Conservatives would respect Obama more if he took a principled stand against a corrupt Iranian regime by doing its bidding.

The same conservatives who mere months ago applauded their candidate’s rendition of “Barbara Ann” are now criticizing Obama for refusing to meddle in internal Iranian affairs: “[He] has only a smidgen of a chance left to get on the right side of history—either he starts acting like the leader of the free world, or he’s a quisling of thugocracies everywhere.”  To say that Obama risks putting himself on the wrong side of history suggests that you know enough about that history to distinguish between its sides, even though you don’t even know there are always more than two of them. Consider how incoherently conservatives have responded to official Iranian propaganda:

Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of “intolerable” meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter post-election dispute . . . The Iranian government summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests in Iran, to complain about American interference, state-run Press TV reported. The English-language channel quoted the government as calling Western interference “intolerable.”

That government forces accuse America of meddling in the face of Obama’s tepid public statements is not, as conservatives would have it, evidence that because the accusation will be made, we might as well meddle. It indicates that the Iranian government recognizes how politically efficacious the accusation of American intervention in Iranian electoral politics is, which means Victor David Hanson and like-minded conservatives are urging Obama to take a principled stand by playing directly into the hands of the Iranian regime. Ahmadinejad and his supporters would love nothing more than for Obama to read the lines they scripted for him.

But why are conservatives encouraging Obama to do exactly that? Because, unlike him, they are deeply and proudly ignorant of the weight of history. This ignorance is what leads Karl to complain that German Chancellor Merkel and French President Sarkozy beat Obama to the moral high ground, even though he quotes the reason the French and Germans can condemn the apparent electoral fraud and America cannot:

“Either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States,” [Obama] added.

Because Germany and France do not have a history of meddling in Iranian electoral politics, they can criticize the election results without creating the appearance that they have a vested interest in their outcome. The Wall Street Journal is similarly clueless:

Yesterday he invoked the CIA’s role in the 1953 coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq to explain his reticence. “Now, it’s not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling—the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections,” Mr. Obama said. As far as we can tell, the CIA or other government agencies aren’t directing the protests or bankrolling Mr. Mousavi.

The issue isn’t whether America’s actually bankrolling the opposition party, but whether it appears to be; if it does, it undermines the legitimacy of the same movement the conservatives ostensibly support. The editorial staff at the WSJ doesn’t understand the depth of Iranian mistrust of American policy especially on the issue of Iranian elections. But the most eloquent proponent of elevating ignorance to the status of fact is the de facto voice of American conservativism:

And he said yesterday, “[i]t’s not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.” We have to know what this means, “given the history of US-Iranian relations.” What history? Is he talking about the coup when we put the Shah in there in ‘53 that he apologized for? Is that what he means? Is he so handcuffed to defend liberty and those who seek it because of what happened 65 years ago? What’s holding Obama back from standing up for freedom? Standing up for freedom is “meddling”? It has to be understood. What was he talking about? What is this history? What is it?

That Limbaugh’s argument moves by dint of unanswered rhetorical questions is damning enough—neither he nor his audience knows the answers to those questions—but the fact that, even if he knew what had happened, he would still consider it irrelevant because it happened 65 years ago.  This claim that history can expire is indicative of a strain of stupid to which those who regularly complain about the “re-FDRing of America [via] the New New Deal” should be immune. Limbaugh fears nothing more than the revival of policies more than 65 years old, yet is incapable of understanding why the Iranian people may harbor a grudge against a nation that took liberties with its internal governance until 1979?

Limbaugh’s questions amount to little more than magical thinking thrust into face of empirical evidence.  We know that Ahmadinejad and his allies believe the appearance of American meddling is a powerful political cudgel; to this fact, conservatives respond that 1953 was a long time ago.  We know that Ahmadinejad and his allies are actively working to manufacture evidence of American meddling; to this fact, conservatives reply that Obama should do their work for them.

(x-posted.)

Comments

[Ahistoricality]

"unanswered rhetorical questions" -- that has to qualify as one of my least favorite rhetorical devices ever, mostly because it claims a kind of moral high ground ("I'd be willing to discuss this, if only there were answers"), usually betrays disdain of the basic tenets of the other side and a willful ignorance of facts on the ground (you covered that part) and if you actually engage in the discussion, you'll end up chasing shifting goalposts.

