« Feingold and the Democrats | Main | Um, Taegan... »
July 16, 2007
The Difference Between Totalitarian and Repressive
"Domestically," reports the Council on Foreign Relations, "the government’s plan for gas rationing, in a country that exports the second-largest amount of crude oil, sparked protests and chants of 'Ahmadinejad should be killed!'"
You know what you can't do in totalitarian countries? Lead chants saying that the president should be killed. In front of the press.
Iran is a repressive country. It is not a totalitarian dictatorship, no matter how many people want to simply assert otherwise. And that's really all there is to the contrary: Assertions. In his post on the subject, Kevin Sullivan wrote, as a parenthetical aside, "(and [Ahmadinejad] is a totalitarian, Ezra)," an odd argument given that Ahmadinejad isn't even the most powerful person in the country. Elsewhere, Ken Baer told me that he didn't think such arguments even needed to be made, which shows how safe folks feel in the Iran-is-totalitarian-consensus, but struck me as unsettling.
Meanwhile, as the CFR article shows, the sanctions are having a significant impact in Iran. Maybe if we were to open bilateral talks and give them a face-saving way to cut a deal, we could make some progress. But why do that when we can ensure that cooperation will look like capitulation, and thus remain politically impossible for the Iranian regime? Iran, after all, is such a good political issue....
July 16, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I don't know. I seem to remember Jeanne Kirkpatrick arguing that her favorite South American dictatorships were "authoritarian."
Posted by: jim | Jul 16, 2007 2:48:58 PM
You know what you can't do in totalitarian countries? Lead chants saying that the president should be killed. In front of the press.
Not just in totalitarian countries. Last I checked, that sorta thing was against the law here. It used to be pursued until the Clinton days when the Secret Service realized that enforcing laws against threatening the POTUS would mean arresting too many GOoPers (including sitting Congresscritters and Senators and prominant talk radio hosts) to process ... so they gave up.
Posted by: DAS | Jul 16, 2007 2:56:35 PM
DAS makes a good point.
Also, in order to head off a predictable line of argument. . .even if Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead for the real powers in Iraq, that type of protest would still not be allowed, since Ahmadinejad is the public face of the government itself.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 16, 2007 3:01:23 PM
[hunting among old songs in the piano bench]
Ah, here it is! Stephen Foster.
hum, de hum hum
"Beautiful Dreamer, dream upto to me".
I've been trying to work out why Bush yielded to reality (or was it his wife, Condi) on Korea and now we are nearly back to Clinton's N. Korea agreement - with talk of removing them from the axis.
Finally, it clicked this weekend.
GW's "Daddy", Uncle Cheney-Yourself, told Georgie-boy that he couldn't have both a new bike and skateboard between now in end-of-2008 (Discipline!). Dick the Dick said Gates wouldn't allow both a war with N. Korea and Iran while occupying Iraq. He had to choose Iran or N. Korea. N. Korea not having any oil, Dick the Prick strongly recommended settling with Korea, and in return Georgie could have one more carrier battle group in the Persian (whoops, change that) Arablian Gulf. Georgie pouted, but countered with accepting that deal as long as he could restart the cold war by planting his ABM toys on Russia's border. All was well in the EXOP.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 16, 2007 3:09:54 PM
You've made this argument before, and others have pointed out that you won't see similar demonstrations against the leading ayatollahs. That's not because no one blames them.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 16, 2007 3:43:47 PM
A very useful way to spot right-wing demogogues and charlatans is by listening to the power they impute to Ahmadinejad.
Treating Ahmadinejad as a Hitler or Stalin is laughable yet breathless pundits and politicians ratchet up his supposed evilness to levels that have no relation to his actual power.
Stalin had the Soviet Army. Hitler had the German Army. Ahmadinejad? Let's just say the Iranian Army is not among the world's finest nor is Ahmadinejad the leader with the power to wield it.
Posted by: Curt M | Jul 16, 2007 3:46:46 PM
You know who definitely IS a totalitarian? George Bush. He's been constrained somewhat by the Constitution, but has done his best to shred it on every occasion possible. He's even joked about how good a dictatorship would be, as long as he's the dictator. I wish the people that rant on about how repressive other places are would give a good hoot about how repressive our country has become.
I also wish that the apparent US government reaction against repressive regimes is to urge death and destruction on the people who live under them.
Posted by: zed | Jul 16, 2007 4:06:52 PM
Oops, botched that last sentence badly. I meant that I wished the reaction was NOT to urge death and destruction.
Posted by: zed | Jul 16, 2007 4:08:51 PM
You know who definitely IS a totalitarian? George Bush.
This from the reality-based community.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 16, 2007 4:20:12 PM
If they protested against Khamenei (however he spells his name - The Supreme Leader of Iran) they would be put to death. No question about it.
Also, recent reports say that Ahmedinijad is on the outs with the Supreme leader so this would give another reason why the protests are tolerated.
Posted by: yep | Jul 16, 2007 4:48:13 PM
An independent Iran is an obstacle to US control of the region, so there's a clear political need to demonize Iran, which is best done by demonizing some individual.
