Mike Pence’s Dangerous Game
Who will tell the Iranians that Mike Pence (R-IN) is a fool?
Tom Ricks watches a Mike Pence (R-IN) appearance on Fox News and comes away fearing for the lives of Iran’s brave protestors:
I just hope that Iranian protestors know not to take this clown seriously.
This problem goes to the essence of strategy: A “tough” stance that Fox’s anchors are pushing might feel good, but it likely would be unproductive. A sober stance of the sort that Obama has taken is more difficult but likely more effective in the long run.
For quite some time now I’ve been trying to emphasize the point that Pence is not an intelligent man. It’s good to see Ricks notice this as well. But I think it’s important for people in the journalism game to get a bit more interdisciplinary on this. Oftentimes people are inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt. A Ricks might say “well, this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about on national security, but maybe his energy ideas make sense.” Ask around, though, and you’ll see it’s not the case. He’s just got dumb ideas on all sorts of topics. And it’s worth aggressively making that point. It’s all well and good to “hope” that Iranian protestors recognize that he’s a “clown” and shouldn’t be taken seriously. But the odds are actually pretty good that foreigners will take the situation at face value—he’s one of the highest-ranking and most prominent members of a major political party, so surely his pronouncements should be taken seriously. Right? Because if such a high-level party leader were, in fact, a “clown” then people would hear about that. Right?
60 Responses to “Mike Pence’s Dangerous Game”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 19th, 2009 at 11:31 am
We had a clown for a president for 8 years. I think at this point its safest to assume an American politician is a clown until proven otherwise.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I’ve been trying to emphasize the point that Pence is not an intelligence man.
Don’t you mean, he’s not an “intelligent man”?
Makes more sense that way . . .
June 19th, 2009 at 11:34 am
How do the statements of legislators from the American opposition party play among the publics of dictatorial nations like Iran?
Might the wailing about how the United States should take a side in Iran’s presidential election, and the attacks on Obama for not doing so, from Mike Pence serve to underline to them that Obama is not doing so, and thereby help drive home that message?
June 19th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Maybe Pence is stupid like a fox, though. I mean, the more Republicans and neoconservatives complain loudly that Obama (who is, after all, the president) isn’t doing enough to help the Iranians, the more they reinforce the fact that Obama is actually exercising restraint.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I just want to make explicit what Pence was saying:
Yowzers. Unqualified support? Really, Mike?
However, while I sorta get Matt’s point, I would hope that Mike Pence is actually low enough on the totem pole in a party that doesn’t control anything at the national level such that the Iranians understand they really shouldn’t be paying him much attention (if they know he exists at all).
June 19th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I’ve been waiting for this post for two days.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Speaking of Fox News, I assume you have read Reihan Salam’s “provocative” attempt to defend Glenn Beck over at the Daily Beast.
I know you are a fan of Salam, I am too, he is one of perhaps five interesting conservative pundits out there.
But this was just so lame.
I would love to see an Yglesias take on the logical fallacies in his argument, which basically breaks down to: “insane people on TV is a good thing because then insane Americans can have a friend to turn to and then they will not kill people!”
June 19th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Riffing on what DTM said, unqualified support- without preconditions?
Aren’t these the same guys that a few months ago were itching to start a war and bomb these “brave men and women” or at least their fellow countrymen?
June 19th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Tom Ricks:
I just hope that Iranian protestors know not to take this clown seriously.
Ricks is amazingly stupid if he thinks Iranians know or care who Mike Pence is. He’s a clown if he thinks Iranians watch Fox News.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Tom Ricks:
Meanwhile, for those reality-based readers who were wondering about the vote in the Iranian countryside, in the LA Times, Babrak Rahimi, an academic who recently was doing research in southern Iran, says his sense is that rural Iranians did not vote overwhelmingly for the mean little guy.
I’m coming across many other Iranians who are saying the election was definitely rigged, and they believe it for a variety of good reasons.
This means Krauthammer and Daniel Larison are wrong when they believe all Iranians like Amhadenijad’s belicose behavior.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:55 am
In the end, a lot of this right-wing chest-beating about how the President should be standing up and acting and speaking more directly on this issue has made me realize that in the end, whatever the issue, a lot of Republicans still think everything is about us. However well-intentioned they may be, they’re still motivated at some level by a sense of entitlement that makes them feel resentful if the U.S.A. (well, the “Real America”, anyway) isn’t in the spotlight. Ego is a harsh mistress.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
The real problem is that Fox News can deliberately lie to the voters of this country –can mislead them for the sake of private agendas — and no one calls them on it.
