A group of Californians are currently promoting the formation of a Constitutional Convention to, in their own words, 'repair California'.
Although their website hits a few of my personal political off-switches (banging on about 'infrastructure' is one of them) it's very interesting on one particular point. The Convention that this group is proposing would be made up of delegates chosen effectively at random on the basis of geographic distribution from among Californians (I'm assuming California residents).
This model - the jury model of government, essentially - is one that's often proposed by anarchists as a way of preventing decision-making bodies from forming their own vested interests. I'm a little unsure about the specific California model - I'd rather see people represented on income, or failing that, occupational distribution than merely geographic.
And of course there is the problem of actually getting people to participate. Presumably being a delegate would be a full-time job, so it might be hard to convince people so appointed to resign in order to become delegates. It might be possible to pass laws to compel delegate's employers to retain them for a fixed period after their return, and of course it wouldn't hurt to compensate them generously - very generously, in fact, so that the only people taking pay cuts would be the very wealthy (and frankly, if the conference discriminates against the very wealthy, well, I'd be comfortable with that). This would be far preferable, in my view, to trying to compel people to attend - because a delegate who is legally compelled to act as a delegate is unlikely to give the job his/her all.
So really, while I don't expect that these delegates will actually produce anything revolutionary, and even if they did it would be severely constrained by the liberal nature of the US constitution, the methodology of choosing delegates here is something I find it very easy to get behind. Not something I can often say about movements in mainstream politics - let alone US politics!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Death panels and all that
I have a few friends who, whatever else their virtues might be, suffer from a certain... American-ness. I often manage to surprise them with idiot savant style knowledge of fairly obscure facts about American geography, such as the name of the bohemian district in Atlanta (Little Five Points) or which American state, post Ted Kennedy, is the only one entirely represented in the Senate by failed Presidential candidates (Connecticut). I like to claim that this is due to years of studying American politics, and that's partly it, but less impressive is the fact that I spent a lot of my teens playing White Wolf RPGs, whose default setting is the USA, and which encouraged a pornographic detail in setting creation. But anyway, I mention all this not just to prove that despite byielding to nobody in my anti-Americaness I have American friends, but to justify the fact that this is going to be a post about American politics.
It's not escaped my attention that the rallies directed at Barack Obama's healthcare reform proposals have attracted a lot of criticism from leftist circles both inside and outside the USA. Pablo's piece on kiwipolitico is an example of the sort of criticism I'm talking about, although perhaps a little more, erm, strident than most. It's pretty easy to knock down the idea that the people waving banners outside Democrat rallies are actual fascists (unless, like Pablo, we want to define the word out of any meaning) but not quite as easy to claim that there's nothing especially alarming about their presence. I'm going to, though.
One doesn't have to have utopian populist ideas to accept that mass political demonstrations are a good thing. Where the criticism kicks in is when people start complaining about the inarticulate nature of the protests - probably the best sign of this is the persistent comparisons of Democrat plans to Nazism. I'm a big fan of Godwin's law, and I think it applies outside the internet - comparing one's opponents to Hitler is as good, to me, as admitting 'I have no substantive criticism to make'. But it occurs to me this isn't the first time in the current US political cycle that Presidents have been compared to Hitler.
I'm thinking, of course, of the mass protests that dogged Bush during the leadup to the Iraq War, when comparisons between Bush and Hitler were, shall we say, not entirely unknown. And while leftist commentators might not have explicitly agreed that Bush actually was a Nazi, they certainly didn't view the appearance of such banners, slogans etc among anti-war protestors as invalidating their movement or their criticisms of Bush's policy.
Of course it could be argued that such criticisms did make an important point - that Bush's policy towards Iraq was substantially similar to Hitler's policy towards Poland - trumping up a cassus belli, invading and conquering. The thing is, if this is a substantial similarity, it's hardly one that makes Bush unique - this kind of behaviour has recurred throughout history, will doubtless continue to occur and was in fact occurring in Africa during the anti-war protests, to little comment. And it's not for Hitler's indifference towards the concept of cassus belli that's made him the secular equivalent of Satan. It's the whole 'genocide' thing.
It's probably true that Obama's healthcare proposals substantially resemble Hitler's - ironically, before the War began, Hitler's policies tended to be moderately interventionist, enough to be considered 'left' in an American context (although maybe not in a European one). But pointing this out is no more notable than pointing out that Obama, like Hitler, has two legs, two arms, a mouth and a nose.
