Am I missing something in this liberal ode to Iranian democracy? *UPDATED*

Here’s the article from an extremely Progressive San Francisco blog.  Here’s my distillation:

1.  Liberals truly care about freedom, because they protested their hearts out over the illegal U.S. war in Iraq.

2.  For all that screaming against the evil U.S. government, American liberals really weren’t risking anything because, unlike the Iranian people, they don’t need to fear their own government.

3.  Iranians are now fighting for freedom; American citizens are watching basketball (and running riot afterward).

4.  Both the Iranian candidates are equally bad, but it is impossible for each to have gotten 60% of the popular vote.

5.  Some U.S. activists think we should take sides in this election for one or candidate or another.

6.  Americans have no right to take sides because we’ve done bad things in Iraq, Iran and “Eastasia.”

7.  Americans have no right to take sides because, unlike citizens in a totalitarian state who turn out in droves (to cast meaningless votes, I might add), Californians tend to ignore elections.

8.  I (the writer of the article I’m summarizing here) think you Iranian people are great, but we Americans are just too flawed to offer you any support.

Number 8 is the liberal bottom line, isn’t it?  We really want you Iranians to be free, but our penalty for past infractions is that we’re not allowed to support freedom elsewhere.

Does this writer’s line of thought strike you as the same thinking in which Barack Obama is probably engaged?  Does this explain Obama’s apparent “concern,” coupled with an unwillingness to “meddle” that is so great, he won’t even offer moral support to those fighting for their rights in a totalitarian theocracy?  Obama claims to be a Christian.  Apparently his Bible not only says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” it also says that, “He who has sinned is forever banned from joining with the righteous.”  Who knew?  That’s a lousy principle, if you ask me.

UPDATE:  Trust a great satirist to nail precisely the same point.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    But they feel they have a right to meddle in our lives and the lives of Israel. Rather hypocritical and convenient of them.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Note that it’s not the enlightened progressive… /sarc… writer who has “sinned”. It all the other American people that have sinned. Therefore, the enlighted progressive blogger is off the hook for having to do anything meaningful about it except to vote “present”. Come to think about it…it really is just like Obama.

  • Bill Smith

    I think this can be explained by part of a Liberals core motivation: Do anything to make people appear to love you, and never do anything that could be used against you in any way. You see, it’s got nothing at all to do with wanting the Iranians to be free. It has everything to do with not wishing to appear hypocritical — in their minds — by getting their hands dirty in an ACTUAL good cause when — in their minds — “we” have soiled hands for all the terrible things they revel in imagining we have done. They get to self-righteously gnash their teeth, and sip their lattes through a straw, and call that supporting the Iranians. It is first, last, and always about the Lib’s FEELINGS, not about actually doing anything.

  • Charles Martel

    As you fight and die in the streets, are we able to offer advice? Have we any moral authority? All we American activists can say is that we are watching in awe.”

    I thought “American activists” took great pains to distinguish themselves from the rest of us queer-hating, kid-killing, money-grasping Yanks. So, why the sudden inability to claim moral authority?

    But even worse is this nancy boy’s conceit that somehow saying “we are watching in awe” is supposed to give the Iranians cheer. “Hey, Jew boy, we bombed Dresden so we don’t have any moral authority to complain, but we’re watching in awe as the SS drags you off to Auschwitz!”

  • Ellen

    Book, the verse in the New Testament “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” comes to mind. Because the United States has committed sins in its past, the progressives believe we can’t criticize at all. Never mind that ALL countries have done sinful acts – the USA is the worst and we should just don the sackcloth and ashes for ever.

  • Quisp

    The bio says the author is running for Congress. So this is part of his campaigning?

  • suek

    Him!!!! Him!!!!
    _NOT_ “He”…..!!!

    We are talking about the Bible here, and I’m not a literalist, but I believe that since the Bible is the inspired word of God, He would _not_ make a grammatical error like “Let he…”!!! Does anybody diagram sentences anymore??

    OK. Rant over. Sorry – it just grates on my nerves!

    Progressives don’t believe in forgiveness. You can’t sin and then “go and sin no more”. For progressives, once stained with sin, you are forever blemished, and since you are no longer pure, you can’t call anyone else on _their_ sins. Of course, nobody’s perfect, so obviously nobody can criticize anybody for their wrongs, which means we get to just slouch around and moan and groan and not fix anything.