You can't win: if he made a strong pro-Mousawi statement, but the regime cracked down anyway, they'd say he should have backed it up with threats. If he makes threats and the regime cracks down anyway, they'd say he should have attacked. If he attacks, and fails to overwhelm, conquer and reform Iran by the midterms, they'll say he should have committed more troops...... and didn't we hear this looneytoon once this decade already?

[Feminist Avatar]

'either he starts acting like the leader of the free world'

And the rest of the world hears this, rolls their eyes, and thinks 'God, I hate Americans'.

[Blog Nerd]

Truth be told, I'm not an Obama fan because I'm Libertarian and the revival of the New Deal also makes me more than a little uncomfortable. And I really don't like arguments grounded in how much everyone hates America because whether or not we are popular in the world arena has little to do with policy and whether or not it is just. A lot of people didn't like us interfering in Germany, either, but history has shown that was a moral imperative.

Having said that, I think what Obama did with Twitter in Iran is remarkably sophisticated and show's great strength. I think the inability of conservative pundits to understand exactly how pre-emptive that move reflects a society that is moving far to quickly for feeble politicians Left and Right to keep up with.

What we've seen here, I hope and pray, is that information is the new weapons technology--and the Age of Information may usher in more stability and peace than the world has ever known. Perhaps that is a bit escapist and naive of me, but what's going on in Twitter has given me more optimism for this administration's foreign policy (which until now I thought rather naive and foolish) and more optimism period.

[Ahistoricality]

SEK: conservatives want Obama to do exactly the same thing that some Iranian Goebbels wants him to

Your comment (over at the other place, for those of you who don't follow him everywhere) raises an interesting historical hypothetical (which Blog Nerd also raises, obliquely, though against what seems to be the prevailing Buchananite isolationism of libertarians) about the potentially negative effects of the US taking a strong stand against Hitler's regime before the outbreak of hostilities. There's no question that US involvement would have raised the level of tension, and the fact that so many Jews had successfully emigrated to the US (though some, famously, could not) would have been used (almost certainly) to accelerate the focus on Jews as the fundamental problem, possibly accelerating the Holocaust itself.

[Blog Nerd]

AHistoricality: I'm unclear were you suggesting that if the US acted pre-emptively, that the Holocaust would have been worse? As in worse than it already was?

And Libertarianism is a broad-spectrum--as a philosophy. As a political party they are ass-hats. You may quote me on that. But Libertarian philosophy does not preclude a non-isolationist view of threats to liberty globally. You might say that it is possible to hold the view that until all of us are free none of us are.

Genocide is one of those situations where, well, um YEAH. You probably should do something about THAT. One of the stronger arguments for the invasion of Iraq would have been the genocide against the Kurds.

[Ahistoricality]

were you suggesting that if the US acted pre-emptively, that the Holocaust would have been worse? As in worse than it already was?

Yes, clearly. In answer to your next rhetorical question (see, it works even when you know what's coming!), the Holocaust could well have been more thorough, concentration could have started sooner, could have moved more quickly from mostly death by hard labor/starvation/disease to mostly death by outright execution. US pressure could have given Hitler more reason to preserve the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact longer (which, by the way, would have given the Germans and their anti-semitic Polish allies more time to be more thorough in the Pale) and focus on Britain and North Africa.

It's counterfactual history, which means that I'm making educated guesses, but that's what seems plausible to me. Doesn't make me happy: plenty of people who share a surname and religion with me died at Hitler's hands. But we were never going to intervene to save them, anyway.

As far as libertarianism goes, your beef isn't with me, but with these folks and people like them.

[Fritz]

How many times did those on the Left side of the blogosphere trot out that grainy photograph of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand as evidence that the Bush administration lacked the requisite moral authority for a justified foreign policy? How many times did we hear that diplomacy, not the big stick of military intervention, or the threats of sanctions and embargoes, were the appropriate, if not the only, means of obtaining international peace and plenty? Hell, Obama told us that he would talk to anyone, without preconditions. This lack of seriousness was taken to mean that Obama would bring to bear America's moral authority to further the cause of human dignity, rather than merely project American power.

