demonstrations...

having seen and heard hours and hours of iranian election's 'coverage,' i have to ask: how courageous are these commentators, urging protesters to risk life and limb 7000 miles removed? these impassioned armchair revolutionaries rant about the specter of 'real' democracy being too much for an autocratic paranoid regime, whose probably stolen election even they concede had 'irregularities.' while correct, these same shameless writers and pundits seem to forget the regular irregularities in the american political system.

all of the candidates in the iranian election were handpicked by the powerful clerical councils. comparably, the viable candidates of the two powerful american political parties were well vetted and financed by powerful american (and sometimes foreign) elite interests. these similarities can't be mentioned in litanies of american exceptionalism. peaceful protests outside of both the democratic and republican conventions were extremely militarized, protesters gassed and beaten and mass arrests ensued. these dissidents, while representing broad socioeconomic interests were brushed off as meddlesome fringe elements, extremists enemies of democracy and sometimes terrorists. and of course the stolen us elections of 2000 and 2004 were covered internationally, but could not be mentioned in respectable media discussions in the american free press, while deriding the iranian revolutionary guard's clampdown.

this shameless hypocrisy is a standard overtone regarding other people's elections. no one is really mentioning the fact that real 'reform' in iran would entail kicking out the imf, stopping the privatization of the economy, and move onto socioeconomic justice, gender equality, regional integration and other familiar issues. this is unacceptable to us media interests which are owned by huge multinationals. and virtually no one mentions (apart from the margins) that the ultimate kiss of death for any iranian candidate is any form of western endorsement. the cia backed overthrow of popular prime minister mohammed mosaddeq in the 50's, replaced by the brutal shah is common knowledge. america hasn't had diplomatic relations with iran for three decades, and iranians remember the us backing iraq with economic, diplomatic, and military aid during the iran-iraq war. while at same time, selling iran weapons with israeli collusion in order to supply the south american death squads. not to mention the cia holding up the iranian-held us hostages until the day mr. reagan won the election.

this western passion for other people's democracy goes on and on. this is easily picked up in the world press, and well known by most us policy makers and elites. madison avenue pr men, various pollsters and political consultants regularly influence, affect, and 'guide' elections from ireland to south africa to bolivia to poland to (hey!) the us. political subversion is an american export of extreme value, it relieves the old guard of any democratic challenge to their economic dominance and gives the rich minority 4 (or more) years of squeezing the poor majority of 'terrorists' and 'backwards special interests.' a serious look at the american political system reveals these same undemocratic results. so the real question these brave western pundits and media barons should be asking is: is the democracy they praise on the streets of tehran coming to the usa?