Iran Delegitimizes Its Election

After the American Century

Elections are the central events in democracies, giving voters the chance to reject some candidates and embrace others. A fair and free election strengthens the rule of the people, as both winners and losers learn to accept the will of the voters. But the farcical election in Iran does none of these things. No one can seriously believe that only two hours after the polls closed that the 46 million votes had been counted. No one thinks that all the opinion polls taken before the election were wrong. They showed a close race, with no one likely to get a majority. Yet shortly after the polls closed the government could announce that what had appeared to be a close contest actually was a lop-sided landslide, in which the incumbent received almost two-thirds of the vote.

Democratic elections also include extensive public discussion about what happened and reconciliation between the winning and losing candidates. But in Iran the government has used tear gas to break up rallies, shut down internet sites, intimidated opposition politicians, and cut off the use of text messaging. In doing so, the Iranian government throws further doubt on the legality of the election, enrages the opposition, and disqualifies itself. It is an insult to world opinion to pretend that this has been a free or fair process.

Once again, the educated, middle-class Iranians have been robbed of the opportunity to build a modern state that is part of an international world of states. Instead, critics who claim that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible have another dismaying example for their arguments. But I remain hopeful that one day Iran will peacefully join the larger world as a democratic state. I say this because of the passion for justice, fairness, and democracy demonstrated in the election campaign. Sadly, however, it appears Iran will inflict much suffering on itself before reaching that goal.

Democracy in Iran?

After the American Century

I have followed Iranian politics, casually to be sure, for almost half a century. This is for the simple reason that I had an aunt who married an Iranian lawyer and remained in the country after originally going there to teach. She had a Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Michigan, a somewhat unusual achievement for a woman in c. 1940. There were few university jobs available then (i.e. probably none), and so she took a series of interesting positions working for the US government in agencies that were precursors for the Peace Corps. First she taught in Bolivia and Peru. where she perfected her Spanish. Later she taught English in India briefly, before ending up in Tehran.

My Aunt Gertrude was a powerful personality. Think of the strong women in American cinema from the same era, like Kathrine Hepburn. She was adventurous, eloquent, forceful, and a wonderful role model for a kid growing up. Th exotic aunt who not only had a professional job, but a series of positions in many parts of the world.

She gave most of her professional life to improving the teaching of English in Iran, putting in more than 25 years before the Shah's government fell. By then she was over sixty years old, and because she was perceived to be an old woman, she was left alone by the Revolution. This is not the place for more about her, but she remained in the country for several more years, until it became clear that she would never be allowed to teach or take an active part in the cultural life of the nation again. Then she returned to the US, with her Iranian daughter, who still lives there today. Aunt Gertrude herself lived to be over 90.

Now let me read this little story as a minature version of what has happened to Iran. Until 1979 the nation was modernizing rapidly, using its oil money to develop a middle-class. This middle class embraced foreigners like my Aunt, who had married one of their own, who spoke the language, and who had only the country's betterment at heart. But the growth of this middle-class also brought discontent with a monarchical form of government. The urban middle class wanted a democracy and more western form of government. But the rural people and the poor disliked the Shah for quite a different reason, because he was secularizing the society. Religious fundamentalism swept through the country, and the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini became the idealized leader who would return Iran to its religious roots.

The problem in late 1970s was that not enough people like my Aunt Gertrude had been there, nor had they been there long enough, to nurture the transition to a secular, democratic state. The forces against the Shaw were strong enough to topple him, but there was no unity amongst the university students, peasants, and religious leaders who together brought him down. In the ensuing power struggle, obviously won by the fundamentalists, many of the talented young (like my cousin, Aunt Gertrude's daughter) left the country for ever.

