPo going to release that the neo-cons are constistently wrong across the board?
Oh, yeah, there’s Fred Hiatt . . .
June 17th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I ran my comment #12 by a friend, who responded…
#1 explains David Frum. #2 explains John McCain. #3 explains Karl Rove. #5 explains Mike Pence. And they all have jobs because the Republican Base believes #4.
I think he probably nailed it.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
If the Iranians are able to make positive changes, or even force the leadership to institute a more democratic government, it will be a horrible result for the neocons.
Moral leadership, a stronger emphasis on diplomacy and non-intervention are anathema to the neocons.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Larison today:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/17/playing-into-their-hands/
Another interesting perspective:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html
June 17th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I think he probably nailed it.
That he did.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
You, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Congressional Republicans, and various other third-hand hangers-on to those revolutions, who tried to pretend they not only understood them, but that they had something to do with them. We mocked the hell out of you guys, but not really the Lebanese, the Ukrainians, the Gerogians, and the Burmese Buddhists.
Well I’m mocking you now Joe from Lowell. You dont really give a shit about these foreigners who are struggling against oppressive governments. You don’t want to hear about them, you dont’ want to know about them. When the Iranian spontaneous protests happen all that came from the anti-war left was an awkward silence. And an protest-too-much insistance that this had nothing to do Iraq or the Middle East.
Instead all you want to do is talk about Bush or John McCain and neocons. Because it makes you feel better or something. They’re the focus even if they’re out of power. They’re an alibi. Sometimes these things are bigger than Democrats versus Republicans.
You couch your indifference to these uprising as some sort of wise philosophy of “the world’s complicated” but really it is just the callousness learned by being spoiled by living in a free-developed nation.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Or mocked the Buddhists in Burma.
Cite, please.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
And an protest-too-much insistance that this had nothing to do Iraq or the Middle East.
You misinterpret the reason we have spell things out in large, friendly letters for pig-ignorant fuckers like yourself.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Joe from Lowell,
Speak for yourself. I mocked the color revolutions when I happened, I hoped that they would fail, and I hope they would fail now. The so-called ‘democratizers’ in Ukraine were nothing but p*ssified stooges of Western liberal capitalism, ready to sell out their country, and I have nothing but utter contempt for them.
Honestly, neoimperialist yahoos like Poptarts are the best argument for why the Iranian Revolution was necessary. I don’t like Ahmadinejad, but nor do I like the Twittering hipster-cosmopolites who are leading the so-called revolt. Iran needs to be run for the benefit of the rural peasant- not for the benefit of antisemitic nutjobs, and not for the benefit of urban hipsters.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
They’re not twittering because they’re in love with their Blackberries, they’re twittering because it’s an anonymous way to spread the word quickly. You can bet that the Bolsheviks would have used Twitter if it had existed in 1917.
Beyond which, neither you nor soullite nor JT have given any indication that “hipster-cosmopolites” or “corporatists” or whatever are behind these protests. You’re relying solely on your own prejudices.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Tomemos,
I dislike the Bolsheviks, too. Give me the Socialist-Revolutionaries anyday. They were much more in touch with the agrarian essence of Russia.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Poptarts:
Well I’m mocking you now Joe from Lowell. You dont really give a shit about these foreigners who are struggling against oppressive governments. You don’t want to hear about them, you dont’ want to know about them. When the Iranian spontaneous protests happen all that came from the anti-war left was an awkward silence. And an protest-too-much insistance that this had nothing to do Iraq or the Middle East.
Left or right, I think any Americans ruminating over what is and what is not good for Iranians, Ukrainians or Georgians from behind a computer screen is pretty obscene. The Iranians are the ones standing in squares wondering if the militia are going to riddle them with bullets from rooftops. They’re the ones taking the risks and I doubt they really give a shit if some Neocon or anti-war blogger 8,000 miles away advocates bombing the hell out of Iran or being a diplomatic dove. They probably have more immediate concerns like staying out of Evin Prison.
I think that people (from either side of the political spectrum) who feel that their opinion about the situation in Iran actually means something reeks of narcissism. Unfortunately, that is what the media and political player on.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Iran needs to be run for the benefit of the rural peasant- not for the benefit of antisemitic nutjobs, and not for the benefit of urban hipsters.
According to the statistics it seems that your Iranian revolutionary rural peasantry is in love with a muslim clerical regime and their anti-semetic nutjob friend Ahmadinejad. So much for that.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Kropotkin,
Well, yes. That’s why I don’t have a chosen side. But I refuse to give any more sympathy to the oligarchic collaborator Moussavi than I do to the antisemitic warmonger Ahmadinejad. You, on the other hand, have thrown your support to Moussavi, stooge of the West. You should be very proud of yourself for your lack of principle, I suppose.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Moussavi is not a “stooge of the West”, he’s a stooge of Hashemi Rafsanjani. People still don’t get that this whole business – the entire election and subsequent protests – is a proxy fight between Khamenei and Rafsanjani. Nothing more or less, whatever the pawns on the street think.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Poptarts,
You are an ignorant dumbass.
Yes, of course; hence my frequent reading and commenting on blogs discussing the events.
And here’s the part where I prove you to be an ignorant dumbass:
http://www.dailykos.com
Go ahead, check out the diaries on the Iranian protests, you ignorant dumbass. Anti-war left, anyone?
Like an ignorant dumbass – a conservative ignorant dumbass in particular, but I repeat myself – you spout off without bothering to do any checking to see if your feelings match up to the world outside your mom’s basement. So, you end up writing things, like this, that advertise exactly what an ignorant dumbass you are.
You’ve decided that you WANT it to be true that the anti-war left has no interest in these protests, and you’re certainly not going ruin things by finding out if it’s actually true or not.
This is why our side is the reality-based community, and yours isn’t.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Ah, so that’s what the ignorant dumbass’s little outburst was all about; I’m giving too much credit to the Iranian protesters themselves, instead of crediting George Bush’s failed war with causing every good thing that happens in the world.
What a sad, bitter little man you are.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Here you go, ignorant dumbass.
The anti-war left’s “awkward silence” about the Iranian protests.