Why do the other networks not stand up and destroy Murdoch? Tell the people of this country EVERY DAY: Here is how Fox Lied to you today. Here are the facts.
Admittedly, Olbermann tried it on MSNBC — and NBC’s parent corporation GE was viciously attacked by Fox. But why can’t we declare war on this Nazi propaganda apparatus and destroy it?
It is one thing to have disagreements over policy –but it is something else to tolerate dishonest discourse in the public forum. If 40 percent of the voters of this country are brainwashed into believing Murdoch’s bullshit, that is because no one challenges Fox.
Why did we let a fucking chickenshit Australian take over US politican discourse anyway?
June 19th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
In the end, a lot of this right-wing chest-beating about how the President should be standing up and acting and speaking more directly on this issue has made me realize that in the end, whatever the issue, a lot of Republicans still think everything is about us. However well-intentioned they may be, they’re still motivated at some level by a sense of entitlement that makes them feel resentful if the U.S.A. (well, the “Real America”, anyway) isn’t in the spotlight. Ego is a harsh mistress.
Completely true. And then some antiwar people are annoyed by spontaneous protests in Iran because it gives the Republicans an opportunity to beat their chests and spout off. And in a way the Pence is right in that the protesters deserve our support. And that annoys some people.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
So it’s a big circle of BS.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
…some people that Poptarts can’t name, but he just knows exist.
You know, the anti-war left, which has greeted these protests with an awkward silence.
And by “awkward silence,” I mean “being the most prominent story on liberal blogs and cable news shows for the past week.” That kind of “awkward silence.”
June 19th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Name on, Poppy.
C’mon, one person who fits the description: the protesters deserve our support. And that annoys some people.
Who are “some people” in this sentence? Name one, or STFU.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
It’s amazing how thoroughly the Iranian protests have discredited the neocon/”liberal hawk” line.
They told us that democratic reform in the Middle East cannot happen without American military intervention. They were wrong.
They told us that “democratic” and “pro-American” were interchangeable terms, that a movement could not be one without the other. They were wrong.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I agree totally with your substantial point but in practice the relevant Iranians are quite savvy where the US political scene is concerned–and its not as if they don’t have their own populist idiots.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
MY “Because if such a high-level party leader were, in fact, a “clown” then people would hear about that. Right?”
It is tough, Matt, to figure out the who the real “clowns” are because there are so goddamn many of them.
I watched Saxby Chambliss weigh in on this matter last night and he made Mikey Pence look like verifiable genius.
What are going to do?
June 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Yeah, with them in spirit. That and 20 stitches will fix the gash on their head from the police batons.
Given today’s speech by the Supreme Leader, it’d be nice for Obama to maybe say something about how nice it would be if Iran didn’t slaughter the protesters by the 100s, but the reality is our options regarding Iran at this point are painfully limited. I can’t really think of much we could do that doesn’t have as good a chance of harming as helping. Saturday is going to suck hard.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Poptarts,
FUCL OFF YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.
That is the only response your insults are going to get from now on
June 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
And by “awkward silence,” I mean “being the most prominent story on liberal blogs and cable news shows for the past week.” That kind of “awkward silence.”
Prominent? Not at all. People can judge for themselves. Liberals are making fun of Andrew Sullivan cause he is going crazy with posts (and will need a mental health break soon) but I sympathize with him more than the liberal blogs. They just treat it as an occasion to make fun of the stupid things Republicans say and nothing more.
daveNYC:
Given today’s speech by the Supreme Leader, it’d be nice for Obama to maybe say something about how nice it would be if Iran didn’t slaughter the protesters by the 100s, but the reality is our options regarding Iran at this point are painfully limited. I can’t really think of much we could do that doesn’t have as good a chance of harming as helping. Saturday is going to suck hard.
I’m afraid you’re right. And Obama should say it, or say it after the slaughter. I don’t think what we do matters one way or the other, they’re already blaming it on Zionists. If McCain was President and was mouthing off it, it wouldn’t make any difference. But if he had bombed the hipster twitterers, that would have been different.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
FUCL OFF???