Ultimately my problem with the problem people have with the anti healthcare reform protestors is that I often get the sense that we're being told that the dialogue would be better if people stayed home rather than expressing insufficiently sophisticated views. That strikes me as dangerous and un-democratic. Sure, it's hard not to sympathise with Barney Frank when he flat out refuses to engage with somebody comparing Obama to Hitler, and in such an extreme case I probably would do the same. But to me the problem begins not when these ill-informed people choose to leave their homes and engage with the political process, but when people refuse to engage with them.
It's not escaped my attention that the rallies directed at Barack Obama's healthcare reform proposals have attracted a lot of criticism from leftist circles both inside and outside the USA. Pablo's piece on kiwipolitico is an example of the sort of criticism I'm talking about, although perhaps a little more, erm, strident than most. It's pretty easy to knock down the idea that the people waving banners outside Democrat rallies are actual fascists (unless, like Pablo, we want to define the word out of any meaning) but not quite as easy to claim that there's nothing especially alarming about their presence. I'm going to, though.
One doesn't have to have utopian populist ideas to accept that mass political demonstrations are a good thing. Where the criticism kicks in is when people start complaining about the inarticulate nature of the protests - probably the best sign of this is the persistent comparisons of Democrat plans to Nazism. I'm a big fan of Godwin's law, and I think it applies outside the internet - comparing one's opponents to Hitler is as good, to me, as admitting 'I have no substantive criticism to make'. But it occurs to me this isn't the first time in the current US political cycle that Presidents have been compared to Hitler.
I'm thinking, of course, of the mass protests that dogged Bush during the leadup to the Iraq War, when comparisons between Bush and Hitler were, shall we say, not entirely unknown. And while leftist commentators might not have explicitly agreed that Bush actually was a Nazi, they certainly didn't view the appearance of such banners, slogans etc among anti-war protestors as invalidating their movement or their criticisms of Bush's policy.
Of course it could be argued that such criticisms did make an important point - that Bush's policy towards Iraq was substantially similar to Hitler's policy towards Poland - trumping up a cassus belli, invading and conquering. The thing is, if this is a substantial similarity, it's hardly one that makes Bush unique - this kind of behaviour has recurred throughout history, will doubtless continue to occur and was in fact occurring in Africa during the anti-war protests, to little comment. And it's not for Hitler's indifference towards the concept of cassus belli that's made him the secular equivalent of Satan. It's the whole 'genocide' thing.
It's probably true that Obama's healthcare proposals substantially resemble Hitler's - ironically, before the War began, Hitler's policies tended to be moderately interventionist, enough to be considered 'left' in an American context (although maybe not in a European one). But pointing this out is no more notable than pointing out that Obama, like Hitler, has two legs, two arms, a mouth and a nose.
Ultimately my problem with the problem people have with the anti healthcare reform protestors is that I often get the sense that we're being told that the dialogue would be better if people stayed home rather than expressing insufficiently sophisticated views. That strikes me as dangerous and un-democratic. Sure, it's hard not to sympathise with Barney Frank when he flat out refuses to engage with somebody comparing Obama to Hitler, and in such an extreme case I probably would do the same. But to me the problem begins not when these ill-informed people choose to leave their homes and engage with the political process, but when people refuse to engage with them.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Kind of disturbing stuff here
In a recent post, the Economist's Lexington poo-poos the opposition to the cancellation of the F-22 fighter project due to unanimous statements by America's military leadership that it's not needed.
Now usually I'd be pretty happy to see a fighter jet cancelled - although given that this will only mean more of the F-35 will be built, this is at best a no-score draw from a pacfist point of view. But what interests me more is the statement Lexington seems to be making about decision-making in a democracy - specifically that elected politicians should shut up and vote according to the way the experts tell them to.
If the experts were professional bureaucrats in, say, the Department of Agriculture or Commerce, rather than professional bureaucrats in the Department of Defense or Joint Chiefs, somehow I think Lexington might have been less sympathetic.
Now I realise that the Senators who opposed the cancellation were more interested in protecting jobs and, even less defensibly, plum manufacturing contracts in their constituencies. But nonetheless, the fact that they may not have been actually representing the wishes of the people who elected them doesn't deny the fact that they are at least nominally their representatives, as opposed to the people in the Pentagon, who represent nobody but themselves and their own institutional vested interests.
