The Electorate Must Be Informed, Even About a Thug like Ahmadinejad

Progressives often find it difficult to convey our ideas succinctly, so I was not surprised to find myself struggling to express my opposition to the conservative clamor against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia this week. As usual, one of the key difficulties was defining the neoconservative position from an ideological standpoint, rather than from the jingoistic angle that they themselves prefer. Luckily, Bill Kristol's ludicrous proposition that Columbia students boycott the event provided just the accidental window into the neoconservative mind that I needed.

Kristol's argument is axiomatic neoconservative drivel -- he takes a personal position of his and of his followers, generalizes it to the entire Columbia student body, then implies that those who break with him are unpatriotic and -- of course -- do not support the troops. This part of his short two paragraph post in the Weekly Standard's "Daily Standard" blog is as unremarkable as it is typical. However, his briefly revealed reasoning for this personal position is fundamentally revealing of the mindset of the right wing demagogues he champions.

Just in passing, barely pausing in his excitement to brand Columbia's leaders as degenerate left-wing sissies who hate America and like talking to terrorists, he sputters, "After all, this is not primarily about Ahmadinejad." No, Kristol howls, "Dealing with his regime is mostly a task for our government." Really, Mr. Kristol?

It is, unfortunately, nothing new for the right wing to speak about "the Government" with a capital G, as though the rest of us "people" were merely subjects to an awesome state power that -- let's be honest here -- really doesn't operate down at our plebeian level. The complete lack of awareness on the part of William the Bloody that he is living in a democracy makes his views about Columbia's invitation to President Ahmadinejad much more understandable. In a world of demagogues competing for the affection of the uninformed, pliable masses, why let the competition inside the castle gates?

However, the rest of us live in a different world. In our world, America is defined not by the autocratic strength of its Government, but by the democratic strength of its People. Americans, in turn, are necessarily well-educated, as "on education all our lives depend" and "liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people." In Iran, there is a lack of meaningful public debate, especially since Ahmadinejad came to power, and the erosion in broader liberties has come hand in hand with the erosion in political debate, for "without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights." In a democracy like this, we cannot begin a serious debate about the future of Iran, the Middle East, and American foreign policy without educating ourselves about other world leaders -- even the ones we dislike. The people, after all, "are the ultimate guardians of the own liberty," and should be the front line in guarding our right to create our own educated foreign policy, engage the world, and avoid against another idiotic neoconservative war. After all, "of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded."

Comments

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

No they dont; how ridiculous. Enlightenment about Iran is a lower priority "need". This electorate thinks that Sadam caused 9/11; believes evolution is a tool of the devil; fears that universal healthcare is a communist plot; and would say the Austria is awash in kangeroos. What this electorate needs are honest leaders who can be trusted to act in the people's interest.

[sdw2is]

Letting Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia helps americans understand that the Israeli problem is a regional one and that right wing americans should not be involved. Israel and Iran will get along only when Christian america butts out.

I'm sure that the rest of the world's media will prsent Ahmadinejad's words exactly as the american media has presented them with no editing.

Also, maybe the iranian president's visit will help the world see that the US is just as vulnerable as they are and they have nothing to fear from us. After all the rest of the world isn't the threat we are. If they us as weaker I'm sure our potential adversaries won't exploit that.

[mierda]

The Israelis will start a war with Iran. The,
the United States will come to "help" Israel.
This is all madddening but I believe it will happen.
There is a small group(most Jews find Bush sickeing) of American neo-con Jews who are are just champing at the bit to engage Iran. They'll get the goyim to fight the war.

[NABNYC]

I see this entire hysteria about Ahmadinejad as just being part of Cheney's justification for the U.S. to nuke Iran. So congratulations to everyone who supports Cheney, that cowardly little man, in his goal to create even more war and kill even more people.

I don't understand this sudden assumption that people cannot use their first amendment rights: to speak, and to hear what others have to say. And sorry, I don't see all this hysteria about Ahmadinejad either.

So what if he thinks Israel should be wiped from the map? Israel wants to destroy Iraq (we did it for them), Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and of course to commit genocide to destroy each and every Palestinian in the world. What's the difference?

And as far as I understand it, in any event, he did not say he supported Israel being wiped out. He said it would no longer exist in the future, which I suspect is true or at least is a fair prediction. The demographics support that prediction: 95 million Arabs, 5 million Jews, the Jews will soon be such a small minority that it is unlikely they will continue to be able to dominate the Palestinian lands.

