Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

At the tail end of our Cover It Live discussion about technology and the Iranian election, Chris prompted me into the only commentary I provided on the issue as the moderator. I didn’t so much have something to say about about the elections and the resultant upheaval themselves, so much as I had some concerns around how people state-side are responding and reacting to events as they unfold and why my earlier call for some patience in developing an analysis was more than just me being curmudgeonly.

To quote myself,

One thing that has occurred to me, is that there is some part of me that gets a bit queasy watching Andrew Sullivan howl about democracy and the overthrow of fascism. I think his heart is in the right place, no doubt, and I want to be there with him. But we’ve made some pretty horrendous mistakes by making unwarranted and unjustifiable claims about how democratic states actually emerge. I worry that the germs of that thinking still exist and that they could transmorph and come back in even more hideous and seeming altruistic forms. I do worry about how all of those guilt ridden impulses will wind up being exorcised and I worry that they will be draped in a Gersonian flag of benevolence, only to do as much, if not more harm than before.

As if on cue, Andrew quotes As’ad AbuKhalil expressing concern about double standards in American analysis about current events in Iran, especially vis-a-vis tyrannical dictaters who are liked and those who are not,

Of course, there is so much hypocrisy in the Western coverage and official reactions to the developments. Most glaring for me was the statement by the secretary-general of the UN who insisted on the respect of the will of the Iranian people. Would that US designate utter such words, say, about Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other dictatorships that are approved by the US? The role of Faqih in Iran undermines any claim of democracy in that country: but I am in no way sympathetic to Moussavi. He is a man who suddenly discovered the virtues of democracy. When he was prime minister back in the 1980s, he presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad’s. And why has no Western media really commented on his rhetoric during his own campaign: the man kept saying that he wants a “return” to the teachings of Khomeini. I in no way support a man who wants a “return” to the teachings of Khomeini. But Western media are always quick to pick villains and heroes: especially when one side is identified against Israel.

Andrew responds by saying,

Because Iran actually has a population capable of sustaining democracy; and Mousavi is as good as we’ll get. I also suspect that all judgments about who these people are need to be held provisionally. These events are surely changing the mindset of everyone in that country, most of all Mousavi. In a moment of extreme flux, we have to look at intimations of the new, not recitations of the old.

Now, while I appreciate the sentiment that judgments need to be held provisionally, that all seems like so much momentary back tracking on Andrew’s part for the sake of dealing with some solid criticism in one blog post. Let’s face it, actions speak louder than words. And as much as I commend Andrew and the rest of the Dish crew for their exceptional coverage of events in Iran, their actions have not been those of a group of people running a blog that is holding its judgments about what is going on in Iran particularly provisionally.

Again, understand that I want to be charging the virtual gates with Andrew, but in events like this it is truly difficult to know precisely what is going on and what the appropriate response one ought to provide is. In saying that, I’m not suggesting that one is therefore bound not to provide any response whatsoever, but I think a healthy dose of skepticism about the degree of understanding one possesses is not just in order, it is vital.

I take it to be vital because of another portion of Andrew’s response where he says, “and Mousavi is as good as we’ll get”.

Now look, I get that the phrase “as good as we’ll get” is a figure of speech and that consciously speaking Andrew wasn’t suggesting that it is his interests and the interests of the US that are really what ought to be considered here, but “we’ll get” is in fact what he said. As John Cole, among many others, has suggested, it is paramount beyond everything else that we remember “this is not about us, it is about them“. Little slips of the tongue might not seem like much, until, that is, we remind ourselves that the US has a fairly fresh reputation on the world stage of taking action seemingly for others that are subsequently revealed to really be about the US — or at least the altruism of those actions is called into extreme doubt by subsequent actions.

For the past eight years, US foreign policy has been directed by a neoconservative agenda. Whether you agree or not with that agenda is really beside the point in terms of the underlying realization of the point itself. I continue not to take neoconservatism writ large to be about lying, cheating and pillaging in the same way that, say, my fellow contributor E.D. does. But I do think some of the fundamental flaws with that conception of the world and the US’ role within it have been been exposed pretty dramatically in recent years. Given our proximity to the prevalence of those conceptions and the still recent wounds of their failure, I think we’re well advised to be, if anything, extra careful not to tread to close to their waters again. The lessons flowing out of those wounds have barely even had time to clot.

I continue to believe that there are valuable lessons we might glean from the insights of neoconservatism, most poignantly the striving towards moral clarity in issues foreign policy and otherwise. But I think we are also wise to grapple with just how difficult hitting upon that moral clarity actually is in a complex world and how skeptical we ought to be about both our achievements in this regard, as well as guarded against our tendencies to delude ourselves into believing we’ve gotten somewhere that we haven’t.

Which brings me to the last section of Andrew’s relatively short commentary that sent up red flags for me. Andrew says, “[t]hese events are surely changing the mindset of everyone in that country, most of all Mousavi.”

Well now, of course events such as the ones that are occurring in Iran are going to “change mindsets”, how can events like that not affect anyone involved? But, again I think we need to be really careful about what we read into that likelihood, especially insofar as Andrew seems willing to brush off perfectly valid and historical concerns raised about Mousavi by appeal to such changing mindsets.

Who can really say for certain what is going on in the minds of most Iranians, let alone what is really going on in the mind of one particular Iranian at the centre of this firestorm? I’m certainly not willing to claim such clairvoyance and I’ll cock an incredulous eye towards anyone who does.

The fact of the matter is that Mousavi seems to be able at this point in time to take advantage of a movement afoot that is sweeping him into a position of cultural and social power due to the sheer fact that he is not Ahmadinajad. That fact alone does not necessarily make Mousavi a good leader, it makes him a potentially viable alternative. And I think that, griping about Israel aside (we’ll carefully set that can of worms over there), As’ad AbuKhalil makes some compelling points about why he ought not to be seen in such a glowing light.

For examples of seemingly beneficent democratic swells gone deeply flawed, see Pakistan.

All of which is to reiterate the point I made in an earlier post about avoiding the tendency to see events as you would like to see them and not as they are actually occurring. At the heart of the neoconservative weakness, such as I conceive it, is a tendency to claim unwarranted clarity through rose coloured glasses when it comes to geo-political affairs, especially the flowering of democracy in arid soil as the be-all-end-all of foreign policy machinations. That tendency can and has lead to some pretty substantial delusions and blunders in recent history and the siren call of such foreign policy elegance, as much as the current taste on most tongues is bitter, still retains a good deal of draw.

Andrew and others who are seeking repentance from their sins around supporting the US excursion in Iraq are doubly susceptible to enchantment and need to avoid letting their hearts get away from their heads lest their excitement give birth to a simple a wardrobe change in neoconservatism with the same basic impulses and even more disasterous results.

Related posts...

• freedom and neoconservatism
• You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It’s Still State Sanctioned Violence
• On Blogging

Tags | Andrew Sullivan, As'ad AbuKhalil, mousavi, neoconservatism, perception