Now usually I'd be pretty happy to see a fighter jet cancelled - although given that this will only mean more of the F-35 will be built, this is at best a no-score draw from a pacfist point of view. But what interests me more is the statement Lexington seems to be making about decision-making in a democracy - specifically that elected politicians should shut up and vote according to the way the experts tell them to.
If the experts were professional bureaucrats in, say, the Department of Agriculture or Commerce, rather than professional bureaucrats in the Department of Defense or Joint Chiefs, somehow I think Lexington might have been less sympathetic.
Now I realise that the Senators who opposed the cancellation were more interested in protecting jobs and, even less defensibly, plum manufacturing contracts in their constituencies. But nonetheless, the fact that they may not have been actually representing the wishes of the people who elected them doesn't deny the fact that they are at least nominally their representatives, as opposed to the people in the Pentagon, who represent nobody but themselves and their own institutional vested interests.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Protestants vs Catholics
As is required by my thesis, I've been reading a lot of 18th century histories right now. Dogged atheist that I may be, it's hard to ignore the religious dimensions of politics during the period, so much as I dislike reading about religion, it's kind of mandatory.
I find it interesting to watch my sympathies as I read about these conflicts, though. When reading about somewhere like France or Germany, where protestants are a persecuted and often more intellectually vigorous minority, my sympathies almost inevitably fall with the protestants (more specifically, the huguenots in France and the lutherans in Germany). On the other hand, when reading about a situation where the protestants are dominant, such as Switzerland or England, my sympathies do a convenient U-turn and it's the catholics who evoke sympathy - although in this case my sympathies have less to do with admiration for the rationalist/iconoclast tradition of catholicism (which doesn't really exist) as for the fact that catholics, even if they claimed to be patriots, were inevitably cast as outsiders to the national community, a process I always find repugnant.
It may simply be that I'm always drawn to the cause of underdogs. But I think there's a bit more to it than that.
I suppose when I read about protestants, it seems to me that protestant thinkers like Luther were ur-atheists. Yes, I realise that this will probably horrify many devout protestants, and I'm well aware of Luther's adherence to many of the more absolute and abhortent creeds of christianity - holy war, persecution of jews and muslims, etc etc. But nonetheless it seems to me that questioning the superstructure of the catholic church, while obviously not a precedent for atheism for any given person, is a necessary predecessor of discarding the church's teachings in their entirety. Certainly it would be hard to argue that the Enlightenment could have taken place without the Reformation, and I'm pretty sure that if there'd been any atheists present at the Diet of Worms, they'd have been nodding along with Luther for much of his speech.
Conversely the situation in England is less to do with any intellectual sympathy with the views held by catholics, but more by the fact that they were made scapegoats during the process of state-building, a process I have little time for even when it doesn't rely on a minority (albeit an unusually wealthy one) to fuel its engines - although in practice, it almost always does. Perhaps this is why the British version of protestantism seems so much more annoying to me than the German-Scandanavian one - it was born, not out of a spirit of intellectual enquiry, but out of crude parochialism.
I find it interesting to watch my sympathies as I read about these conflicts, though. When reading about somewhere like France or Germany, where protestants are a persecuted and often more intellectually vigorous minority, my sympathies almost inevitably fall with the protestants (more specifically, the huguenots in France and the lutherans in Germany). On the other hand, when reading about a situation where the protestants are dominant, such as Switzerland or England, my sympathies do a convenient U-turn and it's the catholics who evoke sympathy - although in this case my sympathies have less to do with admiration for the rationalist/iconoclast tradition of catholicism (which doesn't really exist) as for the fact that catholics, even if they claimed to be patriots, were inevitably cast as outsiders to the national community, a process I always find repugnant.
It may simply be that I'm always drawn to the cause of underdogs. But I think there's a bit more to it than that.
I suppose when I read about protestants, it seems to me that protestant thinkers like Luther were ur-atheists. Yes, I realise that this will probably horrify many devout protestants, and I'm well aware of Luther's adherence to many of the more absolute and abhortent creeds of christianity - holy war, persecution of jews and muslims, etc etc. But nonetheless it seems to me that questioning the superstructure of the catholic church, while obviously not a precedent for atheism for any given person, is a necessary predecessor of discarding the church's teachings in their entirety. Certainly it would be hard to argue that the Enlightenment could have taken place without the Reformation, and I'm pretty sure that if there'd been any atheists present at the Diet of Worms, they'd have been nodding along with Luther for much of his speech.