Now, we have a president uniquely situated to use the moral authority of hope and change to make a stand against two manifestly tyrannical regimes. What is Obama beginning (I hope) to learn? The regimes of Iran and NorKorea do not share our principles. They don't even have the good sense to feign embarrassment or shame when they violate those principles. For them those principles are nothing but rhetoric, arguments which we accept as fundamental, which they can use against those who take them seriously. Since Obama's is the ultimate rhetorical presidency, what does that leave him as far as a course of action?

Jaffa, in his book The New Birth of Freedom, has an anecdote that as the Soviets were crushing the Hungarian revolution the last thing the free radio played was a reading of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. When we look at the protesters in the streets of Iran, we have to ask ourselves, "Have we already made this mistake before?"

[Blog Nerd]

Ahistoricality: why the snark, buddy? the questions weren't rhetorical, I was trying to clarify your position because as written it was unclear to me. And I meant no beef with you--clarifying, the position of Libertarianism on intervention on genocide--as in Libertarian philosophy not a political party. Political philosophy and paritsan rhetoric are completely different things.

Gosh, you're smart but snotty as hell. Though I suppose that is part of your charm.

As for your argument--that's a whole lotta coulds in there but aruging against pre-emptive intervention is a valid point in just war theory, so I'll concede your surmising. In Iraq, however, it wouldn't have been pre-emptive. I would have been at least tempted to sign on with an invasion of Iraq if the genocide against the Kurds had been named as a major reason.

[StevenAttewell]

"A lot of people didn't like us interfering in Germany, either, but history has shown that was a moral imperative." If you're talking about domestically, sure. But U.S intervention in Europe during WWII was wildly popular throughout Europe - it's the source of the moral capital that allowed the U.S to claim the title of "leader of the free world" during the Cold War. The Atlantic Charter, the "Arsenal of Democracy," the Four Freedoms, the U.N Chart and Declaration of Human Rights - these things were very popular at the time.

Regarding the U.S intervention and the Holocaust, I don't see the necessary links for a solid counter-factual, for no other reason that we did intervene, and we didn't act to end the Holocaust when it was happening. I doubt it would have accelerated it, but I doubt it would have decelerated it either. Hitler was going to go for the Final Solution no matter what the military exigencies were, as history shows.

Regarding Blog Nerd's argument. Genocide/bloody repression isn't as simple a matter as you're talking about here. To begin with, you still have the issue of the moral imperative to act vs. the practical capacity to act. Hungary's a great example - there was nothing the U.S could have done short of starting an all-out war with the Soviet Union, which is what an intervention in the Soviet Union's direct sphere of influence would have precipitated.

Likewise, the current violence in Iran - short of a massive military escalation that would no doubt massively polarize the Middle East and escalate our current problems vis-a-vis the Arab world and would almost certainly involve an Iranian-backed revolt/invasion in Iraq, there really isn't much we can do in Iran, and as SEK points out, our intervention would doom the protesters right now. Iranians remember Mossadegh (the CIA launched a coup against him in 1953), they remember our backing of the Shah from '53-79, they remember our backing the Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq war. To be seen as puppets of a U.S military/covert intervention would destroy their one strategic asset - popular legitimacy.

As for Iraq, the problem was that the genocide against the Kurds was a decade old, that we were in fact complicit in it, and that we had already essentially created a semi-autonomous Kurdistan with our no-fly-zone. Genocide wouldn't have been a valid and timely cause for invasion.

[Ahistoricality]

Bernard Baruch said, supposedly, "Never answer a critic, unless they're right." Blog Nerd's right: I was snarky.

I'm not actually drawing on Just War theory, though. Historically, ending the Holocaust was not a reason to get into WWII, as far as most American leaders and voters were concerned. (nor would protecting the Kurds have been an acceptable reason to US elites, who know how much trouble we'd be getting into with the Turks) Personally, I'm fine with the idea of intervention against genocide and similar atrocities, as long as we're reasonably sure it'll work rather than making a bad situation worse, and that it's an intervention not a colonization.