Iranians protest the recent election results.
In the 2004 documentary Control Room, an Al Jazeera producer explains that rumor and conspiracy theory often pass for journalism in the Middle East. If a water main breaks in Damascus, he explained, the papers there will find a way to blame Israel or America. Indeed, Western observers often note how casually conspiracy theories are taken as actual truth, but the recent election in Iran shows that suspicion and whispers are not solely the province of the Middle East.
The re-election of Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sparked an outcry not only in Iran, but in many other countries, where the media seem quick to assume the vote was rigged. How could it be, these outlets demanded to know, that a majority of the Iranian public would re-elect an angry, right-wing demagogue, who carries little support among Iranians who live in the West an appear on CNN? The elite papers asked the same question after George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004. So disconnected and self-assured are these editors, that they arrogantly dismiss another inconvenient possibility: that a majority of Iranian voters actually prefer Ahmadinejad.
Too many outlets have been quick to accept the opinions of Ahmadinejad’s opponents, including Iran’s well-off, Tehran’s students, and well-to-do Iranian émigrés, who proclaim that the re-election victory was a complete fraud. If one were to listen only to these opinions, one might get a skewed view of the world. Americans living abroad overwhelmingly voted absentee for John Kerry, but the preference of jet-setting ex-pats does not a democratic majority make!
Two think-takers published their Iranian opinion poll in today’s Post proving that Ahmadinejad does command wide support throughout Iran. Furthermore, those questioned openly expressed supposedly seditious opinions, such as the view that their government is too secretive and that the Supreme Leader should be elected. If those polled were willing to say these things to strangers on the phone, they certainly must have felt comfortable to express their presidential preferences freely.
We are not fans of Ahmadinejad, but Westerners should end their condescending disbelief and face the possibility that a majority of Iranian voters have a different view of what’s best for Iran.
If there’s one thing New York Times columnist Tom Friedman likes more than name-dropping, it’s churning out puzzling metaphors. Two of his book titles, The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat, illustrate this pastime of his— the former book comparing financial regulatory frameworks to computer software. We doubt how helpful it is, though, to compare one complicated abstraction to another and expect the general reader to better understand global finance, but his books sell well.
After many rhetorical misses, Friedman finally makes a hit in contrasting today’s geopolitical problem children (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea). Using a metaphor of pulleys and levers, Friedman divides these four countries into two groups: those who promise to “pull levers”, only to find the levers breaking off the wall (Afghanistan, Pakistan), and those who grope around with much fanfare only pretending to pull levers (Iran, North Korea).
My arguments against a Detroit bailout have finally coalesced into a cohesive letter to my Congressional delegation.
The Honorable [Ben Cardin/Barbara Mikulski/Christopher Van Hollen]
[United States Senate/House of Representatives]
Washington, DC
Dear [Sen. Cardin/Sen. Mikulski/Mr. Van Hollen],
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the use of any public money to bailout Detroit’s ever-ailing automakers. The Detroit automakers have invited their own demise through a series of poor decisions to their own detriment, to the detriment of America’s security and to the detriment of the environment. They must not be rewarded and taxpayers’ money must not be used for the three automakers who have done the most to harm the public good. A government stake in these companies is bound to be politicized and an “auto czar” will thus fail to restructure these companies better than bankruptcy protection could.
First, this crisis in Detroit was foreseeable and of its own making. For decades the Detroit automakers, at the behest of the United Auto Workers union, have paid their employees rates unimaginable elsewhere in the private sector. Their workers have received wages and retirement benefits most Americans could only dream of. Consequently, the Detroit automakers priced themselves into a disadvantaged position compared to foreign manufacturers who set up shop in the United States. It is unfair to expect taxpayers, many of who do not receive the lavish pay and benefits of autoworkers, to bailout an overpaid industry.
Second, over the past fifteen years, the Detroit automakers have put much of their design, marketing, and sales focus into the production of SUVs and trucks, whose popularity was predicated on the low price of a volatile global commodity. While Honda and Toyota were developing fuel-sipping hybrids, the Detroit automakers kept producing bigger and bigger vehicles. Suddenly the price of oil jumped, public tastes turned away from fuel profligacy, and the Detroit business model crashed. This was all foreseeable years ago.
Not only was Detroit’s focus on gas-guzzlers a careless business decision, but it hurt the public welfare in three ways:
- By Burdening our Infrastructure: Detroit’s promotion of gas-guzzlers needlessly increased the weight and size of vehicles and thus their impact on the public roadways.
- By Emboldening our Enemies: Detroit’s dreadful decline into fuel inefficiency increased America’s dependence on imported oil, much of which comes from countries hostile to the United States. The auto industry had encouraged the transfer of America’s wealth to some of the nastiest regimes on earth, showering our enemies with petrodollars. There is little doubt that our insatiable demand for oil—a demand Detroit enabled and encouraged—has emboldened Messrs. Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Chávez, who have challenged our security while accepting our money. Detroit has encouraged the American public to finance unwittingly the schemes of these global despots.
- By Maximizing Environmental Harm: Detroit’s peddling of gas-guzzlers has maximized the burden on the environment by promoting the most inefficient passenger vehicles available. Detroit and the UAW have consistently lobbied Congress for the reduction of efficiency and emissions standards.
An industry that has consistently maximized public harm has minimized its claim to public support.
Furthermore, I have little confidence that a bailout would adequately protect the public investment, as any government control is bound to be politicized for every reason other than minimizing taxpayer losses. Politically powerful delegations (e.g. from Michigan and Ohio) would find every way to force the rest of the nation to subsidize unnecessary jobs. I would find it particularly offensive if the industry were to receive public money and continue to spend more money lobbying Congress for even more handouts.
A government bailout, by political circumstance, will end up throwing good money after bad. These companies should, like every other careless company, face the consequences and file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which will allow them to reorganize under established court procedures, not under political expediency.
It is fair for public money to be spent retraining laid-off workers and to help soften the blow to towns dependent on soon-to-be-shut factories, but it is not fair to finance boondoggles to assemble cars that people don’t want to buy.
I am eager to hear your response and will keep an eye on this issue if it makes it to the floor.
Sincerely,
/s/
Washington's Security Theater
How the fear of terrorism limits public access and wrecks Washington's elegance.