Dr. Frank's What's-it

I think Aaronovitch's column is mostly glib, about 80% snark and 20% useful. It's pretty obvious that the Iranian government is useless, authoritarian, and uninterested in the Iranian people's real needs. You don't need a massive earthquake to prove that. Would American-style democracy be better than it? Sure. Would that be the best alternative for Iran? I doubt it, since the US system fosters lots of social problems (wealth-tested health care, lousy education, violence, racism) that we're certainly rich enough to fix but don't bother fixing. More to the point, from the age of the Bam buildings it doesn't seem like Iran's American-appointed dictator, the Shah, was much more interested in earthquake safety than the mullahs are. Furthermore, earthquake building codes are a LIMIT on "liberal capitalism" which in its purest form would reject this as government interference in the operation of the free market: "It's my private property, I'll build what I want and if it falls down on you, you can sue me!"

I wish Aaraonovitch had looked a little harder for at least one country that (a) has decent building codes and (b) falls somewhere between the US and Iran on the political spectrum.

Nick - Aaronovitch was pointing out that, despite Iran’s spiritual solidarity, the leaders really don’t care about the people. This is typical of any dictatorship. It’s not just the building codes – there’s also this example:

http://histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/iraq/war-iiw.html

During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian clergy rejected professional military doctrine. They felt God endorsed their struggle. So they used "human-wave" attacks. Pasdaran forces and Basij volunteers as young as 9 years old were used to sweep over minefields. One East European journalist reports seeing "tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about 20 to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack." A HBC reader writes, "Not only Iranian boys were sent against the Iraqi positions, but also a large number of girls. The Mullahs who stayed safely in the mosques told the children that they would go to paradise. For the Mullahs girls were of little consequence."

The Iranian theocracy is happy to let inconsequential people die (when they’re not actively murdering them)

Would the people of Iran prefer a democracy with all of its faults? That choice should probably be left up to them.

Mary,

Like I said, you don't need an earthquake to prove how bad the Iranian theocracy is. But proving that the mullahs are wrong doesn't prove that "liberal capitalism," as Aaronovitch puts it, is simply right.

One example: you suggest the Iranians themselves should make the choice for or against democracy. The thing is, they already did: they elected a Prime Minister, Mossadegh, in the 1950s, who wanted to nationalize the oil industry. The USA and Great Britain decided the Iranians deserved the Shah because we couldn't stand for any elected leaders giving control of a nation's oil industry to its people through public control. They chose democracy for themselves, and the US chose dictatorship for them. And without the Shah, there's no revolution.

The mullahs aren’t just wrong, they’re inhumane, ignorant and cruel to an almost unimaginable degree (even unimaginable to a decadent liberal capitalist like myself)

Liberal democracies have their failings, and the horror that is Iran today can be traced to the Shah, it can be traced to Jimmy Carter’s pathetic response to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, it could be traced to whatever sort of miswiring of the brain causes otherwise reasonable people to follow loony cults, or it could be traced the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil. Aaronovitch was pointing out that a democratic system of government is consistently proven more successful than other, more centralized forms of government. It’s nicer too.

Personally, I prefer our liberal democracy. If you would prefer to live under some sort of centralized dictatorship, I’m sure you can find one to your liking.

I don't know why you think I'd prefer to live under a dictatorship. What I object to is Aaronovitch posing two oversimplified options -- American capitalism and Iranian theocracy -- and implying that if you criticise the former you must support the latter. This is not a serious argument, it's just snarkiness.

What in my earlier posts made you think I support the Iranian theocracy? In fact, my original point is that their government's huge moral, ethical, and practical failings and evils were obvious long before this earthquake. But Aaronovitch's piece basically says: "The earthquake in California killed a small number of people and did limited damage. A very similar earthquake in Iran killed tens of thousands and flattened a city. This proves that liberal capitalism is better than theocracy, so all the anti-globalization people should just shut up and admit they're wrong." This is simply not a serious argument, even if you support globalization.