Conversely the situation in England is less to do with any intellectual sympathy with the views held by catholics, but more by the fact that they were made scapegoats during the process of state-building, a process I have little time for even when it doesn't rely on a minority (albeit an unusually wealthy one) to fuel its engines - although in practice, it almost always does. Perhaps this is why the British version of protestantism seems so much more annoying to me than the German-Scandanavian one - it was born, not out of a spirit of intellectual enquiry, but out of crude parochialism.
A cause for some self-congratulation
There aren't many countries that are regularly perched on top of these sorts of rankings. New Zealand is one of them. Cue a lot of nationalist scoffing, particularly among those who should know better.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Whither Ghana
A US president's trips to Africa always provoke a particular flavour of media commentary, usually along the lines of "Oh yea... Africa, I remember that place". Perhaps I'm biased but the standard of punditry seems a bit higher this time around, possibly because the American President in question has very recent African roots himself.
Lexington believes it's because Ghana represents an African success story of the type that liberal democrats can be pleased with. That's probably part of it - but only part of it, because contrary to what Lexington seems to be saying, Ghana isn't unique in having maintained relatively steady economic growth and democratic transfers of power - Botswana and Senegal would offer similar models, and I'm sure there are a few others too.
There are reasons not to go to either - Botswana is tiny, and Senegal is francophone. But I think the real reason to go to Ghana is that Ghana has had a privileged relationship with the African-American civil rights movement - Martin Luther King travelled there to great acclaim in the 1960s, and W.E. DuBois became a naturalised citizen of Ghana after being refused the right to return to the USA.
Now a lot of people have seen Obama as moving beyond the legacy of the 1960s generation of black civil rights leaders, who are seen as not relevant by many modern African-Americans. But I wouldn't be surprised if this plays at least some part in choosing Ghana to visit among the numerous other African states presumably begging for Obama to drive his motorcade down their main streets.
Lexington believes it's because Ghana represents an African success story of the type that liberal democrats can be pleased with. That's probably part of it - but only part of it, because contrary to what Lexington seems to be saying, Ghana isn't unique in having maintained relatively steady economic growth and democratic transfers of power - Botswana and Senegal would offer similar models, and I'm sure there are a few others too.
There are reasons not to go to either - Botswana is tiny, and Senegal is francophone. But I think the real reason to go to Ghana is that Ghana has had a privileged relationship with the African-American civil rights movement - Martin Luther King travelled there to great acclaim in the 1960s, and W.E. DuBois became a naturalised citizen of Ghana after being refused the right to return to the USA.
Now a lot of people have seen Obama as moving beyond the legacy of the 1960s generation of black civil rights leaders, who are seen as not relevant by many modern African-Americans. But I wouldn't be surprised if this plays at least some part in choosing Ghana to visit among the numerous other African states presumably begging for Obama to drive his motorcade down their main streets.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Liberalism at work
Parliament recently voted on a bill that would have made it easier for doctors to prescribe marijuana to people suffering chronic pain and/or nausea.
Idiot Savant has a breakdown of how MPs voted. What's interesting to me is that all ACT MPs (except Roger Dodger, who is out of the country speechifying somewhere) voted 'aye'.
This is probably the clearest expression of ACT's proclaimed social liberalism that I've ever seen. Although ACT MPs sporadically talk a good line on things like gay rights, the best the party usually achieves is a roughly even split on these sorts of issues - notably on both the Civil Union Act and the Prostitution Reform Act.
Now admittedly this bill is far less radical than either of these, and represents an extremely cautious pushing out of the boat of marijuana legalisation. But even so, it surprises me that David Garrett, unquestionably the most socially conservative ACT MP of the current crop (and arguably the most socially conservative MP the party has ever had) voted for it.
From this I can only conclude two things: either Garrett isn't the knee jerk reactionary which he is often accused of being or Rodney enforced a party whip and required all ACT MPs to vote the same way. Given how utterly lacking in nuance most of Garrett's public statements are, the balance of probability lies with the latter.
So, why? I think this is part of ACT's drive to distinguish itself from the government - a task that they are well-advised to begin early, since scrambling to make a case for an identity separate from their large coalition partner in the election campaign after having loyally towed the coalition line for three years is a situation that has doomed many a minor party, both here and overseas.
