Neda's Martyrdom and the Pitfalls of Obama's Chronic Pragmatism
I've praised President Obama's discipline and focus, his calm demeanor. He is a thinker, reflective. He considers all angles of a problem. And he is chronically pragmatic.
There's nothing wrong with pragmatism - it's a precious commodity in a tumultuous world - but like anything else, too much of it can be a bad thing. Especially at such an inflection point in history, with climate change threatening our existence, violence and human rights abuses and hunger and disease rampant, weapons of mass carnage in the hands of despots and terrorists, and the global economy teetering on the brink of disaster while the super-rich get super-richer.
Yes, pragmatism is admirable, but give me some idealism too, give me some deep-seated moral conviction and the powerful, ground-shaking words to express it.
The new administration and congressional Democrats are displaying a clear pattern of choosing the mushy middle, that (supposedly) safe place which maintains the status quo and makes 'grown-ups' like David Brooks and ideological shape-shifters like Andrew Sullivan fawn over the president in a sickening display of obsequiousness.
On gay rights, they are choosing the mushy middle, on women's rights (speaking to a global audience) the mushy middle, on the Wall Street bailout, the mushy middle, on health care, the mushy middle. On civil liberties and secrecy, they are not even bothering with the mushy middle, but emulating Bush's extremism. And on Iran, the issue of the moment, they are eschewing a full-throated approach and hoping for the best. Maybe it's the correct strategy, and maybe it's not. I certainly don't pretend to know, though I do know that if the Iranian regime prevails, which it likely will, Republicans will have a field day blaming Democrats for being too tepid in defense of a democratic uprising.
In a recent post about the Bi-Partisan Repudiation of the Left, I asked:
If GOP strategist Mike Murphy is right that we're approaching a Republican "ice age," then shouldn't the Obama administration and congressional Democrats move solidly and unapologetically to the left and seize the chance to enact progressive policies across the board?
The incessant drive to the 'pragmatic center', wherever that is, the desire to please an elusive and ephemeral audience, that worship of moderation, results in the squandering of a unique moment: with Republicans on their electoral heels and Democrats in control, this is the time for bold progressive stances and the unabashed embrace of core Democratic principles. This is not the time for wishy washy policies that seem politically smart but will in fact lead to the impression of an administration and a party devoid of convictions.
One of the most heart-stopping aspects of the Iran protests is the apparent caught-on-tape slaughter of a young woman named Neda Agha-Soltan. Writing for TIME, Robin Wright provides context and adds a note of caution about the circumstances:
A gruesomely captivating video of a young woman -- laid out on a Tehran street after apparently being shot, blood pouring from her mouth and then across her face -- swept Twitter, Facebook and other websites this weekend. The woman rapidly became a symbol of Iran's escalating crisis, from a political confrontation to far more ominous physical clashes. Some sites refer to her as "Neda," Farsi for the voice or the call. Tributes that incorporate startlingly upclose footage of her dying have started to spring up on YouTube. Although it is not yet clear who shot "Neda" (a soldier? pro-government militant? an accidental misfiring?), her death may have changed everything.
No matter what the precise details, this awful video is a jarring dose of reality, reminding us of the mortal threat on the ground in Iran and the raw courage of those who confront injustice and are willing to give their lives for a noble cause. I had the misfortune of witnessing several Neda's during my years in Beirut, young men and women who sacrificed everything to defend their land and their loved ones. One lesson I learned is that seeing human savagery and suffering up close, we understand that our distance from other people's pain is an illusion - when one person suffers, we all do.
It's beyond tragic that we need symbols like Neda to wake us up to the heinous crimes perpetrated against women and children (and men and boys) in every corner of the world, that a 'viral' video depicting the horrific pain that people endure is the only way we summon the necessary focus and will and outrage to finally tackle the profound injustices that grip the globe.