    Unless you’re the Messiah, and then you get to fix everything. Lay your hand upon it and all will be healed.


    And no, I don’t have an answer for Iran. As far as America is concerned, since Obama has done nothing and we’re still getting knocked for our interference, and since both men are about equal in their attitudes toward the people and us, it probably doesn’t matter. On the other hand, it’s obvious that the Mullahs have chosen A-jad, and if the people can give them their comeuppance, more power to them. Remind those Mullahs that the people must be reckoned with. For that reason alone, I hope A-jad gets tossed.


    One of my geopolitical analysis sources recently wrote on Iran, in a way which made more sense. It mentioned the Khomeni Islamic revolution of ’79. U.S. pundits tended to be of two sorts:

    1. “The Shah would prevail; this was just a small bit of unrest which had happened before and would be taken care of”. These pundits tended to talk only to English-speaking Iranian supporters of the Shah. They didn’t speak Farsi.

    2. “This was an outbreak of liberal democracy and social justice; Khomeni was marginal at best, and not really intending to impose a theocratic rule.” These pundits tended to talk only to English-speaking Iranians in the academic world, and spoke even less Farsi than the first group.

    Ahmadinejad tends to appeal to the more conservative elements, which are very strong outside of Tehran. It would be fair to say that most of the rural types are “conservative”, fearful of change, and most likely to be left alone by a continuation of Ahmadinejad. Mousavi is *slightly* more liberal; most of his base is in the capital.

    Bottom line: Mousavi probably won Tehran and the more outward-looking areas handily. These are also the people who have the most contact with Westerners. OTOH, Ahmadinejad would appeal to much of the rest of the country, to such an extent that 60% of the total voting population is not unreasonable.

    While I do advocate supporting those in favor of more liberty in Iran, including the many demonstrators (and which BHObama is doing poorly at), I don’t think that the issue is “democracy” as such — at least not to the extent many are making of it.

  • Deana

    Bookworm –

    You are so right – there is nothing like satire to nail a point. That Iowahawk piece is a hoot!

    Iowahawk is such a master at mixing truth with laughter. Yet there is nothing more true and less funny than an American president being concerned only about sportsmanship. We DO have a dog in this fight – I just wish Obama realized it.


  • Gringo

    Here is Mr. Hampton’s viewpoint on Iranian protests.

    And yet the U.S. has no claim to a clean past. We are guilty in Iran, we are guilty in Iraq, and “we have always been at war with Eastasia.”… As you fight and die in the streets, are we able to offer advice? Have we any moral authority? All we American activists can say is that we are watching in awe.

    Here is what Mr. Hampton says on his own website in his capacity as a candidate for Congress about Israel, Palestine, and Iran.

    “ I support President Obama’s efforts to break the deadlock in the Middle East by taking an open and honest approach to the problems facing the region. For too long, we have lacked leadership to provide Israel and its neighbors with the support they need to advance a peaceful, two-state solution. The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians support a solution. The United States must do all in its power to help their governments realize the path to peace today rather than tomorrow…..
    As a leading state sponsor of international terrorism, a nuclear-armed Iran would pose unacceptable threats to stability of its region, and to the United States and its allies….
    I support President Obama’s decision to engage diplomatically with Iran with the goal of ceasing their nuclear enrichment efforts….As a means of enhancing pressure on Iran ’s regime, the United States should sanction Iran’s Central Bank, foreign banks that continue to conduct transactions with sanctioned Iranian entities, and companies doing business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”

    If we have no moral authority to protest a fraudulent election by a bunch of terrorist Holocaust-denying Mullahs, they why do we have the moral authority to play a leading role in a “peace deal” between Israel and the Palestinians? If we have no moral authority to protest a fraudulent election by a bunch of terrorist Holocaust-denying Mullahs, they why do we have the moral authority stop the Mullahs from acquiring the Bomb? I would further ask Mr. Hampton: what do we do if the non-violent steps you propose- which are very similar to what the Dastardly Dubya Regime did- do not achieve the goal of stopping Iran from acquiring the Bomb?

  • Ymarsakar

    Obama knows. Obama has the moral authority. That’s why they voted him in. For his authority.

  • Bill Smith

    Y is right. O has moral authority, well, because he has it. It’s like Paris Hilton. She’s famous for being famous. Or infamous. I forget.