The Chain that Binds

The sole responsibility of a political leader is to act in the best interest of the country in which they represent. All personal interests, vendettas and ambitions must be relinquished in order to ensure that all actions seek the amelioration of the society in which they rule.

Initially this would seem an easy charge; listen to your constituents and act accordingly. Of course this assumes that your constituents know what is best for them. While all will think they know, in reality, it is difficult for the average citizen to aggregate all information available to determine what is best for them. For instance, employees of a specific industry will demand protection from foreign competition, often in the form of tariffs. The result of restricting free trade frequently will restrain an economy as a whole, but protect said group of workers. An elected official beholden to this electorate will often push for legislation to protect this domestic industry, all the while knowing the harm it may cause to the economy on a larger scale.

Assuming that the public is often incapable of understanding every political issue, or understanding how a certain political action may affect the country as a whole, it can be surmised that the constituent’s vote is primarily based on emotion. It then becomes perfectly rational for a voter to choose a candidate whose moral character aligns more closely with their own, even though their policies may not lead to the best overall outcome for the voter or the country.

What we are left with is a complex system of judging our elected officials–a system that often places moral standards above political standards–or even confuses the two with one another. When acting in good moral faith comes into direct conflict with acting in the best interest of the country, a leader can become compromised. In many circumstances, the people will demand a course of action the leader knows to be detrimental to their society, however, failure to respond in accordance with societal mores and expectations may cause the politician to fall out of graces with the public.

Hence the current predicament President Obama finds himself in regarding the protests in Iran. President Obama won the presidency on a campaign based on change and the power of the people to enact that change. Almost overnight a wave of political resurgence swept across the nation, wiping out the apathy that had existed for years. Voters felt rejuvenated, re-energized and invigorated by this man who shouted from his podium, “Yes We Can!” A man who himself broke through the race barrier by proclaiming that belief in oneself and in the people was enough to overcome any injustice.

Surely then this man, this defender of freedom, would throw his undivided support behind any group of repressed individuals who seek justice, anywhere in the world. No doubt the courage of the people in the streets of Tehran would send a jolt of satisfaction through his body; no doubt the passion of the protestors must bring a tear to his eye. Their resolve must be a testament to all he stands for; after all it is their will that he summoned during his election. Every idealist, every romantic, every advocate of freedom listened with anticipation to see how this revered leader would respond; and his answer echoed with disappointing silence.

No support, no words of praise or encouragement, no apothegm of hope: nothing. Obama toed the line as much as possible, saying that the U.S. wished to stay out of the conflict and respect the sovereignty of Iran. He later stated that he was troubled by the violence that may be occurring and government attempts to silence the voice of opposition; barely a slap on the wrist to Iran’s leaders.

Is Obama’s response a sign of weakness like some Republicans claims? Surely the last administration would have “gone with their gut” and jumped at the chance to overthrow a leader in the “Axis of Evil”. And how could the great defender of freedom not realize that the events in Iran are exactly what he had preached to the American public during his campaign? Would Jesus, after rising from the dead and revealing himself as the Messiah, fail to support those who converted to Christianity? Would he suddenly say, “that was fun for awhile, but now I think I might try Buddhism?”

Now clearly Obama is not divine, nor should he be held to God like standards, that was not my point. But inspiration comes in many forms and, just as Christ inspires his believers, Obama has inspired millions throughout the world. Inspiration is inspiration, no matter what form it takes.

The reality of the situation is that Obama, in weighing all sides of the situation, and acting in the best interest of his country and the Iranians, had no rational choice but to act as he did. The U.S. and Iran have a long, turbulent history. It was, after all, the U.S. that helped to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953 and consolidated the power of the shah who would rule repressively for 26 years. This led to the revolution of 1979, a backlash against the pro-west monarchy and the establishment of a new theocracy.

The 1979 revolution was largely seen as an anti-west revolt and an attempt to establish an Islamic Republic free of western influence. The leaders of Iran, especially Ayatollah Khamenei, have been critical of the west and often accused them of meddling in internal affairs with anti-Islamic intent. Any statement in direct support of the Moussavi followers would appear as an American endorsement for Moussavi over Ahmadinejad and anti-Islamic. This would serve only to validate claims by Khamenei of the western world’s plan to destroy Islam.

If Khamenei were able to tie the U.S. and Iranian protesters together, then he could easily build a case among Islamic fundamentalists for the use of extreme violence against their own people. Further government crackdowns at rallies and violence in the streets would occur. Terrorism would ramp up against Iranian civilians as well as against the U.S. Thus for the U.S. to come out and openly support the overthrow of the Iranian government would be disastrous for the protestors in Iran and only lead to intensified acts of violence against them.

Knowing this, Obama really is handcuffed in how he can handle the Iranian situation. While as an individual who is not beholden to his people, Obama no doubt supports the protesters and is pleased by such a pro-freedom movement. As an elected leader with a responsibility for the well being of an entire country, and a desire to keep violence at a minimum in Iran, he has little choice in the matter. Obama the man has come into direct conflict with Obama the leader.