Sometimes - most of the time - a calm, measured approach is the right one, but there are times when we need bold acts that emanate from our core, thunderous words to condemn evil and injustice, steely-eyed confidence that doing the right thing is better than doing the pleasing thing. We are living in those times.
Neda reminds us that some things are worth sacrificing for, that the ills of the world are viscerally real, that what is needed most is moral clarity and the unbending will to right what is wrong, even if it isn't the most politically pragmatic thing to do.
In Frank Rich's words:
Maybe you don't want to tilt at windmills, but sometimes you do want to do battle with fierce and unrelenting adversaries.
UPDATE: Here's a CNN piece on Neda where I speak about her courage:
UPDATE 2: President Obama uses stronger language on Iran in today's press conference.
Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As humanists we are saddened and enraged by humanity's shortcomings: in this case, the abject and repugnant assassination of a young woman.
What makes Neda so special are the circumstances of her death. Random and cruel, her execution goes against all basic human instincts and those values our species takes pride in defending.
This collective of artists and musicians is reacting appropriately to this assault and affront to all that is sacred in existence : life, freedom, dignity and respect.
WE ARE NEDA
http://www
http://www
http://ned
WE ARE NEDA
http://www
http://www
http://ned
"Yes, pragmatism is admirable, but give me some idealism too, give me some deep-seated moral conviction and the powerful, ground-shaking words to express it."
That's it!
Yes there are sometimes when one must be bold and want to do battle with fierce and unrelenting adversaries. Iran is not one of them. Iran is for Iranians and for there to be an Iranian solution Iranians have to do that Battle.
It is typical of people of the United States to think that we due our lifestyle and form of Government are bound to solve all of the worlds problems. It is not. We robbed, raped, and looted our lifestyle from the rest of the world after WWII and if you don't think so, Spend some time reading history, something of which people in the US have little knowledge.
As far as our government, we went through centuries of barbaric conflict before we became "civilized". We were blessed to not have an interfering United States to tell us how to do things, because then it would not have been our solution born out of our needs and experiences.
It seems that event he left has still to learn what they deride the right for not.
Peter, be careful what you're asking for... "Moral clarity" can be extremely dangerous.
Obama's appeal stems precisely from his awareness that there are no moral absolutes, and that our actions can have very different consequences from the ones intended, and that doing something that *feels* right isn't necessarily good for our cause. He is rational and not a nut case, and people appreciate that.
What would you want him to do, anyway? Scream his outrage? Well, that would be somewhat more satisfying to watch for *us*, but what about the intended recipients of his message (i.e. people who do not share his convictions)? Are they more likely to be convinced by someone who speaks calmly and wisely, or by someone who is freaking out?
Peter's feelings are reflective of my own. Many, as we have seen, will criticize his comments. Honestly, I don't think Hillary would have done any better. I know McCain would be the end of the world for Americans. But Peter is right. Obama won by a landslide by today's standards. I see him getting too comfortable in the White House and basking in his success. He needs to be uncomfortable and facing reality that the times call for urgent action in so many areas. Not taking advantage of the window of opportunity is opening a door for the blood sucking leeches to return and failing to get done what urgently needs doing. He needs more of the take no prisoners approach and less of the apeasement approach.
The right has nothing to do right now except criticize and blame, their best asset on most days. As deplorable as that might be, our weak kneed constituency can turn at the drop of a hat and how many times have we seen that happen. I don't care to recall. Are we seeing pragmatism or complacency, selling out, or blindness to the issues. Sometimes we hear fine rhetoric with lack of follow through and sometimes even the fine rhetoric is missing. My contention is that it is up to us ladies and gentlemen to get fired up and demand change and quickly. Write Obama, get in the streets if necessary, protest and make yourselves heard in anyway that is possible.
I actually believe the President's bailout strategy is on the mushy right ...
And, of course, it pleases nobody.
