[NYTr] Bush, Ahmadinejad & Authoritarianism

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Consortium News - Sep 28, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092807a.html

Bush, Ahmadinejad & Authoritarianism

By Nat Parry

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad grabbed attention this past week
for his “defiant” posture towards the United Nations over Iran’s
nuclear program and his asinine comments at Columbia University on the
absence of homosexuality in his home country.

As usual, any legitimate points Ahmadinejad may have made were lost or
drowned out in the uproar over his more controversial remarks.

But what may be more revealing than what the speeches tell us about him
as a man, or even about the worsening tensions in U.S.-Iran relations,
is what the reaction to his visit says about the state of democratic
discourse in America.

In a replay of the hate-filled hysteria over Iraq’s Saddam Hussein that
swept the nation in fall 2002, the U.S. political and media
establishment lashed out without restraint against the Iranian
president.

The one-sided condemnations of Ahmadinejad also contrasted with the
uncritical praise for George W. Bush after his UN speech on Sept. 25,
urging the UN to more aggressively promote human rights and oppose
authoritarian regimes around the world.

Inadvertently, however, the confluence of these events served to
highlight a creeping form of authoritarianism in America. The
contrasting treatment of the two world leaders was a case study in what
a leading scholar of authoritarianism, Robert Altemeyer, identifies as
“authoritarian submission” and “authoritarian aggression.”

By "authoritarian submission," he means a high degree of submission to
the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in
the society of which one is a member. "Authoritarian aggression" is
characterized by hostility toward people who are perceived to be
disapproved by the established authorities.

Both of these tendencies have been apparent in the past couple of
weeks, especially around Bush’s and Ahmadinejad’s addresses to the
United Nations.

In contrast to the vitriol directed at Ahmadinejad for daring to even
step foot in New York, Bush was essentially given a free pass over his
many hypocritical statements in his address to the General Assembly.

Typical of the coverage of Bush’s speech was a report from
Bloomberg.com, which noted without a hint of irony that Bush
“challenged the United Nations to return to its founding principles and
take the lead in opposing repressive regimes and championing the cause
of human rights and freedom around the world.”

Bush faulted the UN for the world’s deteriorating human rights
situation, saying that its Universal Declaration of Human Rights “is
not being upheld.”

Bush Abuses Forgotten

Virtually no one in the U.S. media spelled out what the individual
rights were in the 1948 declaration – presumably because Bush had
violated so many of them – nor did the American press corps delve into
the conflict between the UN and the Bush administration over its
alleged human rights abuses.

The fact that the UN and other international organizations have long
called on Bush to adhere to international standards in his prosecution
of the “war on terror” was largely ignored by the U.S. media in its
coverage of Bush’s speech.

There was no mention, for instance, of the UN’s call in February 2006
to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, and either
bring the detainees before a competent tribunal, or release them.

Five independent investigators of the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights made this recommendation after an 18-month investigation
into the situation of detainees at that U.S. Naval Base. The
recommendation was endorsed by Secretary General Kofi Annan, who said
he hoped the prison camp would be shut down “as soon as is possible.”

A year and a half later, the camp is still fully operational, and
hundreds of suspects continue to languish there without charges, with
little hope of ever being freed.

The U.S. also still maintains an unknown number of secret CIA prisons
at undisclosed places around the world, continues to practice “enhanced
interrogation” techniques that essentially amount to torture, and
continues “extraordinary renditions” in which terror suspects are sent
to countries that are known to practice torture.

This important context disappeared in the U.S. press coverage which
dutifully reported on President Bush slamming the UN for abandoning the
cause of human rights around the world and calling on the international
body to return to its founding principles of promoting freedom and
democracy.

Perhaps Bush’s hypocrisy was simply too vast for the U.S. media to
explain. Perhaps major U.S. news outlets felt that properly dissecting
this level of double standard would take too much time or space. Maybe
they were just lazy.

But more ominous may be the possibility that the U.S. media and
political establishment are succumbing to a good vs. evil view of the
world, in which America represents all that is good, and those
designated as enemies represent all that is bad.

When contrasted with the unrestrained attacks on the Iranian president,
the lack of critical reporting on Bush’s speech is especially glaring.
When it came to Ahmadinejad, virtually anything could be said with
little fear of being asked for factual documentation or being accused
of hyperbole or exaggeration.

‘Evil Has Landed’

Typical was a New York Daily News headline the day after Ahmadinejad
arrived in New York: “The Evil Has Landed.”

In other media outlets, there were comparisons of Ahmadinejad to Adolf
Hitler, denunciations of him as a “terrorist,” and even attacks on
Columbia University for inviting him to speak there. Pundit Greg
Gutfeld of Fox News called the university a “crack house” for granting
Ahmadinejad a platform.