In the election yesterday, the struggle appears once again to be between city and country, between middle class and rural peasants, and between modern Muslims and fundamentalists. The basic inconsistency, the core problem that came to light in the late 1970s, has not yet been resolved. But the terms of struggle have changed someone. For no truly secular figure had a chance in this election. Rather, the two leading candidates were each to the right of where their counterparts might have been thirty years ago. The current President Ahmadinejad is a right-wing demagogue who revels in confrontation with the West. His strongest opponent , Mir Hossein Mousavi, is a former prime minister of the country, and generally defined as a "right-wing reformer." This I translate to mean that his policies are at least informed by economic theory and pragmatic evaluations of consequences. A liberal he is not.

Both men have claimed victory. The government began playing games with the telephone system during the election, controls the media which all too-quickly announced a decisive victory for the incumbent, and has already used police to break up peaceful demonstrations in favor of Mousavi. Ideally this crisis will end well, with a run-off election between the two main candidates, as prescribed by law if no one receives more than half the votes. But it may be too soon for such a disciplined and secular outcome, and Iran could be falling into an intractable crisis.

If the Media is National, Can the EU be International?

After the American Century

I have been looking at coverage of the EU elections on a wide variety of stations, but the story is much the same everywhere, or rather it is entirely different everywhere. On German television, the election is about German political parties and their relative strengths. Nothing is said about the rest of Europe. On Spanish TV the results for their 50 delegates are revealed at precisely 10 PM, when the polls have closed all over Europe. Nothing is said about results elsewhere, however. On CNN they say that the election is taking place, mention that the German Social Democrats have had a bad election (but no details), and focus more on Gordon Brown's weaknesses, as revealed by Labor's poor showing.

In short, the media is national, the languages are national, and the focus is parochial. Not a word about whether the new European Parliament will favor environmental reform, cuts in the massive agricultural subsidies, or greater investments in research and development. These topics are not even mentioned in passing. It is all about the local, the particular, the parochial, and close to being idiotic.

Imagine that you lived in Nebraska during the time of an American general election, when all members of Congress and one third of the Senate were being selected. Imagine that you turn on the TV to hear the results, and can only find out about how the election went in Nebraska. You also get a station from Kansas, so you hear those results as well. But no one talks about the election as a whole, about what the balance of power will be in Washington. Not a single sentence on this subject. The entire focus is on Nebraska and its political parties. To make the comparison complete, you would have to imagine a European party system, i.e. Nebraska would have at least five parties, five leaders to interview, five news conferences, and so forth.

How can Europe ever become conscious of itself in this situation? As long as the media remain fixated on the parochial level of individual states, no one will know what is going on in Brussels, and no one will care. There is no European public opinion, there are only various national opinions, splintered into small parties.

Does the EU Know that It Exists?

After the American Century Today ends the election of representatives to the EU's equivalent of parliament or Congress. It has been a sad spectacle in Denmark. I heard many candidates during the past few weeks, but I did not hear anything wise or even very intelligent about the European Union. To judge by the tenor of the discussions, Danes have no idea what the EU does, or what they are electing people to do. Worse, they seem to send two kinds of candidates, those who are nearing retirement or people who are rather young and wet behind the ears. From this, I can only conclude that Danes do not really understand that the EU exists. It is more like a hypothesis or an idea that is being tried mostly elsewhere. There are still politicians getting a serious hearing in this country who want to withdraw from the union. Much the same seems to be the case in many other countries. Voter turnout is low, apathy about issues common, and confusion about the point of the exercise rampant. The situation is much as it was in the United States in about 1830. Loyalty then remained to the state where one lived, at least as much as to the united stat4es, or nation. What will the EU do if it faces a real military or foreign policy crisis? If people scarcely know it exists, they are not going to fight and die for it.

Obama in Egypt

After the American Century

Later today President Obama will make a major address to the Arab and Muslim worlds. I will not try to second-guess the content of this speech, which has been long in preparation, and which has benefited from the advice of Arab American business leaders, foreign policy experts, and his own staff. But the importance of the gesture and the symbolism should not be lost in thinking about the content. The gesture is a clear declaration that the United States wants a new relationship with the Middle East, and that he regards Egypt as the central player in bringing about change. Only if Egypt can help broker a peace, is it likely to have staying power. Of almost equal importance are the Saudis, whom Obama visited first. The gesture also includes the fact that the address will be given at arguably the most important university in the region and in the largest city of the region, Cairo. Obama thus appeals directly to intellectuals and to young people, both of whom are important, even crucial, to making the United States more popular (or at least less unpopular).