June 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
What exactly did Pence say that was stupid? Or is expressing support for peaceful protests now beyond the pale? I don’t get it.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Joe from Lowell:
It’s amazing how thoroughly the Iranian protests have discredited the neocon/”liberal hawk” line.
They told us that democratic reform in the Middle East cannot happen without American military intervention. They were wrong.
That is exactly wrong. It’s amazing how wrong the antiwar line was. They said Iraq would make the Middle East worse, and yet it’s getting better. The “liberal hawk” line was in support of democratic reform in the Middle East. People like Joe said it’s imperialism and “imposing our values.” Well guess what? They have the same values. Iran has shown the antiwar/isolationist line to be a sham.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
What exactly did Pence say that was stupid? Or is expressing support for peaceful protests now beyond the pale? I don’t get it.
He’s a Republican. So whatever he says is stupid. Unless he’s Richard Lugar or Pat Buchanan.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Re: They have the same values.
No, they don’t. The only Iranians who share your values are your beloved hipster twitterer yahoos in Tehran. Scr*w them.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Pence is what you get when an intellectual movement and a political party spend a few decade fomenting anti-intellectualism for electoral advantage. It starts out with smart people acting dumb. It ends with actual dumb people.
Mike
June 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“What exactly did Pence say that was stupid? Or is expressing support for peaceful protests now beyond the pale?”
The more the protest movement can be identified with external Western forces, the less legitimacy it will have within Iran. Or is that too frickin’ complicated for you?
Mike
June 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I agree with Poptarts to the extent that Pence isn’t going to be noticed outside the US. Simple as that. Leading House Republicans have the international reach of the Kansas City Royals’ pitching staff.
His other points? Not so much. Liberal hawks really need to stop acting like it’s all about them. It’s really pathetic to see people clutch at this thing or that thing as if it finally justifies their cheerleading of a disastrous, fucked-up war of choice and washes the the blood of hundreds of thousands from their hands.
Sorry, vindication or absolution doesn’t come that cheaply.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
His other points? Not so much. Liberal hawks really need to stop acting like it’s all about them. It’s really pathetic to see people clutch at this thing or that thing as if it finally justifies their cheerleading of a disastrous, fucked-up war of choice and washes the the blood of hundreds of thousands from their hands.
It fucking sickens me when assholes like pseudonymoun in nc get all self-righteous about “washing the the blood of hundreds of thousands from their hands.” when they support the war in Afghanistan. Fucking riduculous. He should just shut the fuck up.
And people like him say a guy like Saddam Hussein “wasn’t that bad.” Genocide isn’t bad? Talk about the blood of hundreds of thousands.
Fact is Iraq happened. Iran got a friendly regime next door. Positive change happened in Iran. But pseudonymous will never admit b/c he’s too dishonest.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I got back from Iran on Sunday, so believe me when I say you’re wrong and that I hope you die in a manner that involves some combination of goats, syphilis, and a car fire.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
when they support the war in Afghanistan.
Uh, no. Again, your capacity to put words in people’s mouths and jump to conclusions is second to none.
people like him say a guy like Saddam Hussein “wasn’t that bad.”
Really? If we’re going to play that game: people like Poptarts say “raping children is fun”.
Fact is Iraq happened.
How very fucking glib of you. Fact is, Poptarts desperately wants to come up with whatever rationale he can to wash the blood of hundreds and thousands from his hands, and he’ll be doing it for the next twenty years. But absolution doesn’t come that cheaply.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
It does offer the benefit of having commitee meetings in tiny little cars.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
is other points? Not so much. Liberal hawks really need to stop acting like it’s all about them. It’s really pathetic to see people clutch at this thing or that thing as if it finally justifies their cheerleading of a disastrous, fucked-up war of choice and washes the the blood of hundreds of thousands from their hands.
I never cheerleaded the war so don’t put words in my mouth. We were talking about Iran and I don’t understand why people like pseudonymous are so heavily invested in the idea that Iraq was the worst disaster in history that they can’t comprehend that by removing a genocidal dictator next door it’s possible – not certain but possible – that it helped reduce the paranoia level in Iranian society. That by creating a less hostile shia majority democracy next door, Iran and the Middle East could improve.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Fact is Iraq happened. Iran got a friendly regime next door. Positive change happened in Iran.