Not only did newspapers and pundits criticize Columbia University for
inviting the Iranian president, but some prominent voices even
questioned his right to speak at the United Nations, of which Iran is a
dues-paying member.

As the UN’s host nation, the United States is obligated to grant member
states and their representatives diplomatic access to New York and
physical protection. Despite this requirement, some Bush administration
officials depicted their grudging tolerance of Ahmadinejad’s trip as a
tribute to America’s commitment to freedom of speech.

Other U.S. political figures wouldn’t even go that far. In a 60-second
radio ad, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized the
United Nations for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak to the international
body, and called instead for his prosecution under international law.

“What we should be doing is indicting Ahmadinejad under the Genocide
Convention,” Romney said in the spot, which was run in Iowa, South
Carolina and Florida.

Romney offered no legal rationale for prosecuting Ahmadinejad under the
Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as “acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group.”

Ahmadinejad, who was elected Iran’s president in 2005, has not been
implicated in any such mass slaughter, but Romney apparently was
referring to Ahmadinejad’s doubts about the Holocaust and his rhetoric
about eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. Supporters of Israel have
been rallying to prosecute him for genocide ever since.

(Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust represents a chapter of European
history that deserves critical scholarship but that nevertheless it
wasn’t the fault of Palestinians who were forced from their lands to
make room for the settlement of Jewish survivors. He also says he
favors a referendum of Israelis and Palestinians to determine the
future of those lands.)

Although it would be unprecedented to prosecute a world leader for
simply stating offensive and obnoxious opinions, the U.S. Congress and
the U.S. ambassador to the UN have supported such a move.

By a vote of 411-2, the U.S. House of Representatives endorsed the call
to charge Ahmadinejad with genocide, and urged the UN Security Council
to take action. U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton lent his support,
too. In his last month at his UN post, Bolton joined a panel of
diplomats and lawyers calling for Ahmadinejad to be prosecuted for his
remarks regarding Israel.

Bolton’s call came as Ahmadinejad insulted Israel in late 2006. “Thanks
to people’s wishes and God’s will,” the Iranian president said, “the
trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is
what God has promised and what all nations want.”

Ad Wars

While few would deny that Ahmadinejad has a tendency to say stupid
things worthy of criticism, what is remarkable about the reaction to
his words is the lack of proportionality when compared to the silence
that follows President Bush making remarks that are equally foolish.

Plus, Bush not only designates entire nations as “evil,” he backs up
his rhetoric with coercive military threats, an intimidating arsenal of
weapons including nuclear bombs, and military action, such as the
invasion of Iraq launched under the false pretense of eliminating
Iraq’s WMD and leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

That was the point that an anti-Bush group called World Can’t Wait
tried to make in a full-page ad on the back cover of New York’s free
daily Metro on Sept. 21. The ad showed Bush’s face within a nuclear
mushroom cloud and pointed out that the United States is the only
country that has ever used nuclear weapons.

It also referred to criticism of the U.S. by the UN’s International
Atomic Energy Agency, which condemned attempts by the Bush
administration to falsify information on Iran’s nuclear program. The
Metro newspaper refused the ad, calling it “too inflammatory.”

On Sept. 25, the day of Bush’s address to the UN, World Can’t Wait
attempted to run another ad in Metro warning of the possibility of a
U.S. attack on Iran. The ad said, “One million dead in Iraq.
Afghanistan gone to hell. Now Bush zeroes in on Iran!”

The ad, which referred to Bush as “belligerent,” was rejected for the
back cover explicitly on the basis of its content, says World Can’t
Wait.

The row over the World Can’t Wait ads coincided with the more
publicized controversy over a MoveOn ad in the New York Times,
criticizing Gen. David Petraeus with the juvenile pun on his name,
“General Betray Us.”

After coming under intense political pressure from the Right, the New
York Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, wrote on Sept. 23 that the ad
“appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of
the war in Iraq and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and
its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an
unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of
ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And
it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The
Times as a bastion of the ‘liberal media.’”

Hoyt said the Times should not have published the ad because it
amounted to “an attack of a personal nature” on Petraeus. Yet, the
following day, the Times ran an ad that was clearly a personal attack
on Ahmadinejad.

The full-page ad was sponsored by a pro-Bush, pro-war advocacy group
called Freedomswatch.org. Under the headline “Ahmadinejad Is a
Terrorist,” the ad denounced Columbia University for allowing the
Iranian president to give a speech.