This gesture might have had little possibility of success were the speaker to be George Bush or John McCain. But because the speaker is a generation younger, because his father's family is Muslim, and because he has committed his administration to closing the illegal jails in Cuba and ending the war in Iraq, there is a chance that the speech will mark a turning point. Only a chance, but a real one. That depends on what he says later today, and also on proximate events, mostly beyond his control.

One good sign: extremists have attacked the visit beforehand, including Israelis determined to stay on the West Bank, and Al Queda. He must be doing something right.

Sonia Sotomayor: Superbly Qualified

After the American Century

President Obama has named Sonia Sotomayor as his first nominee to the Supreme Court. It is a good choice. Many are saying it is a good choice because she is a woman, because she is Hispanic, because she is in favor of affirmative action, and because she has risen from humble origins, making her personally aware of the hardships faced by the poor in American society.

This is all well and good, but I applaud her nomination for a different reason: because she has the right credentials. Sonia Sotomayor is very bright. She went to Princeton on a scholarship and graduated summa cum laude. For those less familiar with the American education system, this means that she was at the absolute top of her class, receiving high grades in a wide range of subjects as part of a liberal arts education. Then she went to Yale law school, where she again excelled, becoming an editor of the law journal. Even to make law review at all would have been a great accomplishment, but to be selected as an editor means that she was judged to have the capacity to grasp a wide range of legal issues and to prod some large egos to work together. All of that bodes very well for a future Supreme Court justice.

In short, I am tired of hearing that someone will be good at a job because they are of a particular gender or social background. Relevant? Absolutely. The decisive factor? No. Want proof? Consider Clarence Thomas, an African American who rose from humble origins to become a mediocre justice (at best), appointed by George Bush, Senior. Or that pathetic female nominee, Harriet Miers, the evangelical Christian tort lawyer that George Bush Jr nominated but had to withdraw because even his own party could not stomach her. We need smart, hard-working justices, not party hacks who provide the illusion of diversity. Most of the issues that confront the Supreme Court are not about abortion or race, but about extremely complex legal problems, that have to be understood in terms of the continuing interpretation of the Constitution during the last 220 years. I want to see people who have exception talent and also worked exceptionally hard, and so graduated summa cum laude on the Court. Sonia Sotomayor is one of those rare people.

Just as importantly, Sonia Sotomayor has years of practical experience. She has worked in a district attorney's office, prosecuting cases of theft, murder, robbery, rape, and child pornography. She also has worked as a lawyer in private practice, and she knows a good deal about intellectual property law, which is a burgeoning area where many cases are likely, because digital technologies demand new interpretations of the legal tradition. Most importantly, she has been a Federal Judge, nominated first by that notorious radical George Bush Senior, and later promoted to her present position in at the United States Court of Appeals by Bill Clinton.

The Senate approved her elevation to this new position by a more than 2 to 1 majority, which in 1998 included many Republicans, notably Orrin Hatch, hardly a lefty or a liberal. Conceivably the Republicans will try to mount a challenge to this appointment, but Sonia Sotomayor probably is more intelligent than any of the people who will be questioning her at the confirmation hearings. If the Republicans want to get something out of this, they probably ought to celebrate the fact that Sonia Sotomayor entered the judiciary because a Republican president appointed her. The recent Republican project of self-destruction (by appealing to the rabid base and alienating moderates) may not be quite over yet, however.

However, it also seems likely that, unless some fantastic revelation comes out in the hearings, Sonia Sotomayor will soon be on the Supreme Court. She deserves to be there because of her excellent education and experience, and not merely because she is a woman or a member of a racial minority. And since she is 54, one could hope to see her on the bench for two decades.