The implied causal linkage in this description of the sequence of events is not a proven fact, and indeed is not particularly plausible once you review the entire relevant history.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
In our representative democracy we need to realize that perhaps clowns are elected to public office because the majority of the citizens they represent hold the same views as the clowns they elect? Ergo it takes a lot of clowns to elect/re-elect a clown?
June 19th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Fact is I jerked off a week or two ago. A picture of an Iranian chick got jizz all over it. Positive change happened in Iran. But Poptarts will never admit it b/c of his self-professed love of raping babies.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
DTM:
The implied causal linkage in this description of the sequence of events is not a proven fact, and indeed is not particularly plausible once you review the entire relevant history.
The causal linkage is overdetermined but it’s plausible. There are a ton of factors and variables, but it makes sense. At one point you had a warmongering Sunni dictator lording over the majority Shia and Kurds. He annexed Kuwait but was kicked out. Then finally he was removed and a democratic Shia government came to power and is friendly with Iran. Why wouldn’t this ease things in Iran, especially now that the US is leaving Iraq?
June 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
No, it is not plausible. For the hundredth time:
Before Bush Iraq Program: Reformists winning elections in Iran, massive pro-democracy protests in the streets.
During Bush Iraq Program: Ahmedinejad winning elections in Iran, no pro-democracy protests.
After Bush Iraq Program: Reformist wins election in Iran, massive pro-democracy protests in the streets.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Then Ahmedinejad was elected.
Then the friendly Shia government in Iraq invited him to visit Baghdad.
Then the friendly Shia lining the streets threw flowers at his convoy.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
After having gotten worse, it is now recovering from the damage. Finally, at last, the pro-democracy protests that used to be common in Iran, before Bush’s Really Big Idea That Couldn’t Possibly Go Wrong, are back.
Wrong. That is the liberal line. The liberal HAWK line, as evidenced by the word HAWK, was the use of military force in support of regime change. The liberal dove line was “You can’t spread democracy BY GUNPOINT.”
The liberal HAWK line is, indeed, imperialism and imposing our values. Support for indigenous democratic reform in the Middle East is the liberal DOVE line.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Poptarts,
What a joke, you call the American client regime in Iraq a ‘democracy’? That ‘democracy’ will last every bit of three minutes after the Americans leave. After which it will be replaced by some kind of authoritarian regime- whether socialist, Islamist, or militarist- or else by civil war. Liberal Western-style government can, for the foreseeable future, be counted on to fail in Iraq, in Iran, and elsewhere in the Middle East. As much as you might like it if Iraq were transformed magically into a nation of Starbucks-sipping suburbanite hipsters quoting Jefferson and Locke, it isn’t going to happen.
How come the supposed ’successful Shia democracy’ needs American troops to maintain its existence?
June 19th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Liberal Western-style government can, for the foreseeable future, be counted on to fail in Iraq, in Iran, and elsewhere in the Middle East.”
Well in Lebanon and Turkey it worked reasonably well and in Iran the opposition has been impressive in their civil disobedience and peaceful protest to the fraudulent election. And they’re next door to the friendly Shia Iraqi government who allow Iranian prilgrims to visit Shia’s holiest site in Iraq.
The Middle East was screwed up by colonialism and the proxy wars of the Cold War (b/c of the oil). It’s not the people.
If Iran moderates, it’s a game changer since they’re such an infuential player whose power is on the rise.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Poptarts,
Why are you so invested in exporting your p*ssified, gutless, soulless, and decadent form of government to other countries? After hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Turkey, don’t make me laugh. Just wait till the next time the Islamists go a little too far and the army has to step in to overthrow them.
I dislike Ahmadinejad and Khamenei as much as the next man, but Iran _does not need liberal democracy._
June 19th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“Positive change happened in Iran.”
And when my eggs hatch, I’m going to be swimming in chickens.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Before Bush Iraq Program: Reformists winning elections in Iran, massive pro-democracy protests in the streets.
During Bush Iraq Program: Ahmedinejad winning elections in Iran, no pro-democracy protests.
After Bush Iraq Program: Reformist wins election in Iran, massive pro-democracy protests in the streets.
The reformists weren’t allowed to do anything. There wasn’t change. The only change came this month as Iran gets used to having a friend Shia government next door.