It's also worth noting that, with National bloc voting against the law, the odds of it being passed were very long indeed, so this was in a sense a very cheap stand to make - Rodney and his parliamentary mates could grandstand on principle and get in some shots at National to appease their socially liberal supporters while confident in the knowledge that the law would still pass - something that I'm pretty sure Garrett, at the very least, is pleased by.
Even if Garrett is still an unreconstructed reactionary, this does seem to display an understanding of the compromises required to play the parliamentary game, and a willingness to see himself as a member of a team rather than an indidivual political actor - something that he, given his high public profile and strong connections to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, probably has a higher incentive to do than most other minor party politicians. It may be he is not the political naif he is often made out to be.
Some quick analysis of other party's stances - the Maori party continues to confirm to a basically socially conservative approach, although according to Lew over at kiwipolitico I am a 'fauxgressive' for making this analysis. Even more surprisingly Labour, a party that as I have previously argued defines itself even more strongly as a socially liberal party than an economically socially democratic party, was split almost perfectly down the middle - and apparently the logic that I am arguing was exercising on Garrett, to wit 'it's going to pass anyway so you can have your socially conservative cake and eat it too by indulging in an empty stand on principle', was not persuasive to socially conservative Labour MPs (the usual suspects - mostly men, mostly electorate MPs, and a disproportionately high number of ethnic minorities). So the message of 'vote Labour for a more tolerant society' needs some work if it's to be considered credible, in my view.
Idiot Savant has a breakdown of how MPs voted. What's interesting to me is that all ACT MPs (except Roger Dodger, who is out of the country speechifying somewhere) voted 'aye'.
This is probably the clearest expression of ACT's proclaimed social liberalism that I've ever seen. Although ACT MPs sporadically talk a good line on things like gay rights, the best the party usually achieves is a roughly even split on these sorts of issues - notably on both the Civil Union Act and the Prostitution Reform Act.
Now admittedly this bill is far less radical than either of these, and represents an extremely cautious pushing out of the boat of marijuana legalisation. But even so, it surprises me that David Garrett, unquestionably the most socially conservative ACT MP of the current crop (and arguably the most socially conservative MP the party has ever had) voted for it.
From this I can only conclude two things: either Garrett isn't the knee jerk reactionary which he is often accused of being or Rodney enforced a party whip and required all ACT MPs to vote the same way. Given how utterly lacking in nuance most of Garrett's public statements are, the balance of probability lies with the latter.
So, why? I think this is part of ACT's drive to distinguish itself from the government - a task that they are well-advised to begin early, since scrambling to make a case for an identity separate from their large coalition partner in the election campaign after having loyally towed the coalition line for three years is a situation that has doomed many a minor party, both here and overseas.
It's also worth noting that, with National bloc voting against the law, the odds of it being passed were very long indeed, so this was in a sense a very cheap stand to make - Rodney and his parliamentary mates could grandstand on principle and get in some shots at National to appease their socially liberal supporters while confident in the knowledge that the law would still pass - something that I'm pretty sure Garrett, at the very least, is pleased by.
Even if Garrett is still an unreconstructed reactionary, this does seem to display an understanding of the compromises required to play the parliamentary game, and a willingness to see himself as a member of a team rather than an indidivual political actor - something that he, given his high public profile and strong connections to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, probably has a higher incentive to do than most other minor party politicians. It may be he is not the political naif he is often made out to be.
Some quick analysis of other party's stances - the Maori party continues to confirm to a basically socially conservative approach, although according to Lew over at kiwipolitico I am a 'fauxgressive' for making this analysis. Even more surprisingly Labour, a party that as I have previously argued defines itself even more strongly as a socially liberal party than an economically socially democratic party, was split almost perfectly down the middle - and apparently the logic that I am arguing was exercising on Garrett, to wit 'it's going to pass anyway so you can have your socially conservative cake and eat it too by indulging in an empty stand on principle', was not persuasive to socially conservative Labour MPs (the usual suspects - mostly men, mostly electorate MPs, and a disproportionately high number of ethnic minorities). So the message of 'vote Labour for a more tolerant society' needs some work if it's to be considered credible, in my view.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Here I stand, I can do nothing else. God help me
My Political Views
I am a left social libertarian
Left: 7.32, Libertarian: 5.43
Political Spectrum Quiz
I feel that so much has been said about this test's flaws - it's been around for years - that there's really no point in repeating the problems I have with it, because every problem I have, somebody else seems to have to (and often, seems to express better than I can).
