Editor’s Note:  It is the custom of this blog to write in an editorial third person.  This post, however, will be written in first person.

Rally for opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The events now taking place in Iran remind me of the summer of 1989.  Attention has been paid elsewhere to the 20th anniversary of pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananman Square in China, but I am reminded of events that took place in Hungary.

Twenty years ago Hungary’s decision to relax border security allowed many East Germans into the country.  In June of 1989 thousands began arriving in Budapest, and once there, occupied the grounds of western embassies seeking an escape from communism. 

By treaty Hungary was obligated to return East Germans to their homeland, but when their numbers exceeded 20,000 by some estimates, pressure from its citizens forced the Hungarian government to open its border with Austria and allow free passage to the West.

Walls that had been erected to keep people under a system of government that had no popular support had been breached and a cascade of events culminated in the collapse of the Berlin Wall by that November.  With amazing speed 40 years of totalitarian government throughout Eastern Europe had ended and millions emerged into freedom.

I am as I have always been, a registered Republican, but in the summer of 1989 I was a democrat moved by the voices of millions demanding democracy and freedom for themselves.  I was 26 at the time, and in my youthful enthusiasm I remember thinking, “I want to help them, and encourage them.  I want them to enjoy the benefits I’ve known.”  Today, 20 years later, I am a democrat again.

Iranian woman voices support for democracy.

Millions in Iran today, like millions before them in Eastern Europe, are expressing their opposition to oppression and reminding us all that every government, whatever form it takes, derives its power from the consent of the governed.

Just one week has passed since the conclusion of what appears to be a fraudulent presidential election.  What a week ago were large campaign rallies quickly evolved first into demonstrations for justice and then protests for democracy.  What a week ago was about moderation and modernization is now about regime change.

Events are moving quickly, just as they did 20 years ago.  Whether events in Iran bring the same rebirth of freedom is unclear.  What can’t be disputed, however, is that a fatal wound to the existing regime has been opened.  Iran may not realize a western-style democracy, but it seems certain now that its theocracy will not endure.

Some Other Observations on Iran:

In his second inaugural address former President George W. Bush acknowledged others’ doubts about the global appeal of liberty, but went on to say, “Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul.”  Could the events in Iran erase those doubts any better?

Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani was seen as a pragmatist that preferred centrist politics at home, and moderation in Iran’s relationships with other nations.  He was defeated for a third term by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.  Today he chairs the Assembly of Experts, which has the authority to select, monitor and dismiss the Supreme Leader. 

This is important because, under the Iranian Constitution, it is the Supreme Leader that has the authority to command the country’s armed forces; to appoint the chief judge, chief prosecutor, and special tribunals; and to control the media.  Ahmadinejad is essentially a figurehead.

Since the election a week ago Rafsanjani has been unseen and unheard.  Now that events have exposed the extent to which the existing regime has lost support among Iranians, he more than most can decide the outcome.  If he pursuades the Assembly of Experts to replace Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with a more moderate leader there is hope that the changes Iranians seek can be secured through more peaceful means.  His actions will be worth watching.

Mir Hossein Mousavi

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the candidate whose election appears to have been stolen, was himself a revlotionary.  Ironically it was with the blessing of the same Ali Khamenei that his followers now so openly oppose that he was chosen Prime Minister in 1981. 

He is credited with effectively managing the Iran-Iraq War and the nation’s economy but after 1989 he withdrew from politics.  Many observers attribute this to dissatisfaction with the establishment.

In a June 20 statement (transcription available at Tehran Bureau) Mousavi said:

 ”If the vast scale of cheating and fraud that has set fire on people’s trust is interpreted as the reason for the absence of cheating [a response to Ayatollah Khamenei’s contention that the difference of 11 million votes between Mr. Mousavi and Ahmadinejad is so large that cannot be a fraud], the republican side of the political system [the Islamic Republic] will be destroyed, which will then prove the claim that Islam and democracy are incompatible. This fate will make two groups happy: One consists of those who, right from the beginning of the Revolution, were arrayed against Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] and claim that the Islamic government is the dictatorship of the honest clergy [a reference to the ultra-reactionaries led by Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi], and believe that they can take people to heaven by force, while the second group is made of those who, by claiming that they want to defend people’s rights, believe that Islam is against republicanism. The Imam’s [Ayatollah Khomeini’s] great skill was to demonstrate the fallacy of what both groups say. I had decided to run because I wanted, based on the Imam’s path, to neutralize the efforts of those who advocate both thinking.”

His campaign promised a more moderate, less theocratic or ideological presidency, but not regime change.  Nonetheless, whether leading this movement, or being lead by it, he now appears prepared to support such change.