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens our nation and the
freedoms we value,” the ad read. “He has supported attacks on our
soldiers and our allies. He should be treated as the terrorist that he
is.” [NYT, Sept. 24, 2007]

Forced Expulsion

But the Times’ backpedaling over the MoveOn ad – and its pandering to
conservatives in running the Freedomswatch ad – was not enough to
satisfy Republican politicians who sensed they had the antiwar movement
on the run.

First, the Republicans pushed through a bipartisan Senate resolution
expressing “full support” for Petraeus and condemning MoveOn for its
attempt to “impugn the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all
the members of the United States Armed Forces.”

The House of Representatives followed suit, taking the denunciation a
step further by condemning the advocacy group “in the strongest
possible terms.” The House resolution passed by a vote of 341-79.

The stampede against MoveOn appeared to have few limits. Republican
presidential candidate John McCain even called for MoveOn to be “thrown
out of this country.”

Since MoveOn has over three million members, the Arizona senator’s
comment – taken literally – could be interpreted as seeking the
expulsion of one percent of the U.S. population because of their
political views.

While some may dismiss McCain’s remarks as empty bluster or a desperate
attempt to inject some life into his flagging presidential campaign,
history tells us that the United States has deported people based on
their politics before. During the Red Scare of 1919-1920, the
government expelled hundreds suspected of radical political views.

McCain’s remarks were especially dangerous in today’s combustible
political climate. Right-wing groups such as the Gathering of Eagles
and the Free Republic have long been a presence at antiwar marches, but
lately have become increasingly aggressive in countering what they
consider to be domestic enemies of America.

At a Sept. 15 antiwar demonstration in Washington, D.C.,
counter-protesters wore t-shirts that read “fighting the insurgency at
home” as they hurled insults at antiwar demonstrators. At times, the
confrontation escalated into physical altercations between the opposing
groups.

In this tense environment, a call from a major presidential candidate
to expel MoveOn for its unpopular political views might well have
justified harsh public criticism of McCain. But the senator’s comments
passed largely unnoticed, especially when contrasted with the furors
over the MoveOn ad and Ahmadinejad’s speeches in New York.

[For more details on the rise of repression in the United States, see
Consortiumnews.com’s “George W. Bush’s Thug Nation” or our new book,
Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]

Authoritarian Specter

But this double standard is at the crux of authoritarianism.

As explained by Robert Altemeyer, who has spent much of his career as a
psychologist studying right-wing authoritarianism, the phenomenon is
characterized by a high degree of submission to the authorities who are
perceived to be legitimate, and a general aggressiveness toward those
perceived to be targeted for abuse by the established authorities.

Altemeyer sees the foundation of authoritarianism as a basic
personality trait within the individuals who make up a nation.

His definition of the authoritarian personality, developed over years
of testing and experimentation based on the scientific method, consists
of three attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian
aggression, and conventionalism – a high degree of devotion to the
social conventions which are perceived to be sanctioned by society and
its established authorities. [See Robert Altemeyer, Right-Wing
Authoritarianism]

By “attitudinal clusters” he means “orientations to respond in the same
general way toward certain classes of stimuli (namely, established
authorities, targets for sanctioned aggression, and social
conventions).”

He further identifies one of the defining characteristics of
authoritarians as their belief “that established authorities have an
inherent right to decide for themselves what they may do,” which may
include breaking the laws that they make for the rest of society.

While granting substantial leeway to established authorities,
authoritarians generally reject the idea that regular people should
develop their own ideas of what is moral and immoral, because the laws
and social conventions have already been laid out.

Most of these tendencies can be seen in America today and have risen to
new heights over the past couple of weeks with events such as the
MoveOn controversy and the vitriol surrounding Ahmadinejad’s visit to
New York when compared to the free pass given to President Bush over
his hypocrisy.

For years, Altemeyer has warned that based on his empirical research
into the authoritarian personality, it is apparent that many ordinary
people living in advanced democracies are psychologically disposed to
embrace antidemocratic, fascist policies.

Because of this disposition, Altemeyer concludes that “a potential for
the acceptance of right-wing totalitarian rule exists in … the United
States.” [See Robert Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter]

This threat can be exacerbated by a national crisis or emergency. In
such a circumstance, Altemeyer notes, the fearful mood of a populace
“can create a climate of public opinion that promotes totalitarian
movements.” This state of mind “can intimidate politicians, journalists
and religious leaders who might otherwise oppose repression.”

With the authoritarian foundations laid by the Bush administration and
to a degree legitimized and legalized by the U.S. Congress – including
elimination of habeas corpus rights, warrantless wiretaps, and military
commissions run by the Executive Branch – it may not be long before
this authoritarian specter becomes a reality.

[Nat Parry is co-author of Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of
George W. Bush, which can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com or at
Amazon.com. His e-mail is ndtparry at gmail.com .]