As far as the Holocaust denial issue, I've never understood the fuss about that. So what? I know someone who truly believes flying saucers have come here, and people from outer space walk among us. I don't care what she believes. It's okay with me. Why is it that just because someone says or believes something that the rest of us think is crazy, that means we have the right to attack them, or punish them? I think it's a ridiculous idea, but again, so what?

Cheney wants to nuke Iran. Step back, take a breath, and ask whether this group-attack on its president is helping Cheney achieve that goal.

[Andydp]

The only way people around the world can actually see what a whack job the Irani President is would be to expose him to as big an audience as pissible. Allow him the fullest possible platform to espouse his ideas. The entire world knows this guy is a fruitcake so why not let them see how wrong he is. Bravo to Columbia for letting him speak.

[WhinyDemocrat]

For all those who argue that he should be aloud to speak because of freedom of speech, maybe its time you do a history lesson. The constitution gives AMERICAN citizens the freedom of speech, not presidents of other countries who deny the Holocaust, and have made it widely known there desired goal of destroying our country. Unlike most posters on this site who lap all rublicans together, i will not do that to all democrats. But you on the far left really worry me, thankfully your "leaders" don't do anything to enact your "ideas". And one more thing you argue to give him freedom of speech, and to listen to his ideas, but anything and i mean anything coming from a republican is automatically disregarded. I believe the dictionary defines that as being a hypocrite. But those on the far left have no problem with being hypocrites since they feel only "their" ideas are worth enacting. ACtually one more, you argue he is a better speaker then Bush, which is true. You know who was a great speaker, Hitler, and look how that turned out. Well I guess nothing really happened since to you guys the Holocaust never happened.

[NABNYC]

Well actually you're wrong. I don't know who wrote your history book. Bill O'Reilly? The First Amendment protects communication. The exact language goes something like "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of ... speech [assembly, religion]. The speech is protected, not just the speaker. The protection is valuable to protect the speaker, yes. But it also gives others the right to hear, if they choose. In other words I can say something out loud and be free from arrest. But someone else can rely on the first amendment in choosing to hear what I say, or read what I say. The theory being that people are free to openly and freely exchange views if they choose to do so.

For all the right-wing idiots on this blog, the reason most people don't listen to Horowitz, Coulter and Cheney is because all they do is lie and promote hatred and killing. Who wants to listen to that, except maybe a bunch of idiots. The law does not [yet] say that the right-wing can force the rest of us to sit somewhere and listen to their lies. But don't give up, I think Bush is going to issue another executive order soon, and maybe he'll include that.

[NotMyPrez]

For every Mayer Kahane there must be a Farakhan, for every Ahmedinejad there must be a King Hussein. for every Kristol there must be an Olbermann. Without that, our principles hold no water.
I wholly recommend everyone read "UnSpun", written by the founders of FactCheck.org.

Stop buying into the Madison Ave-DC hype machine. Read from left to right and not just one side of the paragraph.

Well said, Mr. Cox, keep your eye on the path and with more like yourselves, America may stand a chance against unsanity.

[vippy]

We are as closed minded as we can get. We buy the lies this administration puts forth. I bet most demonstrators were organized and getting paid. No, we cannot let Ahmedinejad debate Mr Bush for our lies would be exposed. We have to keep up the picture that we are dealing with a madman. I just ask myself who is the madman in this, just take a look at Iraq. And the Saudis
are those who attack our soldiers in Iraq, yet
no one crows about that, nor does Bush want to
find Bin Laden. If anything, let us see how the election goes in Pakistan. I am sure the CIA is busy getting Mushareff back in power though the whole country there despises us.
Myself, I am much more worried about that particular country. Ahmedinejad may not be what
we call a leader but then remember, Saddam had done better job keeping his people under control
and now we understand why. And Bush certainly is nothing to be proud of either!

[winningticket]

A thug? I beg to differ. President Achmedinejad was democratically elected. Bush stole two elections. Who is the real thug here?

[StephenCox]

There is not simply a choice between the two available to enlightened people. Most of us would choose neither the Muslim ultraconservative religious bigot nor the Christian ultraconservative religious bigot. Both represent their faith communities and their countries very poorly, in my view, and both employ domestic and foreign policy tactics that can only be described as thuggish. Your failure to see anything other than a black-and-white distinction here is reminiscent of the Bush administration's rhetoric.

