The Left On Obama And Iran
In the past few days I’ve noticed an odd, if perhaps politically understandable, shift in the attitude of the left on the subject of human rights and Iran. For decades the left was dedicated to supporting human rights around the world and they would push the President (regardless of party) to be more proactive in condemning abuses and governments who violated basic principles of freedom.
Yet when it comes to Obama and Iran many of the usual voices have been oddly silent, or at least supportive of the soft position taken by the President until yesterday. This is not to say that all of the voices have been quiet, some people have been quite vocal about the need for stronger language. But in many cases the people who would normally push an administration to condemn the events in Iran have said very little.
Even more bizzarely, some have actually taken to attacking Republicans who have called for Obama to take a stronger stand against Iran. To be clear nobody has called for anything close to military action nor have they suggested that we become openly involved in the protests. They have simply said that we need to make it clear that we support the right of free people everywhere to express themselves.
When the President did take a stronger stance the reaction from most on the right, and congressional Republicans in particular, was strongly supportive. They made it clear that they thought the President had taken the right stance and they praised him for taking it.
Yet over on MSNBC we had Ed Shultz not only failing to credit the GOP for this, but actually seemed to suggest that the Republicans had attacked Obama after his press conference when in fact the segments he aired were from before the statement.
For the record I think that Obama has taken a very correct stance on Iran. I thought he was a little too soft on things before today but his statement at the press conference took a fair balance between strong language and proper restraint.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
25 Responses to “The Left On Obama And Iran”
The Left On Obama And Iran | The Moderate Voice…
Trackback from PunditKix.com…
Patrick,
Its horses for courses, I think. Obama's decision making on this issue has been, according to those with most experience in the area, pretty near faultless, as was his (and Bush's) take on the Georgia situation. I think if you go back and look at 'liberal' bloggers during that crises you will see that they were pretty much saying what they're saying now- in short, think smart, act smart, and ignore the neo-know-nothing-cons.
I agree, Patrick. Normally you would associate Democrats with speaking out against obvious brutality but as long as Obama took a more subdued approach they followed his lead. Many fell into the usual partisan sniping.
Obama's approach to Iran was a logical and diplomatic one. It seemed like the human element was left out a bit too long though, which was a surprise from a party that usually doesn't hesitate to speak out against human rights abuses. Obama's words were flat in comparison to the images we were seeing.
This morning on MSNBC the entire cast thought the most shocking thing they’ve ever heard was John McCain saying that he didn’t know who Obama supported in Iran – the protesters or the Supreme Leader.
No one knows. Obama has yet to say. McCain was absolutely correct in not trying to guess.
If Obama supported the Supreme Leader, he would say that the elections are over, a winner has been picked and its time to move on.
If Obama supported the protesters, he would state that the elections were a fraud and that the U.S. will not recognize the government of Iran until new elections are held.
That is what is meant by “support”. Obama may sympathize with the protesters, as everyone does, but feeling for them is a far cry from supporting them.
McCain didn’t advocate either position, he simply stated that he didn’t know what Obama’s position was.
Patrick is absolutely right. Normally, the left would be organizing candlelight vigils and protest marches and all the Hollywood stars would be wearing green ribbons and making an album of “We are Iran”. It is curiously quiet on the civil rights front.
Patrick: “For the record I think that Obama has taken a very correct stance on Iran.”
DG: ” Obama's approach to Iran was a logical and diplomatic one:
Democrats (“the Left?”) have steadfastedly supported the Iran protesters and Obama
Republicans have steadfastedly criticized Obama
So, why do I see a total disconnect in your thesis, Patrick, that “Yet when it comes to Obama and Iran many of the usual voices have been oddly silent…”?
Here's one Democrat who continues to fiercely support human rights, everywhere, as always, as all Democrats do, just a little more “logically and diplomatically…” (I know this will be derided by the shoot first and ask questions later crowd)
BTW there have been numerous protest marches in support of the protesters, including in “Hollywood land,” California. I guess they were all from the Right?…
And while we're going here, I think part of what killed the GOP was their acceptance of some of George Bush's actions even when they were actions that traditionally they would oppose, “blind allegiance” if you want to call it that. Now that we are seeing some similar activity from the left we'll have to wait and see how it affects them in the long run.
Here's my take……..
Obama is a nice, reasonable guy, but not a born leader nor a risk-taker. His fortes are oration before a polite crowd and a go-along to get-along politician.
A leader has an inate drive to shape outcomes. Obama is waiting to see what the outcome will be and work with that.
The majority of voters either intentionally wanted, or unintentionally got, the go-along to get-along style. While that is not my personality choice in a President, much less a CIC, it's will be a good objective lesson to American voters in what really works best.
America made its bed and it gets to sleep in it for the next few years…and only hindsight will reveal the truth.
I think some of this opining misses the boat. Partisanship is always a judgement clouder, but let's not forget the lessons learned from recent history, specifically our adventures in Iraq, and before that, Vietnam. If there is a greater tendency to take a restrained approach, then we should be grateful. Obama has responded appropriately. That said, we all know it's impossible to please everyone.
'No one knows. Obama has yet to say. McCain was absolutely correct in not trying to guess'.