While I agree it's fairly Americo-centric (witness the fact that Kiwi bloggers universally cluster in the lower two-thirds of the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum) this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I try to be resistant to parochialism, and I don't think it's innately wrong to ask non-Americans about an issue (eg teaching evolution in schools) that is largely uncontroversial outside the USA.
But it would be interesting to see a test more geared towards New Zealand issues, if only because the potential for causing self-identifying local leftists to 'slip up' and discover their authoritarian roots would be greater. I think, incidentally, that this is why it's possible to go too far into criticising these tests - a lot of the criticisms rest on people effectively saying "But I know I'm dedicated to freedom, why did I get such a high authoritarian score? These questions are too finickity". But I won't go on too much about that. I have no intention of designing such a test myself, and to paraphrase Vaclav Havel in a commentary on his own The Need for an Opposition, if you can't put up, shut up.
I am a left social libertarian
Left: 7.32, Libertarian: 5.43
Political Spectrum Quiz
I feel that so much has been said about this test's flaws - it's been around for years - that there's really no point in repeating the problems I have with it, because every problem I have, somebody else seems to have to (and often, seems to express better than I can).
While I agree it's fairly Americo-centric (witness the fact that Kiwi bloggers universally cluster in the lower two-thirds of the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum) this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I try to be resistant to parochialism, and I don't think it's innately wrong to ask non-Americans about an issue (eg teaching evolution in schools) that is largely uncontroversial outside the USA.
But it would be interesting to see a test more geared towards New Zealand issues, if only because the potential for causing self-identifying local leftists to 'slip up' and discover their authoritarian roots would be greater. I think, incidentally, that this is why it's possible to go too far into criticising these tests - a lot of the criticisms rest on people effectively saying "But I know I'm dedicated to freedom, why did I get such a high authoritarian score? These questions are too finickity". But I won't go on too much about that. I have no intention of designing such a test myself, and to paraphrase Vaclav Havel in a commentary on his own The Need for an Opposition, if you can't put up, shut up.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Homework
So did you do what I told you in the last post and reflect on what effect images from the struggle in Iran have on popular perceptions of the third world? Well if you did, you weren't the only ones. Over at The Economist they argue that this footage will cause both the public and policy-makers in the west to see Iranians, not as a group of bloodthirsty fanatics, but as innocent people oppressed by a repressive state - similar to the way Poland was viewed during the 1980s. This, it is argued, makes military action against Iran less likely, maybe even impossible.
Is it just me, or is this not exactly new? Although the idea of Iranians as a bunch of murderous fundamentalists may have had currency during the 80s, American politicians have been emphasizing that the bad guys in Teheran are as much a threat to Iranians as anybody else since at least the 90s. Indeed, we only need to look back to the Iraq War to see that concern for the rights and wellbeing of the citizens of a non-democratic state is not incompatible with a desire to correct the lack of democracy through force majeure.
Although 'those foreigners are all evil fanatics' memes may have some force at the popular level, concern for the innocent citizens of non-democratic states isn't just established, it's damn near universal. Unfortunately, the fact that they are human beings who bleed and die is seen as secondary to the fact that they are foreigners - and that, while it is entirely appropriate for us to light up the internet with sympathy for Neta and her dad, the moment we actively do something about it, we're committing a grave crime (a crime that is apparently comparable with murder).
Is it just me, or is this not exactly new? Although the idea of Iranians as a bunch of murderous fundamentalists may have had currency during the 80s, American politicians have been emphasizing that the bad guys in Teheran are as much a threat to Iranians as anybody else since at least the 90s. Indeed, we only need to look back to the Iraq War to see that concern for the rights and wellbeing of the citizens of a non-democratic state is not incompatible with a desire to correct the lack of democracy through force majeure.
Although 'those foreigners are all evil fanatics' memes may have some force at the popular level, concern for the innocent citizens of non-democratic states isn't just established, it's damn near universal. Unfortunately, the fact that they are human beings who bleed and die is seen as secondary to the fact that they are foreigners - and that, while it is entirely appropriate for us to light up the internet with sympathy for Neta and her dad, the moment we actively do something about it, we're committing a grave crime (a crime that is apparently comparable with murder).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