[Bluepickuptruck]

President Bollinger did the right thing by agreeing to allow Ahmadinejad to be questioned at Columbia. Everyone who said Bollinger invited him to speak got it wrong. He won't be speaking, he'll be answering questions. He wasn't invited, he asked to come and was not refused.

You can't defeat monstrous ideas by ignoring them and hoping they'll go away (like conservatives want to do). You have to let dangerous ideas be publicly aired so that they can be confronted and destroyed with better ideas.

[UncleDave]

Most intelligent people can spot a phoney,so let Him speak,and we'll make our own minds up. As for Colter and the other pond scum like Her,We all know way too much already. But,I'd love for them to invite her,so she could be laughed off the stage.

[sedalia066]

Knowledge is power. Exposure of individuals who have opinions or ideas contrary to the American way allows people to make their own decisions. Let us hope the Columbia adventure allows us to see for ourselves and to make decisions on fact rather than the rhetoric so often put forth by MSM.

[villastrangiato]

I affirm proudly and defiantly - "my mind is not for rent, to any god or goverment"


I always thought the "support our troops" bumper stickers were a unique badge of American stupidity. I was ridiculed back in 2002 and 2003 for my cynical views about our country's war mongering with Iraq. Saying I told you so to all those around me now who've done an about face in their world view gives me no sense of satisfaction - it doesn't bring back the dead or save the dying.

This latest flap over the Iranian president sadly reveals how much ignorance continues to flourish in America where the Middle East is concerned. People like Alan Dershowitz continue to spew their war mongering and hatred for all things Arab/Persian and no one calls them on it - but US media makes a big deal about this extremist figurehead from Iran in his bid to address the UN and the American people. I can't say I was surpised this morning when Dershowitz decried Iran as an intolerant theocracy on MSNBC whilst pitching his latest book - that no one said - "hey wait a minute Alan - Israel - the country you so blindly defend is not exactly a bastion of religious tolerance either.."
In fact, Israel made it pretty high on the State Department's list of religiously intolerant countries.
http://www.abpnews.com/2500.article

So why are we Americans, proud citizens of a secular society taking sides in a conflict between two warring theocracies in the Middle East?

The media here in America keeps giving these bigots and racists a platform to speak and no one calls them on their hypocrisy. Instead of talking to them seriously - we should be laughing in their face. People like William Kristol and Alan Dershowitz should be regarded as morally and intellectually no better than Ahmedinejad. They both act like the new poster boys for hypocrisy.

[Colmore]

On "60 Minutes" the president of Iran came across as intelligent, knowledgeable, and well informed. He answered questions without smirking, er'ing, and I was impressed. Too bad the US does not have a leader who can go into an interview with such confidence. Isn't it time for the American electorate to THINK for themselves.? The administration lies about all manner of things, why would they be honest about this man? I wrote 60 Minutes to ask if we could trade Bush for this president. It would be nice to have an intelligent person in office for a change.

[Leefeller]

Intelligent, knowledgeable and will informed would be over the top for neocons, they are not able to accept the truth, has something to do with genes.

[Overd0g]

No doubt you would elect Ahmadinejad on the basis of his diction. God help us all.

[Colmore]

Well, how many people "elected" Georgie on the basis of "most like to have a beer with"???? My God, look where that has landed the country. The Iranian president is more knowledgeable than half the politicians running on the GOP ticket. Thompson does not know, or remember, anything. If Iran published a map of possible bomb drops in the US, wouldn't you be upset.? This is what is going on from this administration. Start thinking for yourself.

[Veleria29]

He may be a thug but he was elected by his
Country and it is up to the people in Iran to get rid of him not George Bush by bombing Iran.

[Overd0g]

Not if he is a threat to U.S. security. If he is, he should be exterminated. Whether or not he is a threat is where the debate should take place.

[RanTalbott]

Hmmm, since the Bushies have threatened "U.S. security" by backing off the pursuit of al Qaeda, undertaking a war that they had been warned would significantly increase the threat from Muslim terrorists and alienate many of the allies essential to our defense, and refused to implement technical measures vital to protecting against the most serious threats, do claim they "should be exterinated", too?