JWest,
There is a serious debate to be had on Obama's reaction, but this is just too ridiculous and flies in the face of all the responsible journalism out there at the moment. The very fact that the cast of MSNBC would put forward such a point despite the fact that those closest to the action acknowledge without caveats that not only are they clear on where Obama and America stands, but his approach is the right approach.
I would put McCain's statement in the same category as William Bennett's 'give them duplicating machines' comment, beyond childish. If republicans want to be taken seriously again they need to start acting seriously and engage with reality.
@@If there is a greater tendency to take a restrained approach, then we should be grateful.@@
If there is a greater tendency to take a restrained approach, then I AM be grateful.@@
Speaking of clouded judgement, wouldn't the restatement be a more honest sentence on your part?
Now we just need him to take a restrained approach to spending.
“Excuse me. If I may be so bold. I hate to trouble you but…. I don't mean to impose… I'm not interfering… Far be it from me to suggest anything that you might be able to characterize as meddling. I'm no meddler. Not at all. I'm just over here, modestly deploring violence.” – Ann Althouse
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/06/relocated-…
DaGoat: “Now we just need him to take a restrained approach to spending.”
Yes! He needs to apply is very good Iran approach to spending (especially regarding health care) and he'll be a real rock star. LOL… (not saying that Presidents have to be rock stars).
“……………But then, this has been Obama’s M.O. all along, dating back to the blowup over Wright during the campaign. First he issues some weak, heavily qualified half-denunciation in hopes that the crisis will go away, then it doesn’t go away and everyone gets angry, then he comes back and covers his ass by saying how appalled or outraged he is or whatever — assuring us all the while that he’s been “perfectly consistent” throughout. Even the AP’s getting tired of his shtick:”………..
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/23/major-gar…
Linking to Hot Air, jwest? How Kattenburg-esque.
“Excuse me. If I may be so bold. I hate to trouble you but…. I don't mean to impose… I'm not interfering… Far be it from me to suggest anything that you might be able to characterize as meddling. I'm no meddler. Not at all. I'm just over here, modestly deploring violence.” – Ann Althouse
More worse than useless commentary from the right. Word from the streets of Iran (read the tweets coming in on a minute by minute basis at Andrew Sullivan's site) is that Obama's approach is the correct approach and he is praised for the delicate manner' in which he is managing US involvement.
I'm not surprised to see JWest quoting a second rater like Ann Althouse, as all the respected and intelligent commentators on the right are lining up to support the administrations wise and effective handling of a dangerous international situation.
Patrick,
What exactly do you think will happen as the result of official American condemnation of Iran?
Alibicaff,
Tell me, has the great sage Excitable Andy found out who Trig Palin’s mother is?
You should be embarrassed to read, let alone quote, such a fool.
I am, and have been from the beginning, disturbed and disgusted by the human rights abuses in Iran. However, I believe supporting the people means respecting what they want. In Poland during the Soviet era, those people wanted US support. In Sudan, those people wanted help and support. In Rwanda, they were crying out for help from the UN. However, in Iran, they are saying they do not want to be linked to the US specifically or the west in general. They do not want the President aligning himself with them, so forth. People who are screeching for US involvement aren't supporting the people. They are supporting their own egos.
CO, if you have a coherent question for me, have at it and I'll be glad to answer.
First off thanks for the comments and discussion.
As to what I expect, I certainly don't expect that things would change overnight but neither did JFK or Reagan in Berlin, it's a matter of standing up and saying what is right or wrong. As I've said I think the President made a good statement yesterday, I just wished he'd spoken earlier.
As to liberal voices for human rights, as I said in my original post, not all voices on the left were silent, many did speak up but many stayed oddly silent.
“Now we just need him to take a restrained approach to spending.”
The childish, exploitable group not only doesn't care about restraint, they loathe it when it prevents them from getting what they want, NOW! Never mind restraint, or the facts, or the costs, or how to pay for it, as we see with health care currently, and all the related impatience and nonsense…
[...] Original post: The Left On Obama And Iran | The Moderate Voice [...]
Patrick:
I think some of the restraint by our president reflects Mousavi's past and whether one believes if he really represent significant and meaningful change in Iran. Mousavi and his wife were integral in the initial revolution and in establishing the current Islamic state. He was prime minister for much of the 80's and had close times (and was close friends to) Ruhollah Khomeini and the then established powers within Iran.
Furthermore, for him to run for elected office, the current council of 12 and the Supreme leader must confirm his candidacy. Meaning, the current establishment must approve of him as a candidate. This, in my minds, bring up serious concerns about him as a candidate.
The question this raises, at least for me: is he more the same, but wearing a different mask OR is he really a reformist and will change the current status quo (ignoring the questions of whether the president of Iran has any power to begin with)?
As things have developed, I believe his stance and statements has helped some of us believe he could represent an improvement, opposed to many of our beliefs that the current presidential conflict in Iran represents infighting of the current establishment.
Regardless, I still do not believe that even if did obtain power he would be able to a guarantee any changes within Iran without the acquiescence of the current real power brokers in Iran (ie the council of 12 and the Supreme leader, who, together have the power to veto legislation, are the supreme court in Iran, and have the power to remove the president).
Type your comment here.
How can a reasonable non-MUslim person support the Iran, Hamas, the Palestinians. The do NOT. They are really anti-American, or ant-Jewish.