Americans have become so used to their government screwing up that "credit for not screwing things up totally" really deserves to be accorded, at least until everyone gets used to government not routinely screwing up.
Again, for clarification's sake, although you already seem to grasp my distinction, I don't think Obama's speeches caused Iran's revolution but merely allowed Iranians to demand their rights without fear of foreign attack or invasion. Some of Obama's best decisions to date have been about things not to do. He doesn't threaten or revile allies, he doesn't talk down to Muslims, he hasn't continued to push for "unitary executive" powers, he hasn't pushed for new gun control legislation, and so forth.
We agree that attacks on Iran would derail any democracy movement in that country. If McCain had been elected on his platform of continued active hostility to Iran (among other countries), do you really think Iran's democracy movement would even have gotten started? If, by some miracle, one had started anyway, do you think that McCain would have refrained from "intervention" in Iran so that "our side" would win? Do you think that such intervention would have helped protesters or hurt them?
Your position seems sensible enough, but then you don't disagree with me quite as much as you think you do. Even your strawman characterisation of my views barely distinguishes what you have been saying from what I argued to begin with.
24
22
|
Re: U.S. Domestic Politics
Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:26:49 PM EST
|
Again, for clarification's sake, although you already seem to grasp my distinction, I don't think Obama's speeches caused Iran's revolution but merely allowed Iranians to demand their rights without fear of foreign attack or invasion.
To provide some context, the post I made in #17 was written (but not posted, due to network outage) before you had further clarified your position. (You obviously had no way of knowing that.) I am substantially closer to agreement with the position you staked out in your second post on the topic, but still think you're overstating the influence recent changes in US rhetoric have had on the process.
If McCain had been elected on his platform of continued active hostility to Iran (among other countries), do you really think Iran's democracy movement would even have gotten started?
Surely "gotten started" is the wrong phrase to use ("gotten" aside) -- the outpouring of anger and frustration we are seeing in the streets of Iran goes back much further than November's US elections. Years and years of societal repression, demographic change, and poor economic performance have brought Iran to this boiling point. Barring a less desperate reaction from the Iranian theocrats or some precipitous and very overt action against Iran by McCain at the very start of his presidency (which, I will grant, would have been quite conceivable) I still think we'd be seeing some version of this.
If, by some miracle, one had started anyway, do you think that McCain would have refrained from "intervention" in Iran so that "our side" would win?
That's a much more interesting question. I have to admit that I have not been able to form a strong opinion regarding who, among the conservative commentariat calling for bold intervention from Obama, are just cynically scoring points with their own base, calling safely for ill-advised action they know will not be forthcoming, and who, by contrast, actually believe that strong intervention is advisable. I simply can't tell which of them are eating their own dog food at this point. Under ordinary circumstances I'd be intrigued by the question but the events unfolding in Iran are so much more fascinating to watch..
McCain's close to Lindsey Graham, who's been making the rounds on various news and panel-discussion shows advocating for bolder action from the USA. I wouldn't rule out that a McCain executive team might be making some very different decisions right about now. It's one of several big reasons why, as much as I prefer the executive and legislative branches to be controlled by opposing parties, I couldn't support McCain for president. When it came to foreign policy I could never tell how much of his crazy posturing was just posturing and how much was actual crazy.
25
24
|
Re: U.S. Domestic Politics
Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 06:21:22 PM EST
|
No doubt Iranians have been sick of their country's misrule for years now. Would that anger have boiled over if Iran remained under external threat? Would Ayatollah Khamenei have even bothered to fix Iran's election if all major candidates agreed that Iran needed to be ready to defend itself against Israeli or American aggression? Answers to those questions seem to define how far apart we remain on this subject.
You seem to agree that McCain might well have used military force in Iran, which I think would have united most Iranians against American aggression and perhaps set off yet another ill-considered war in that region. If McCain would have used military force to make sure "our side" won in Iran, why wouldn't he have been threatening use of force against Iran as soon as he took office? If he was threatening force prior to Iran's election, why wouldn't America's role have become that election's central issue, assuring that reformers were doomed before any votes were cast?
Sadly, from my perspective, it doesn't really matter whether right-wing blowhards believe their own rhetoric or not. They intentionally stoke ugly emotions among people who can't be expected to know any better, hoping to sow some short-term political advantage even if they harm their country by doing so. Actual crazy? Only effectively crazy? Either way, "despicable" sums it up.
"Gotten started" wasn't proper English? I try to google these sorts of things before using them, but lots of people besides me have questionable levels of English literacy. Sorry.
26
25
|
Re: U.S. Domestic Politics
Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:24:09 PM EST
|
No doubt Iranians have been sick of their country's misrule for years now. Would that anger have boiled over if Iran remained under external threat?