Saddam was the stand-in in for Iraq, now Ahmadinejad is the stand-in for Iran. It doesn't matter a whole lot what Ahmadinejad 'really' did or didn't say, or what powers he 'really' does or does not have. He's the best available instrument for the purpose of generating popular support for a war on Iran.
The fact that we haven't seen violence yet (I would have expected it before Iran took delivery of the TOR anti-aircraft system from the Russians, but whatever) means that US policy-makers are divided on the question of whether or not an attack will advance US interests. I doubt very much that they are being held back by any sort of moral compunctions.
Posted by: RLaing | Jul 16, 2007 4:52:06 PM
An independent Iran is an obstacle to US control of the region, so there's a clear political need to demonize Iran, which is best done by demonizing some individual.
Saddam was the stand-in in for Iraq, now Ahmadinejad is the stand-in for Iran. It doesn't matter a whole lot what Ahmadinejad 'really' did or didn't say, or what powers he 'really' does or does not have. He's the best available instrument for the purpose of generating popular support for a war on Iran.
The fact that we haven't seen violence yet (I would have expected it before Iran took delivery of the TOR anti-aircraft system from the Russians, but whatever) means that US policy-makers are divided on the question of whether or not an attack will advance US interests. I doubt very much that they are being held back by any sort of moral compunctions.
Posted by: RLaing | Jul 16, 2007 4:54:23 PM
Sorry for double post
Sorry for double post
Posted by: RLaing | Jul 16, 2007 6:07:41 PM
The Guardian reports today that the White House is leaning in favour of military action against Iran.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html
Posted by: mijnheer | Jul 16, 2007 9:50:20 PM
Yeah, anonymous source says Bush and Cheney showed frustration at the lack of diplomatic progress and on this basis (no other direct evidence is cited) concludes, "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern."
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 16, 2007 10:55:35 PM
You know what you can't do in totalitarian countries? Lead chants saying that the president should be killed. In front of the press.
Unless the real powers-that-be, in this case The Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, are ok with you shouting for the president to be killed, for whatever reason.
You'll notice that there are not a stories of people openly calling for the death of Ayatollah Khamenei.
Posted by: TW Andrews | Jul 17, 2007 9:48:01 AM
yep, TW Andrews: well, here's one from 2003.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/iran-j20.shtml
"The political slogans became visibly more radical. For the first time, such chants as “Death to Khamenei” and “Khatami, resign” could be heard on Teheran streets."
Here's another:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/07/23/iran/
"In the days following this incident, there were daily protests against the hard-line clerics. At the peak of the protests, more than 25,000 showed open scorn for the country's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "Death to despotism, death to dictators," students, workers and even mothers chanted."
Now, TW and yep, I found those in ten seconds using Google. You should probably do the same next time you feel inclined to shoot off your mouth.
Posted by: ajay | Jul 17, 2007 11:13:48 AM
The instances you cite are still rare and, according to Iranians themselves, highly dangerous, ajay.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 17, 2007 2:10:07 PM
You've made this argument before, and others have pointed out that you won't see similar demonstrations against the leading ayatollahs. That's not because no one blames them.
As it turns out, not so much.
The instances you cite are still rare and, according to Iranians themselves, highly dangerous, ajay.
Note that when confronted with a factual innaccuracy, Sanpete doesn't take responsibility for his error but attempts to trivialize what he had previously treated as a key piece of evidence. SOP for Sanpete.
More significant though, is the reality that his earlier false assertion, had it been true, would in no way have undermined Ezra's point.
While there may be many contending and conflicting definitions of Totalitarianism, one thing upon which all must agree is that Totalitarian societies subjugate all aspects social and political life to a single totalizing principal or system of principals. Their primary characteristic is the destruction of all independence between differing spheres of of social life. Totalitarian systems recognize no autonomous areas of social activity, whether economic, political, religious, familial or civic.
This is why, when such systems collapse, the task confronted is, practically speaking, one of rebuilding society from scratch. This was true after the defeat of Nazi Germany. It was true after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc as well.
In the case of Iran, that one might attack political figures with impunity while religious figures were beyond such criticism, would imply a degree of autonomy between politics and religion incompatible with a truly Totalitarian system.
The confusion here seems to arise from the failure to distinguish between ideology and the actual manner in which a society functions. The ideology of Iran's clerical despotism is clearly Totalitarian in character, as are all religious belief systems that are not ecumenical in practice. However, neither the Mullahs nor the Government have outlawed all religions other than Shia Islam. Neither is there a blanket ban on all oppositional politics. This pretty much excludes the Republic of Iran, as opposed to Ahmadenijad himself, from the label of Totalitarian.
Or to use a historical illustration, Fascism, as originated and espoused by Mussolini, was clearly a Totalitarian ideology. Fascist Italy, on the other hand, never came close to being a Totalitarian society on par with either Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Fascist Italy, even at its zenith, relied on alliances with pre-existing power centers such as the Monarchy, the Church, the Industrial elites and the agrarian oligarchy. In the end, it was these alternate centers of power that combined to depose Mussolini.
To describe Iran as a "Totalitarian state" is to stretch the term so far that it loses all shape and meaning. Similar to the way in which Fascism may be abused as a synonym for anything the speaker may dislike.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 17, 2007 4:14:06 PM