The sincerity or seriousness of this support should not be doubted simply because of his revolutionary roots.  After all, it was the actions of avowed communists like Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin that ushered in reform in Russia. 

It seems to have escaped the attention of the media and other observers that post-election tensions have been between pro-reform Iranians and the government, not pro-reform Iranians and the millions we are told voted to retain the existing government.  This is not yet war, but if it were it would be more revolutionary than civil.  Isn’t that an important observation? 

An injured pro-democracy Iranian.

Yes, there were large pro-government demonstrations after the election results were published, but they soon disappeared.  Why are pro-democracy protesters the only ones in the streets?  Why aren’t citizens in the streets to defend the government?

My own conclusion is that the demand for democracy is deeper and wider than we yet know, and this explains the extreme measures being taken by the Supreme Leader and his government first to disguise it through fraud, and then to crush it through force.

That leads me to my final observation.  The hesitency of President Barack Obama to be seen as meddling in Iran’s dometic affairs is diplomatically sound, but I still feel that an opportunity is being missed. 

In his Cairo address to the Muslim world the president spoke about the freedoms that democracy can bring.  He needs to restate and reinforce those ideas not for the thousands now confronting their government, but for the millions more that have not.  Reassurance from the president may be the impetus reluctant pro-democracy Iranians need to join the fight. 

President Obama should continue to encourage Iranians and others to claim their human rights to free speech, free press, and free assembly, and assure them a more peaceful and prosperous relationship with the rest of the world when they do.

Last week’s foreign trip by an American president to speak to a wary and distrustful people about America’s interest in a peaceful relationship with them brought to mind a similar speech 21 years earlier.

President Barack Obama’s June 4 speech at Cairo University, like the 1988 speech of former President Ronald Reagan at Moscow State University, was delivered before a student assembly, but was intended for a larger audience.

Both speeches were meant to seize an opportunity to establish new relationships with a significant population (i.e., citizens of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc; and Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims).  Both made extensive and sincere efforts to show respect for the culture and traditions of the audience.  Both sought to educate their audiences to America’s history and the principles upon which it’s government and policy are based. 

As guest lecturers to their respective student assemblies and millions beyond, both Reagan and Obama addressed the subjects of democracy and individual rights.  Though delivered at different times to different audiences, both men extolled the virtues of democratic government.

Reagan encouraged his audience, which was emerging from decades of totalitarianism, to continue on its course toward democracy.  He noted that “Democracy is less a system of government than it is a system to keep government limited, unintrusive: A system of constraints on power to keep politics and government secondary to the important things in life, the true sources of value found only in family and faith.” 

To a region where elections have not produced the individual rights associated with democracy, Obama stated his belief “that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.  And that is why we will support them everywhere.”

America was founded on the principle that the individual is sovereign, and that government derives its authority from their consent.  From its origin America has understood that democracy is organic.  It must be chosen.  It can’t be imposed.

As a democratic nation, America benefits when any nation choses democracy or takes steps to recognize the rights of its citizens, but it must be chosen.   To that end America’s interests can be advanced by her example, and successfully educating others to democracy’s benefits. 

Reagan understood that a more democratic Russia and Eastern Europe would would have nothing to fear from America and her allies, and his encouragement produced a lasting peace.  Obama understands that more freedom in the Middle East will isolate the extremism that threatens the security of people there and here alike. 

Reagan’s speech was not the pivot point from which the successful conclusion of the Cold War can be traced.  Likewise, the Obama speech is unlikely, in itself, to produce the outcome we currently seek.  Nontheless, both speeches were important and consequential and worthy of being remembered.

When Susan Boyle, the Scotish spinster that became a soprano sensation the world over, sang ”I Dreamed A Dream” for the musical Les Miserables the irony was inescapable.

The lyrics shown below speak of a dream lost; of promise unfulfilled.  It was an ironic choice given that it was her performance of that song that propelled her to instant international internet fame.  A song about broken dreams seemed then to help her realize a dream. 

As good as her performance was, the world fell in love with the image of Susan Boyle.  A shy, single, never-been-kissed middle-aged woman living alone with her cat Pebbles in some pastoral Scotish village who simply wanted to entertain.  She was so completely herself on stage when we first met her that everyone watching could instantly associate with her. 

However, she was ill-equipped to deal with the scale of the fame her performance won her.  In the weeks preceeding the finals of Britain’s Got Talent tabloids were full of reports of her crying, raging, swearing, and fighting fits.  Those reports did not conform to the world’s image and so support receded.

Despite the stress and strain the world’s expectations must have placed on her she soldiered on and delivered another fine performance of the song we all so loved. 