Majority Leader Hoyer and Denmark

After the American Century

Yesterday I attended a reception for "Steny" Hoyer who is the Majority Leader in the United States House of Representatives. To look at the distinguished silver-haired gentlement, you might think he was the perfect example of someone connected to old patrician money. He wore a blue blazer with gold buttons, gray pants, and a light blue shirt. He spoke well, stood straight and looked right in your eyes when shaking hands, and managed to do that with everyone in the room. As he represents a district in Maryland, it might seem that he is from an old planter family, that arrived in the seventeenth century.

In fact, Steny Hoyer is the son of a Danish immigrant, and his father's name was Steen Høyer. He was visiting Denmark in part to have dinner with twelve cousins who live here. He is also to meet with various members of the Danish government and no doubt pass by the American Embassy. As he noted in a short talk he gave at the reception, the visit is prompted in part by the coming summit meeting on the world's climate, that will take place at the end of this year in Copenhagen.

Those of us meeting Steny Hoyer yesterday, however, were guests of American Democrats Abroad, an international organization that sends delegates to the national conventions of the Democratic Party every four years, and whose members, of course, vote in elections. Representative Hoyer does not really need our votes, as he generally gets more than 70% of the vote in his district and is the longest serving member of the House in the history of Maryland. But he came by and gave us almost two hours of his time, because, as he noted, the Americans who live abroad are the face of the US - not abstractions, not policies, but people who better than any passing diplomat, and whether they like it or not, are the daily representatives of the United States. I have known this for years, but it was nice to hear it from one of the highest elected officials. Americans abroad also try to tell people in the United States how the country could learn from other nations. Hoyer knew that too, and spoke about what might be learned from the Danish health care system.

So all in all, I have disturbingly little to criticize and much to happy about as I reflect on Hoyer's immigrant background, his ties to Denmark, and his deportment yesterday. He should come more often.

Are Danes Overeducated?

After the American Century 

            January 9, 2023 - UPDATE:  

            Predictions in the final paragraph have proven accurate.

 A Danish newspaper recently devoted its page one lead story to the idea that people were over-educated, arguing that what the country needed was not more people with advanced degrees but less. The newspaper, whose name would translate as "The Jutland Post", generally champions right wing causes and business interests. It is never read outside Denmark by anyone and has no effect on the rest of the world. Yet it does represent the "thinking" of many of the supporters of the current government. This "thinking" in recent years has only occasionally focused on universities, and often is quite contradictory. Here are some examples. 

 (1) Universities should be funded in direct relationship to how many students complete exams, but at the same time students have been allowed to work more hours part-time. 

 

(2) Denmark should be internationally oriented and partner with foreign institutions, but visiting foreign lecturers (who used to come for two year terms) have virtually disappeared. Money for travel to conferences has decreased and the amounts given are never enough to cover expenses. Almost no money is in department budgets to invite scholars from abroad for lectures. The funding available to go on Erasmus Exchanges has been reduced and the expected length of an Erasmus visit has been shortened. So in practice, the university is becoming less and less international, and indeed the teaching of many foreign languages is being discontinued. 

 (3) The government periodically says that Denmark's future is tied up in developing expertise and in being a leader in the "knowledge economy," but the actual funding, at the level of university departments, has been either static or falling. Politicians issue press statements about how more money is being plowed into research, but there is little or no sign of this money that the faculty can see. When positions open up due to departure or retirement, they are almost never filled right away, but Deans feel that they must wait a year or more, to save money. 

 (4) Publications are to be more important than ever, and the highest value will be placed on books and articles that appear on a list of the best publishers and journals. However, no money is available to assist Danish universities to become the host institutions for international journals, and indeed this seems not to be even a category in anyone's mind. Pathetically, international publication means "outside Denmark" rather than raising the level of publications based in Denmark to the level that would draw scholars from other countries to publish here. At the same time, the new emphasis on publication turns out, in the awarding of "points", to reward quantity more quickly and easily than quality. 