From their point of view, are the Iranians no longer under external threat? Certainly Israel's policy towards them has not changed substantially, and the amount to which America's position has really changed remains untested. Obama's Cairo speech was no doubt welcomed by many as a step in the right direction, but in the end it's still just one step. You and I are obviously going to continue to disagree on the extent to which it influenced the current situation. You seem to be arguing that it is a
sine qua non, while I believe we'd be looking at some version of the current situation as long as whoever the US elected in November had not committed some sort of major f*ck up by now.
You seem to agree that McCain might well have used military force in Iran, which I think would have united most Iranians against American aggression and perhaps set off yet another ill-considered war in that region.
I agree that he
might have, and that if he had, it is more likely than not that the results would have backfired. Obviously we will never know how such a counter-factual event would have played out. I'm willing to give Obama a gold star, if you insist, for not behaving idiotically, if that's how low we've set the bar these days. And I do approve of the position he's taken. But I'm reserving the use of words like "brilliant", "inspired", and "genius" for something that really deserves them. Hopefully someday soon I'll get a chance to use them.
Sadly, from my perspective, it doesn't really matter whether right-wing blowhards believe their own rhetoric or not. They intentionally stoke ugly emotions among people who can't be expected to know any better, hoping to sow some short-term political advantage even if they harm their country by doing so. Actual crazy? Only effectively crazy? Either way, "despicable" sums it up.
Here's where we really part company. I believe it makes a
substantial difference whether they really believe their own rhetoric or not, because I believe there's a much greater chance of them acting on it if they do (the foregoing of course assumes that the politicians we're talking about are in power, which the group we're currently talking about are not.) I don't much like such rhetoric either way, but I do believe it matters whether or not it's sincere.
28
26
|
Re: U.S. Domestic Politics
Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 12:21:35 PM EST
|
I think external threats to Iran have been minimised. If Bush didn't let Israel bomb Iran before he left office, what reason exists for assuming Obama would? As for assuming there would have been no "major f*ck ups" if McCain had been elected, McCain wasn't just shoveling sh!t at Iranians, he was picking fights with Russia and anyone else that annoyed American neo-cons. Arguably, he was trying to set off some new global Cold War (if it stayed "Cold") to supplement Bush's War on Terror, just in case people lost interest in Osama bin-Laden as justification for continuing militarisation of American society. If Republicans were committed to allowing major banks and car companies to fail, how many options would they have had to keep their approval ratings above sea level when America's economy began to collapse in earnest a la Hoover besides war and threats of war? As Iranian mullahs understand all too well, when you don't know how to run your country's economy, scaring your people with external threats serves as your only ace.
Thank goodness you can argue that McCain might not have done anything really stupid to play to his Republican base if he had become president and that Republicans might not have really meant what they were saying. As you have noticed, since they didn't win power, we will never really know whether they were sincere or not. Rhetoric like what has been emerging from Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et alia, or even what has been emerging from McCain's mouth lately, suggests to me that assuming that Republicans wouldn't have done what they said they would do would have amounted to taking huge risks with huge downsides. While I admit that sensible foreign policy may not be "brilliant" in any abstract sense, I have been comparing what Obama has been doing with what Republicans said they wanted in 2008 and what they have been screaming for ever since. In that context, Obama's foreign policy successes have been evidence of "brilliance".
29
28
|
Re: U.S. Domestic Politics
Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:25 PM EST
|
just in case people lost interest in Osama bin-Laden
Who?
Minty fresh
30
29
|
Re: U.S. Domestic Politics
Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 02:51:49 PM EST
|
President George W. Bush.
♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫
31
30
|
Re: U.S. Domestic Politics
Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 03:16:10 PM EST
|
Still not ringing a bell, I'm afraid.
Minty fresh
32
31
|
Re: U.S. Domestic Politics
Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 03:17:57 PM EST
|
President Bush (43) lost interest in Osama Bin Laden to instead go and invade Iraq on some tenuous "evidence." Because of his intransigence we're now stuck in a quagmire.
♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫
27
25
|
Re: Gotten
Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:31:54 PM EST
|
"Gotten started" wasn't proper English? I try to google these sorts of things before using them, but lots of people besides me have questionable levels of English literacy. Sorry.
It's debatable. As with many other issues of English-language usage, don't expect consistency or universal agreement. Nevertheless,
here's one explanation, which seems to allow your use of "gotten":
Usage note:
For nearly 400 years, forms of get have been used with a following past participle to form the passive voice: She got engaged when she was 19. He won't get accepted with those grades. This use of get rather than of forms of to be in the passive is found today chiefly in speech and informal writing.
In British English got is the regular past participle of get, and gotten survives only in a few set phrases, such as ill-gotten gains. In American English gotten, although occasionally criticized, is an alternative standard past participle in most senses, especially in the senses "to receive" or "to acquire": I have gotten (or got) all that I ever hoped for.