This time, however, all irony was washed away.  Sadly, this time the lyrics of this song perfectly conveyed the circumstances Susan was living. 

I dreamed a dream

in times gone by
When hope was high
And life worth living
I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that god would be forgiving

Then I was young and unafraid
And dreams were made and used and wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung
No wine untasted

But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they tear your hope apart
And they turn your dream to shame

He slept a summer by my side
He filled my days with endless wonder
He took my childhood in his stride
But he was gone when autumn came

And still I dream he’ll come to me
That we will live the years together
But there are dreams that cannot be
And there are storms we cannot weather

I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I’m living
So different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed
The dream I dreamed.

 

I’m not sure she was ever truly concerned with winning the competition.  Her stated goal was to be a professional singer, and that can still be achieved, but her expected loss must still have come as a soul-crushing surprise.  So much so she voluntarily entered a treatment center for much needed rest after a tumultuous month. 

Here’s hoping she finds the peace she needs, and that her dream to entertain was not lost with the show. 

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor who, if confirmed, would be the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, represents a teaching moment for the Republican Party.

This is an opportunity for the Grand Old Party to teach its conservative principles of constitutional law to a much broader audience than its own base, and to teach its individual rights philosophy to an audience sure to include the nation’s growing Hispanic population.

First, there are some facts to face.  The present ideological balance in the Supreme Court is not likely to change as a consequence of this appointment.  Republicans do not have the capacity to stop this appointment.  And finally, any effort to diminish or discredit this nominee risks the alienation of a constituency important to any future electoral success.

The present configuration of the Court has four reliably conservative justices (i.e., Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito), four reliably liberal justices (i.e., Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) and one right-leaning swing justice (Kennedy).  Swapping Sonia Sotomayor for David Souter does not change that.

At present the GOP holds just 40 seats in the Senate.  It takes at least 41 votes to prevent the Senate from giving its advice and consent to this nomination, and it’s improbable, if not entirely impossible, for the Republicans to get them. 

Finally, while politics is the least consideration, it is an important one.  Consider the Electoral College map: California and Texas are already majority-minority states, and New York and Georgia may be as early as 2012.  Another generation will see the U.S. become a majority-minority nation.  This is being driven primarily by growth in the Hispanic population.  Republicans should be careful not to be seen as attacking Sotomayor.

In 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain garnered 31 percent of the Hispanic votes, but in 2004 George W. Bush got 44 percent.  While some of that erosion can be attributed to the presence of another minority on the ballot, battles over illegal immigration clearly alienated them, as well.  A full-throated opposition to Sotomayor would further alienate, perhaps permanently,  this growing and critically important demographic.

So, if you’re a conservative Republican and you can’t make the court more conservative, you can’t stop the appointment of a liberal nominee, and you can’t risk scaring away Hispanic voters, what can you do?  Here are some humble suggestions:

1. Make “states rights” and “strict constructionist” and “judicial activism” more than buzzwords, and  
2. Reassure Hispanics that, even if they must oppose the nomination of the first Hispanic nominee for the Supreme Court, Republicans are respectful of their real concerns.

The confirmation hearings provide Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee opportunities to ask questions that could serve to draw out the nominee’s liberal judicial philosophy and ethnocentric thinking.

It is important to remind all voters that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.  That the Constitution is not an evolving document.  It must be read as it is, and not as some may wish it to be.  Finally, when it may be necessary to judge something unconstitutional, judges should not take the additional step of prescribing certain actions in order to achieve constitutionality.  If the Court rules something unconstitutional, it is for Congress to decided a remedy.  Republican questioning during her confirmation hearings should focus on these issues.

The 15 percent of the population that is Hispanic will take justifiable pride in this nomination, and they will be watching.  It is a difficult and inadvisable thing to stand in the way of history.  Nonetheless, all those eyes give the Republicans an opportunity to show this important constituency how its conservative principles address their needs and concerns. 

In questioning the liberalism of the nominee, Republicans should communicate to the Hispanic audience that they prefer to empower the individual — including the Hispanic individual – to elevate his own place in society, rather than mandate it from the legislature, or dictate it from the judiciary. 

In exposing the nominee’s belief that her ethnicity should influence her decisions, Republicans should demonstrate that while it is respectful of her background, the nation is better served by justices that judge law without regard to the consequences.  When judges concern themselves with outcomes they construe the law to achieve them, and all citizens — including Hispanic citizens — are not well served by that.

In the end expect Sotomayor to be seated as the first Hispanic member on the Supreme Court, and hope that Republicans, who might be justified in opposing this nominee on judicial and philosophical grounds, do not express that opposition in a way that further alienates an important and growing constituency.  Otherwise, it may be they who learn a hard lesson.