Iranians need a lesson from the Democrats

Iranian extremists show their utter contempt for democracy:

Iranian authorities have blocked two Web sites promoting the presidential bid of Mohammed Khatami, reformists said Saturday, in a first sign that powerful hard-liners might seek to thwart his challenge to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the June 12 election. [...]

"At midday, we learned that our Web sites have been blocked. ... Closing down our Web sites means hard-liners are not going to tolerate Khatami challenging Ahmadinejad," Behrouz Shojaei, editor of one of the sites, told The Associated Press Saturday.

Shutting down web sites?  No, no, no—they need to learn to be more subtle about it:

[T]his was the most massive anti-democratic campaign to eliminate a third-party candidate from the ballot in—probably in recent American history. It is—not content with having all these laws and statutes on the book that make it difficult for third-party and independent candidates to run, the Democratic Party and their allies in over fifty-three law firms, with over ninety lawyers, were engaged in filing litigation in eighteen states. They were to remove Ralph Nader from the ballot. It was an organized, abusive litigation process.

The core of the lawsuit is that these lawyers, led by Toby Moffett and Elizabeth Holtzman, and something called the Ballot Project, which was a 527 organization, systematically went around the country and filed lawsuit after lawsuit, twenty-four in all, plus five FEC complaints, to try to completely remove the Nader campaign from the ballot and to, in effect, bankrupt the campaign, which they succeeded in doing.

We'll know Iran has truly joined the modern world when its democracy-hating zealots have enough of a sense of humor to call themselves "Democrats".

(Regarding Nader's lawsuit, by the way: it was apparently dismissed on December 22nd on jurisdictional grounds.  Who says crime doesn't pay?)

Comments

[NomadUK]

Actually, they won't have really entered the big leagues until they've indoctrinated their electorate the lesson that they mustn't vote for the candidate they feel represents them, but must instead vote strategically, to ensure that some other candidate doesn't win. Their ruling elite can then ensure that two thoroughly co-opted major parties dominate, each assuring their 'base' that a vote for any third-party candidate will guarantee the election of the Other Guy. Works fine here and in the US.

[John Caruso]

I enthusiastically embrace your expansion of my cynicism.

[Rosemary Molloy]

Where is the anti-war movement?

[Save the Oocytes]

Are you talking about Respect? Frankly, the even the Lib Dems seem a lot better than Labour and the Tories, from my limited knowledge.

[NomadUK]

NuLabour is so astoundingly awful that they make the Tories look almost palatable, but a Lib Dem Government would be paradise on Earth compared to either of them. My current MP is a Lib Dem, and his voting record is probably a 90% fit. My previous MP was David Cameron, the current head of the Conservatives, and — well.

[Harold M]

Dreadful and galling pedant that I am, at times, I disagree with this:

I enthusiastically embrace your expansion of my cynicism.

Accurate observations can be pessimistic, skeptical and even morbidly depressing, but in order to be cynical they have to be used to deceive. Your observations and the comment from NomadUK fail to meet that standard. It follows, therefore, that Ralph Nader is objectively pro-corporate fedualism. Still.

Wait! No! I'm a little confused today.

Rosemary, the anti-war movement foundered and splintered. Some of the lefties are still at it, as are some of the paleocons, enlightened libertarians and anarchists. But the movement itself could never hold, being composed in large part of people who are anti-war only when it's a Republican-branded war.

[John Caruso]

Actually cynical observations can be pessimistic or skeptical, so I must question your pedantry. But I do think you're right that we shouldn't use such negative characterizations for accurate observations (though "your expansion of my devastating insight" may have been entirely misread as lacking humility).

...people who are anti-war only when it's a Republican-branded war.

Coincidentally (or is it?), I have a year-old half-written posting titled "The anti-Republican-war movement."

[Harold M]

Actually cynical observations can be pessimistic or skeptical, so I must question your pedantry.

True, true and the questioning of my pedantry (not to mention my scholarly cred) is entirely warranted. I may even be humorlessly parsing this too fine, but in each of the definitions and examples as provided at Answers, there's a common theme: cynicism manifests as laziness and a substitute for good faith. I think one can be jaded to the point of misanthropy without going that far. Further, I believe that the accusation of cynicism is -- most often -- itself employed cynically, from power or in apologetics for power, in order to avoid having to deal with whether or not skepticism and pessimism can be justified. Which brings me to a point of complete agreement with on you refraining from negative characterizations of accurate observations. I also enjoyed your wry comment on humility.

I'm sure it goes without saying, but I don't envy people who take on the often thankless job of sober and empathetic looks at the world, which is what I value most about your blog.

Coincidentally (or is it?), I have a year-old half-written posting titled "The anti-Republican-war movement."

From the working title alone, it's a safe bet that it would strike a chord.

[John Caruso]

Further, I believe that the accusation of cynicism is -- most often -- itself employed cynically, from power or in apologetics for power, in order to avoid having to deal with whether or not skepticism and pessimism can be justified.

Definitely agreed. And I'm sorry for making it so damn hard to pay a compliment (but very appreciative that you put in the effort anyway).

[Harold M]

We could self-exonerate if communication becomes too hard. That post, by the way, is a beauty of deadpan understatement.

[cemmcs]

Where is the anti-war movement?

Still here, Mimi, but very frustrated! And not sure what to do.