Comments on: Public Opinion And Iran http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/06/22/public-opinion-and-iran/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=public-opinion-and-iran n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: sylvie_oshima http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/06/22/public-opinion-and-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-32962 sylvie_oshima Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:48:07 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=9760#comment-32962 And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to say as little as possible? Yes. Let me rephrase that.... And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to <i>shoot himself in the foot and tie the Greens to Operation Ajax and the CIA sponsored Mossadeqh coup d'etat and the loathed tyrant Shah?</i> And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to say as little as possible?

Yes.
Let me rephrase that….
And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to shoot himself in the foot and tie the Greens to Operation Ajax and the CIA sponsored Mossadeqh coup d’etat and the loathed tyrant Shah?

]]> By: DDanicic http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/06/22/public-opinion-and-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-32960 DDanicic Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:00:05 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=9760#comment-32960 Daniel, question, What if the polls weren't this way? What if, rather, the majority of Americans wanted a stronger declaration of support for the protestors' cause? Would that change our view of the President's responses so far? Given certain cultural and moral values prevalent in the US, not all of them inherently neo-conservative, I think the reverse of these polls could have been, and might still become, the case. As head of state, the President is our representative, not merely a mouthpiece for popular opinion; so it's appropriate that he makes his own decisions, guided by professional counsellors of his choosing and by his own strategic thinking. But it's reasonable to believe that, should popular opinion reach a certain threshold, should the people's desire for a particular response become strong enough, the president would find it necessary to act according to the people's will, regardless of his inclinations. As a Catholic Christian, I am mindful that the voice of the Church should not be silent in the presence of great social evils. The argument for why is inherent in the religion. It's a Christian's call to stand closely with Christ. How we do this is by choosing good and rebuking evil, and by serving those in need, giving not from our excess but from our substance. So, is the situation in Iran a social evil that Christians are called to address? Even if the protestors don't need us to voice stronger support for their cause, even if it's not our "job", in a political sense, to support them? The answer could certainly be yes. Are there enough Christians in this country, or is there a strong enough moral-religious streak, for this to become the popular American position? I suppose that could be yes, too. So what would giving of our substance entail in this case? Would this mean leveraging our cultural and political power in favor of the demonstrators, at first locally, to pressure President Obama to more vocally support their cause, and to clearly address and denounce the repressive violence they have sufferred? And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to say as little as possible? Daniel, question,
What if the polls weren’t this way? What if, rather, the majority of Americans wanted a stronger declaration of support for the protestors’ cause? Would that change our view of the President’s responses so far? Given certain cultural and moral values prevalent in the US, not all of them inherently neo-conservative, I think the reverse of these polls could have been, and might still become, the case.

As head of state, the President is our representative, not merely a mouthpiece for popular opinion; so it’s appropriate that he makes his own decisions, guided by professional counsellors of his choosing and by his own strategic thinking. But it’s reasonable to believe that, should popular opinion reach a certain threshold, should the people’s desire for a particular response become strong enough, the president would find it necessary to act according to the people’s will, regardless of his inclinations.

As a Catholic Christian, I am mindful that the voice of the Church should not be silent in the presence of great social evils. The argument for why is inherent in the religion. It’s a Christian’s call to stand closely with Christ. How we do this is by choosing good and rebuking evil, and by serving those in need, giving not from our excess but from our substance. So, is the situation in Iran a social evil that Christians are called to address? Even if the protestors don’t need us to voice stronger support for their cause, even if it’s not our “job”, in a political sense, to support them? The answer could certainly be yes. Are there enough Christians in this country, or is there a strong enough moral-religious streak, for this to become the popular American position? I suppose that could be yes, too. So what would giving of our substance entail in this case? Would this mean leveraging our cultural and political power in favor of the demonstrators, at first locally, to pressure President Obama to more vocally support their cause, and to clearly address and denounce the repressive violence they have sufferred? And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to say as little as possible?

]]> By: sylvie_oshima http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/06/22/public-opinion-and-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-32958 sylvie_oshima Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:11:51 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=9760#comment-32958 Joe Klein agrees, lol. "It is not even clear that Ahmadinejad--who has significant backing from the sort of people who support Republicans here (the elderly, the religious extremists) plus a real following among working-class Iranians--would have lost this election, if the votes had been counted fairly. (I tend to believe that they weren't counted at all, but that's just my opinion.)" Klein also says in describing the pre-election debates that Nejad sounded like he had been scripted by an Iranian Karl Rove. The Iranian conflict is really largely a culture war...and should look very familiar. Perhaps homosapiens sapiens only comes in two basic flavors, with different kinds of sprinkles of course. <a>conservatives and liberals.</a> Joe Klein agrees, lol.
“It is not even clear that Ahmadinejad–who has significant backing from the sort of people who support Republicans here (the elderly, the religious extremists) plus a real following among working-class Iranians–would have lost this election, if the votes had been counted fairly. (I tend to believe that they weren’t counted at all, but that’s just my opinion.)”
Klein also says in describing the pre-election debates that Nejad sounded like he had been scripted by an Iranian Karl Rove.
The Iranian conflict is really largely a culture war…and should look very familiar.
Perhaps homosapiens sapiens only comes in two basic flavors, with different kinds of sprinkles of course.
conservatives and liberals.

]]> By: sylvie_oshima http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/06/22/public-opinion-and-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-32951 sylvie_oshima Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:39:00 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=9760#comment-32951 There is always a real constituency for nonsense. Isn't it interesting how the two main affiliations in Iran parallel American liberals and conservatives? Nejad's followers are largely rural, ostenstatiosly pious, socially conservative, less educated, older, and possibly....less numerous, given 3 out of 5 Iranians are under 30. At Khamenis prayer service there notably no women in his audience of bussed in followers. Musavi's followers are largely urban, socially liberal, more educated, younger and more ...female? Given that 65% of Iranian college students are women. I wonder where Kurds and Baluchis and ethnic minorities fall? Could it be that Nejads followers are the Iranian equivalent of the GOP, the old white men party? There is always a real constituency for nonsense.
Isn’t it interesting how the two main affiliations in Iran parallel American liberals and conservatives?
Nejad’s followers are largely rural, ostenstatiosly pious, socially conservative, less educated, older, and possibly….less numerous, given 3 out of 5 Iranians are under 30. At Khamenis prayer service there notably no women in his audience of bussed in followers.
Musavi’s followers are largely urban, socially liberal, more educated, younger and more …female? Given that 65% of Iranian college students are women.
I wonder where Kurds and Baluchis and ethnic minorities fall?
Could it be that Nejads followers are the Iranian equivalent of the GOP, the old white men party?

]]>