President Obama is substantially right and better than the alternative by a country mile. The recession does seem to be starting to bottom out. The administration still has to fill all the administrative slots and bring in more of its own people. Remember, FDR did not make Social Security all by himself, but got heavy input from Francis Perkins, a cabinet officer. People of good principle can pursue good policies that their President (quite properly) gets the credit for. The application of the rules can be as important as the rules themselves. Perhaps at this time next year, we will have the pleasure of seeing Lawrence Summers quit and the administration come into its mature form.
Some candidates - Mr Daou's actually, were making noises about obliterating Iran not that long ago. Me I sort of prefer chronic pragmatism.
No wonder HRC lost the primary. She had people like you advising her. Obama has been correct in his statements regarding IRAN. You probably believe were all Georgians, too.
The chicken hawks are very selective about who they want to rescue. I remember hearing from them for years that 'we are not the police of the world'. We haven't jumped into places like Darfur. Why is Iran different? When our 2000 election was stolen, I felt like protesting, but we Americans are too well behaved for that. We accepted the court's decision. Would Iran have come running in here to solve our problems if we had taken to the streets?
Pragmatism and idealism aren't related. Pragmatism isn't moderating between dangerous extremes. It's figuring out what will work to accomplish your goals and then putting it into action. It's just a set of beliefs about how to get things done. You can be idealistic regardless of whether or not you get things done. The nation is filled with idealistic conservatives and liberals who don't accomplish anything. If your goal is to unite a nation, idealism is probably the least pragmatic approach. Idealism, depending on what you are idealistic about, is seductive to some and repulsive to others.
Isn't that the way of nature, the mushy middle.
I guess we've gotten ourselves in so much trouble, not taking the mushy middle, not really understanding the right way to go and going too far to one side or the other---it's those mistakes that I think our President is keeping in mind.
You see, it's those that go off the mushy middle of the road that end up in the woods or briars, killed, eaten, or at the very least, badly scratched.
On health care and the financial crisis the mushy middle? I'd say more like protecting his patrons in the health and financial services industry. I think it's fair to say patronage exists broadly throughout our government, and I'd be happy to provide examples if challenged. While this article finds some interesting faults with our government, it overlooks the deeper problem we face in the United States, that is a government that represents a corporatocracy before its people. This is nothing new for the US, but now that we've run out of places to colonize beyond our borders, our rampant cannibalism of our own citizen's quality of living is really quite astounding.
Effective pragmatism means getting things done despite the politics of the moment, not sitting in the middle. Please don't confuse meekness and centrism with pragmatism. I was hoping that Obama was in fact a progressive pragmatist; what he is turning out to be I am not quite sure, but it certainly isn't very progressive so far, nor very pragmatist as that would mean seizing the very opportune moment Obama has here to push forward a bevy of idealistic causes. Some I know are very close to his heart like the fight for opportunities for all Americans and education. One ideal that is close to my heart is health-care; I feel that if Obama does not put forth an agenda that addresses basic health-care for all Americans, he has just about lost my vote at this point. There aren't very many more social causes left for this administration to address and so far they are getting a C-. On THAT I agree with you entirely.
Martydom huh?
As for Obama I am very happy with him so far on this. He did exactly what he should have done
1. He refused to acknowledge Ammedinjad as the winner, whereas the European Union did
2. He has criticized the crack down of the protesters
3. He has criticized the lack of transparency for banning he press
But there is a sharp line to be drawn which he shouldn't cross
He should not pick sides as to who won the election or who should govern the country. It's very hard to tell from American media coverage but about 50% of their population voted for Ammendijad. In fact it looks to me as if they won the election and cheated, which is why it was such a blowout. They probably did better then they thought they would so it threw their numbers off to a ridiculous degree when they stuffed the ballot boxes with extra votes
Bottom line for America is that we need to stay out of it.
All these chicken-hawks .
Its one thing for Iranians to call for Iranians to rise up, quite another for the United States to do it. How many times does America need to have instigating civil wars in other countries backfire for us to realize its a bad idea?
True, true, true!!!! We really seem to have a problem with learning from our mistakes.
Fanned
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
