Via hilzoy,
Larison:
"Americanists believe that any statement from the President that fails to build up and anoint Mousavi as the preferred candidate is discouraging to Mousavi and his supporters, because they apparently cannot grasp that being our preferred candidate is to be tainted with suspicion of disloyalty to the nation. It is strange how nationalists often have the least awareness of the importance of the nationalism of another people. Many of the same silly people who couldn’t say enough about Hamas' so-called "endorsement" of Obama as somehow indicative of his Israel policy views, as well as those who could not shut up about his warm reception in Europe, do not see how an American endorsement of a candidate in another country's election might be viewed with similiar and perhaps even greater distaste by the people in that country."
Somewhat tangentially, I'm reminded of an Orwell quote:
"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
What kind of American calls other Americans "Americanists"? That's just bizarre.
ReplyDelete"do not see how an American endorsement of a candidate in another country's election might be viewed with similiar and perhaps even greater distaste by the people in that country."
That's nonsense on at least two levels. Most of the people who have been arguing for more U.S. support aren't specifically advocating support for Mousavi. They want U.S. support for the protesters in general, and outspoken condemnation of the Iranian regime.
And most of the people who take that position are aware of the risks, they just feel that the potential rewards outweigh them.
It's not bizarre, I've encountered the term before. It's just a short for all the absurd American nationalist and exceptionalists.
ReplyDeleteCondemnation of the Iranian regime can easily be twisted by nationalists into something of grave distaste.
If people arguing for more U.S. support were cognizant of the risks and potential benefit, they wouldn't be proposing such boneheaded intervention.
"It's not bizarre, I've encountered the term before. It's just a short for all the absurd American nationalist and exceptionalists."
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense. Are there Britishists and Iranianists too? The last thing we need is more meaningless jargon.
"Condemnation of the Iranian regime can easily be twisted by nationalists into something of grave distaste."
I'm not sure how a condemnation is going to be twisted. And what is all this about nationalists anyway? Advocating democracy or freedom for Iranians is not an American nationalist position. Not only that, but it's a position shared across different parts of the political spectrum. Aren't you yourself an advocate of freedom in Iran?
"If people arguing for more U.S. support were cognizant of the risks and potential benefit, they wouldn't be proposing such boneheaded intervention."
You mistake their disagreement about risk/reward for being unaware. Even though I don't share their position on Iran, it doesn't mean they don't have reasonable argument.
Makes no sense? The word is in the dictionary, sense 3:
ReplyDelete"One that is sympathetic to the United States and its policies."
An American nationalist is, of course, one of the more extreme sympathizers.
> I'm not sure how a condemnation is going to be twisted
Similar to the way Hamas's "endorsement" of Obama was twisted by the American Right.
> Advocating democracy or freedom for Iranians is not an American nationalist position.
It can be perceived and sold that way, as happens all the time in repressive states with state-run media. I know it happens in China, for instance, according to my Chinese acquaintances.
> Aren't you yourself an advocate of freedom in Iran?
Insofar as it can be attained by the Iranian people with zero outside intervention, yes. I am a pro-freedom spectator, not an actor. Other than raising awareness, most any public action ours would be counterproductive. (working in the shadows is another matter)
> Even though I don't share their position on Iran, it doesn't mean they don't have reasonable argument.
Sure. Our disagreement doesn't mean that they don't have a reasonable argument. Neither does it mean they have one. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest that the US being seen to back Iranian protesters would be a positive development for freedom in Iran, given the rampant anti-Americanism in the region. Conclusion: so far as I am aware, there isn't a reasonable argument. Only naive wishful thinking.
"One that is sympathetic to the United States and its policies."
ReplyDeleteBut presumably any American is sympathetic to the U.S., although he/she may support varying policies. It would make sense if applied to a foreigner.
"Other than raising awareness, most any public action ours would be counterproductive. (working in the shadows is another matter)"
That's basically my position as well.
" I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest that the US being seen to back Iranian protesters would be a positive development for freedom in Iran"
Well, I don't want to rehash arguments that I don't share, but I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you make it out to be. It's hard to say what might have happened if the U.S. had given stronger moral/vocal support to the protests. Personally I think it would have been counterproductive, but I'm not certain. After all, it looks like the regime has successfully put the lid on things regardless of our non-intervention.