Saddam Hussein started a devastating 8 year war with Iran and it’s a little solipsitic to think having him gone woudn’t change the atmosphere. Especially when replaced by a friendly peaceable government.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Is this confirmation for the old Yglesias article for the American Prospect suggesting that George W. Bush was an Iranian agent? I always thought that made a lot of sense.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Poptarts, do you feel any compunction to offer evidence that “the atmosphere” in Iran has been changed for the better by the Iraq war? Or is post hoc ergo propter hoc not a logical fallacy where you come from?
June 19th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
It is a logical fallacy where I come from. I just think it makes sense. If Iraq was so horrible and a black hole that spreads instability to neighboring countries, you’d think things would be getting worse in Iran.
It could be this is all happening despite Iraq but I just believe the “box” around Saddam was failing and he or Uday and Qusai would have continued oppressing the majority Shia and making the middle east worse. Sanctions were certainly making Iraq worse and worse and only recently are they recovering from a decade of sanctions.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
What change? What have the reformists been allowed to do in Iran? Heck, the mullahs won’t even let them win the election, officially, this time!
The only difference I can see between these protests an July 1999 is that these protests aren’t as pro-American.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
1. You don’t know what solipsistic means.
2. The huge protests and reform-candidate election victories that characterized Iranian politics before Bush’s war took place while Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq.
3. The disappearance of those protests and Ahmedinejad’s victory took place after Saddam had been removed.
4. The absence of Saddam Hussein is not the only, or even the most significant, consequence of the Iraq War.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
What change? What have the reformists been allowed to do in Iran? Heck, the mullahs won’t even let them win the election, officially, this time!
If these reformists won there would be some change. And the positive change is that someone defied the Supreme Leader and the protests and civil disobedience of the rigged election. There already has been a change. The Supreme Leader’s invincibility has cracked and things will never be the same.
Or havn’t you been paying attention?
June 19th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“If these reformists won there would be some change.”
And as I tried to indicate with my chicken and egg comment, that is not the same as change having happened. I wish it weren’t so, but the most lasting change we’re likely to see is a lot of people dead who were alive before a government crackdown. But like a good Iraq War supporter, dead Middle Easterners are always a sign of progress for you.
The idea that “things will never be the same” makes no sense. Has everything changed in China thanks to Tianamen? Yes, it has; the regime is much more secure than it was beforehand.
And regardless of what happens, none of this is because of the Iraq war. How do I know? Because you haven’t shown an iota of evidence that installing a government friendly to Ahmadinejad has somehow emboldened his opponents.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
So, just to be clear, you’re acknowledging that there hasn’t actually been any change to date. You’re just speculating that there might be some in the future. OK.
…which is different from the July 1999 protests, how, exactly? They defied the Supreme Leader, and they didn’t even have to put up with rigged elections. Is that what’s different – the mullahs are rigging elections now?
It’s great that the youth-led protest/dissent culture that was growing in strength before the Iraq War killed it is back. Things were trending in the right direction before, and I hope you’re right that they pick up and gain more momentum, but your continued insistence on denying the existence of pre-OIF protest movement that gave birth to this week’s peaceful uprising is odd. It’s almost as if you can’t stand the thought that Iranians can, by themselves, organize for democratic reform.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“The only change came this month as Iran gets used to having a friend Shia government next door.”
Seriously, think hard about this. Iran having a friendly Shia government next door—one that has welcomed and legitimized Ahmadinejad—serves the cause of secular democracy and emboldens people against their fundamentalist Shia regime? You “just think it makes sense,” huh?
June 19th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I would just like to preemptively point out that the following – “It makes sense that removing a hostile dictator next door could encourage the opposition” – isn’t actually evidence.
Poptarts keeps offering that statement as if it were evidence. It’s a perfectly logical hypothesis, Poppy, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to demonstrate that it is actually true, and the course of events over the past decade seems to indicate that the opposite is true.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
And people like him say a guy like Saddam Hussein “wasn’t that bad.” Genocide isn’t bad?
You’ve been told numerous times that “some people say” and “people like him” are transparent attempts to set up a strawman. If you’re talking about actual liberals who say or believe these things, name them and we can assess their credibility and yours. Otherwise we’ll assume you’re making them up to hijack the discussion.
And Hector, come on man. I don’t like hipsters and I don’t like Starbucks, but hipsters don’t go to Starbucks.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The “hipsters” in question are shouting “Allahu Akbar” from rooftop to rooftop.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Poptarts really is a simpleton.