This is the dilemma of all rational leaders; the conflict between ones moral conviction and political obligation. Yesterday Obama became harsher in his criticism of Iran by condemning the increased violence against Moussavi supporters. The question is how far can the Iranian government push the boundary until some sort of foreign intervention is warranted? For real revolution to occur, it must come from within. Foreign intervention only serves to delegitimize the people revolting in the first place.

It must be tough for President Obama to go to bed every night knowing that he can’t openly support a movement he must feel so proud to be witnessing. It must be hard to know that with a simple command he could protect the people being beaten and killed for simply exercising their right to free speech. But rest easy Mr. President; you may be doing more than you think. For you created a spirit and energy in this country where people believe in and want change, and it is that sentiment that has led to public support for the people in Iran.

And as for the judging public, those who are quick to call out the President for not doing more to protect the “sea of green”; take a step back and ask yourself what you want out of your leader. Someone who does what is in the best interest of his country and all involved, no matter how difficult it may be personally; or a gut player, who puts emotion and personal values ahead of rationality and facts? If you are struggling for an example of the latter, the last eight years should serve as an adequate reminder.

Twitter, Iran, and Overcoming the All Too Human

Change is happening, society is transforming and evolution is occurring all around us, whether you realize it or not. Sometimes it happens quietly, barely recognizable to those not directly involved, other times it reaches out, grabs hold of you and shakes you until you are forced to take notice. Well I have been shaken, along with much of the world, by the recent protests in Iran against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the disputed election results.

The will of the Iranian people has been truly inspiring and the world is taking notice. Keep in mind I have no ties to Iran, know little of the country’s politics and have seemingly nothing to gain by the outcome of the protests. What is occurring over 7,000 miles away though should be considered nothing less than a political revolution and social evolution. Whenever a group of repressed people stand together to fight for undeniable universal rights, whenever violence is used to repress the voice of a people, whenever society rises up against the tyrant of injustice, everyone, young and old, should take notice, for we have everything to gain and so much to lose.

The political and social unrest seen recently in Iran is hardly a unique or isolated event. So it begs the question, why is Iran so special? Why are people taking notice? This is where the evolution comes in. Technology, even in its most primitive form, has served to bring people together and it is technology that will allow humankind to overcome the All Too Human.

The invention of sharpened tools allowed the earliest societies to form by allowing specialization of labor, i.e. hunters and gatherers. Telephones, automobiles, and airplanes, all served to make the world smaller, allow ideas to flow from place to place freely and quickly. Long has mankind struggled to free itself from the bonds of ignorance; technology has always been its greatest weapon. For the human race to advance, for universal truth to be revealed, ideas must be shared without restriction. This is the principle of enlightenment.

“Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters.”

Whenever a person is denied the right to express his ideas freely and speak of his own will, enlightenment cannot be attained. Throughout history, oppressive individuals have attempted to keep man in the dark by cutting off the alimentary canal of our universal existence, knowledge. A tyrant has many weapons at his disposal: guns, bombs and tanks to name a few; but none as deadly or destructive as their ability to restrict freedom of speech.

Genocide, human rights violations, election fraud, all made possible by the inability of the people to share information. The reason government violence is often successful is the fact that we, the rest of the world, are vaguely aware of its happening. Even if word gets to us of what is happening it still doesn’t seem real, we see no images; we assume it is much ado about nothing.

No longer is this the case though, no longer can the voice of the people be muted, thanks to social networking sites like Twitter, Youtube and Facebook. Silence, the tyrant’s main weapon has been stripped away, and in its place the loud cries for freedom, justice, and “typing” can be heard. Thanks to technology, protestors in Iran have been able to share their videos and stories of oppression, in real time. With a click of my mouse I can access thousands of tweets from Iranians detailing the brutality being inflicted upon them and the resilience of the people. Suddenly I am moved into action, how could this be taking place? How can freedom be denied like this?

The whole world over has read these tweets, seen these videos and been exposed first hand to what it takes to achieve real freedom. And to the world’s benefit, they care. Overwhelming support has “tweeted” in from people in America, Britain, Asia and all over the world. People who have no affiliation with Iran are attending demonstrations in their own country to show their support for brave people in the streets of Tehran. We have been able to see that while two countries may have hostile relations, such as the U.S. and Iran, the people of these countries do not. For in the end people are people, and the culture gap perhaps not as large as we had thought. When we watch videos of violence online we do not see Iranians suffering, we see people suffering, and that cannot be tolerated. The world has seen injustice, stood up and shouted, “Yes, we care!”.

One must think that events like the Holocaust would never had occurred if videos from concentration camps could have been posted on the Internet in real time or if messages of the mass genocide could have been spread around the web. Thanks to technology, the tape of oppression is being ripped from the mouth of justice.

Thus, this social revolution is evidence of the evolution of the human condition and spirit. Ideas are able to flow freely, enlightenment is occurring, and humankind is ascending to the pinnacle of its existence. Thanks to technology and sites like Twitter, we are now able to better combat the spread of ignorance. Universal truths are slowly being revealed, real justice is being spread, and man is overcoming the All Too Human.