Useless Haggling disguised as Democracy

On February 4, 2017, Fred Fleitz published a long article under the title: “Putting Iran on Notice Means Restoring American Credibility,” printed in National Review Online. Two days later, Jenna Lifhits reported that “Trump's Iran Sanctions [are] More Symbolic Than Punitive,” an article that appeared in the Weekly Standard.

Both writers discuss the same occurrence: that of Iran testing a ballistic missile, and the Trump Administration responding to signal its displeasure at Iran's behavior. What is notable is that the Fleitz article uses the occurrence to engage in a round of useless haggling. We come to this conclusion because of two reasons. First, the article says very little about the topic at hand while saying a great deal about the writer's fantasy. Second, the Lifhits article quotes a former Treasury official who asserted that America's response to Iran's action was more bark than bite.

Still, the useful outcome of the Fred Fleitz article is that it gives us the opportunity to study it and explore the point at which the exercise of democracy ceases to serve the purpose of democracy. We can do this because we can watch the author's argument degenerate into useless haggling. To fully benefit from this situation, however, we must avoid getting distracted by the merits and demerits of the issues separating the officials of the American Administration from their Iranian counterparts, while concentrating on the writer's debating style.

I began to develop an interest in a subject I like to call “the limits of democracy,” having participated in a constitutional debate we had in Canada a while back. The goal was to get Quebec to sign the Constitution and become full partner in the Canadian family. What I saw, however, and was dismayed were the abuses that some people committed to take advantage of the democratic process. What I got out of them was that I began to understand why “cloture” is sometimes invoked in a democratic process, and why the saying “the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy” has limits.

I determined that in a democratic process, problems begin to appear and go on to fester when someone abuses the rules by going off topic and pulling irrelevant issues into the central debate. The worst example I have seen in this vein was a woman that wanted to add an amendment to the Constitution relating to women's issues. To explain her point of view, she posited that “women have a hole, and men do not know what to do with it.” She nauseated the attendees.

While I do not contend that Fleitz has sunk as far down the abyss as that, it was his article that brought back the memory of that scene. Like the woman, he too rode on the coattails of a developing debate to highlight his pet project; that of working to achieve the “tearing up of the Iran nuclear agreement”.

Here, in condensed form, is how far Fred Fleitz pushed his fantasy:

“The sanctions are long overdue. Iranian leaders do not know whether or when President Trump will order military action against their nation. This, coupled with tough rhetoric against Iran should give Iran's ruling mullahs pause. President Trump and his advisers are probably weighing military options. At a minimum, Trump needs to consider military action if Iran threatens the free flow of commerce in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. The Trump administration should also be weighing a broad set of international sanctions. The Trump administration should support several efforts by Congress to impose new sanctions on Iran. I regret that President Trump has not torn up the JCPOA. I hope he still will – possibly when Netanyahu visits the White House … Putting Iran on notice is significant because it signals the return of President Reagan: 'peace through strength'”.

And here is the reality of the situation as reported by Jenna Lifhits:

“Sanctions the Trump administration imposed on Iran are more symbolic than punitive, a former Treasury official said. The Trump administration warned Iran it would be 'on notice' and proceeded to impose sanctions. Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing described the sanctions as a symbolic move rather than one that will put financial pressure on Tehran”.

It was the pairing of this reality with the fantasy of Fred Fleitz that engendered the stream of useless haggling, which is so prevalent these days in the American culture. It started with the issues that figure prominently in Jewish and Israeli affairs, and metastasized to engulf the politico-journalistic realm.