As to democracy being more successful than other, more centralized forms of government, yes, I agree. I also think that social democracy has consistently, empirically proven more successful than American capitalist democracy: healthier, better educated citizens; less income disparity; less poverty; more rights at work and more time off work to spend with family, the list goes on. Social democracy in that sense has proven "nicer" than American democracy, which has visited an astounding amount of "not niceness" on its own people over the decades and centuries.

Lastly, to compare the overthrow of Mossadegh with butterflies flapping wings, as if it just sort of mysteriously happened, contradicts all you say about democracy as a form of government. The US is a democracy, and democratically-elected American officials sent the CIA to destroy another nation's democratic government, consigning tens of millions to literally decades of the oppression and dictatorship you oppose so strongly, because those officials believed that the democratically-made decision of the Iranian people to control their own natural resources contradicted the interests of the US, or at least our oil industry. Since we were and are a democracy, we as citizens are responsible for our government's behavior and thus are ourselves implicated in this injustice. If democracy means anything, it means accepting accountability for our government's behavior, since it truly "represents" us. Our track record as a nation is that the "niceness" of this democracy towards other peoples ends when the legitimate aspirations of other peoples contradict what we (or, at least, influencial sectors of our society) want for ourselves.

Nick – you say:

"American officials sent the CIA to destroy another nation's democratic government, consigning tens of millions to literally decades of the oppression and dictatorship you oppose so strongly"

I oppose the theocracy that is currently in power. When the Shah was overthrown, the Iranians had the power to form their own government, and they willingly chose the government that is in place now. Can you explain why so many educated middle – and upper class Iranians were so determined to let the cult of Islamic fundamentalism rule every aspect of their lives? We are, of course, talking about a fundamentalist movement that existed before the CIA, Standard Oil or Elf Aquitaine were created.

If you could explain why anyone follows this absurd cult, that would be a great help. As far as I’m concerned, this is as difficult to trace as any variant of chaos theory.

You say: "Since we were and are a democracy, we as citizens are responsible for our government's behavior and thus are ourselves implicated in this injustice."

The overthrow of Mossadegh was a bit before my time. Am I responsible for that? Are my children responsible for that? I was only a kid when Jimmy Carter dealt with the hostage crisis in Iran, and even then I knew he was being a wuss. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much I, or any other American citizen could do to change Carter’s actions. You severely overestimate the amount of control American citizens have over every action of our government.

Has social democracy consistently, empirically proven more successful than American capitalist democracy? You are comparing apples and oranges here. I lived in Germany for a while. The social services are better in Europe. American troops also have a very visible presence there. If these social democracies had to pay entirely for their own military defense, would they be able to offer the same cradle-to-grave policies? I don’t think so.

In contrast, America is an independent nation that is perfectly capable of defending itself militarily. Since the cold war began, the American taxpayer has been burdened by not only paying for our own military defense, but also for the defense of Europe. We have also risked the lives of our children in carrying out this responsibility, and we have seen lately how many of these ‘social democracies’ have repaid us. Responsibility for their own defense is a burden that these social democracies should assume.

Of course, social democracy, as practiced in France, is not nicer to its older citizens. Thousands died of neglect in that recent heat wave. But I won’t compare their treatment of the elderly to the treatment of the elderly in America, because again, we would be comparing apples and oranges.

Speaking of absurd comparisons and the carping of anti-globalists, I was wondering if Arundhati Roy or Michael Moore have ever criticized the Iranian regime, or any other homicidal dictatorship? I’m sure that they have, since they claim to be spokesmen for the oppressed. Unfortunately, I can’t find any examples. I’m sure you’ve got plenty of links. It would be nice to see them.

it's worth pointing out that a lot of groups were involved in the overthrow of the shah. Many of them leftish and rather more liberal. As soon as the revolution was secure. the mullah executed all their leftist allies and anyone else they felt did not fit.

Nick, so it the current one is wrong and a liberal democracy is not right, what should they have. You haven't said what that is. I am not trying to be a smartass, just curious.

Shall I teach you how to know something? Realize you know it when you know it, and realize you don't know it when you don't.