 (5) Publications may be important in theory, but in practice there is less time available for publications than ten or twenty years ago. Indeed, in many institutions the teaching hours have been pushed up, the number of examinations increased, the minimal allowed size of classes increased, and the compensation given for directing doctoral students reduced. Yet while faculty have less time and fewer resources to work with than 20 years ago, nevertheless the faculty are constantly undergoing reviews and accreditation examinations. The time given to petty administration has increased year by year, taking away the time once available for research. 

 (6) There was a time when education and democracy were thought to be mutually reinforcing. However, the government does not seem to believe this. Faculty have been gradually stripped of most power and responsibility, and power is centralized in office-holders who are no longer elected by faculty but serve other appointed officials. The faculty scarcely ever vote on anything anymore. 

 In short, the problem in Denmark is not that students are getting too much education, but that the universities are poorly funded, undemocratic institutions which are becoming less international and rewarding faculty for doing mediocre research, whose quality is no longer evaluated by professors but by administrators, many of whom could not write a scholarly article if their lives depended on it. 

 The only exceptions to this rather bleak picture are particular areas that politicians and foundations have decided to shower with money, in the mistaken belief that high quality research can be planned and controlled by outsiders. The best research, however, leads to the unexpected. A breakthrough cannot be planned. Not one of my books looked anything like its initial outline, as each developed in unexpected ways that made them better. The world's finest pure research institutions know this, and they do not try to force research in pre-determined directions. However, none of this really matters, because "The Jutland Post" has discovered that Danes are already over-educated. If we could just reduce the number of students, then the next step surely ought to be reductions in the size of universities. Then they would teach even fewer languages, have even larger classes, reward provincial publications even more, become even less international, and focus all "research" on problems defined by non-specialists. If things go really well, the less educated population, with less personal experience with democracy, could then turn for enlightenment and guidance to "The Jutland Post."

Myopia Inside the Beltway

After the American Century

There is a myopia inside the Beltway around Washington, which leads people to misjudge the importance of issues. The most recent example is the controversy about whether the CIA properly briefed Nancy Pelosi or not back in 2002, about their use of torture. In the twisted logic of Washington and its journalists, the BIG QUESTION now is whether or not Pelosi knew about the torture. This is about as absurd as US politics gets, since the Democrats were not in control of Congress at the time, and since anyone who has attended meetings knows, it is possible to slip all kinds of things into a meeting in such a way that their true import is lost in the shuffle.

The real issues, of course, is not how much the CIA told opposition leaders in 2002. Rather, it is that the CIA, at the urging of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, pursued a policy of torture that contravenes the American Constitution. For those who have forgotten, the Bill of Rights prohibts "cruel and unusual punishments." Thomas Jefferson would not have approved of waterboarding.

Also note that Amendment 5 declares that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is not a point of debate, it is the law. Bush, Cheney, and the CIA broke that law, repeatedly. Quite literally the whole world knows about the torture and it has severely damaged the reputation of the United States. The election of Barack Obama was in part a repudiation of the policy of torture and a demand for a return to the rule of law.

Of course it would be convenient for the Republicans to just move on and try to forget these illegalities. This being difficult, if not impossible, they are now trying to implicate Nancy Pelosi in their own crimes. The Republicans would like to spread the guilt around and divide the Democrats. To some extent this seems to be working, and now Obama's appointment as head of the CIA is disputing with Pelosi about what she knew and when. This is all beside the point. Pelosi did not initiate the torture policy, nor did she have the power to stop it, nor could she have revealed CIA secret briefings to the press, especially in the nervous year after the 9/11 attacks.

The Bush Administration remains responsible for the introduction and the use of torture, a barbaric practice that not only is illegal, but that produces "confessions" of dubious value. Recall that during the Counter Reformation the Inquisition also used torture, in a holy cause of course, and dragged amazing revelations out of its victims: they were in league with the devil, practiced witchcraft, communed with evil spirits, and committed all manner of foul deeds. Torture a man enough and he may confess to almost anything.

The whole Pelosi affair would just be silly, if the Obama Administration had no important legislation to pass.