Protesters in Iran demonstrate against their
undemocratic form of government knowing that such activities are forbidden by
their autocratic rulers. The protesters take the chance and defy the rulers
knowing what the consequences can be. The result of the decisions they took
freely, was that a handful of them got shot by the security people who were
standing in front of them. A number of protesters died for the cause they were
willing to give their lives for, going down with their heads held high. And
then, they were memorialized with this lamentation: How sad they were cut down
with autocratic bullets!
At the same moment, half the way across the world in
America, a driver minding his business in a democratic form of government,
believing that he had equal protection no matter the color of his skin, is
stopped because of a tail light on his car was not lighting properly. Not
knowing what lurks in the heart of the cop that stopped him, the driver does
what he is told, but the cop displays impatience. Instinctively, the driver
feels he is in danger, gets out of the car and runs away. The cop shoots him a
dozen times in the back to make sure he dies on the spot and does not tell what
really happened. This victim and a thousand others like him who never freely chose
what their fate should be are cut down every year in America by fidgety cops. And then,
the dead are memorialized with this explanation: How sad the cop that killed
him believed he was armed when he wasn't.
Now my friend, I ask you this: Which deaths are worthy and
which are not?
If you believe this is a difficult question to answer, do
not force yourself. But take heart because the editors of The Weekly Standard
made sure to answer it, thus spare you the torment of having to choose between
honest autocracy and dishonest democracy. They wrote: “A Deafening Silence,” an
editorial that appeared on January 7, 2018 on their website.
So you go over the article to see what these editors have to
say. But the more you read, the more questions you ask, and the more answers
you find in he article. The dialogue between the two of you goes something like
this:
– You say your American system of governance is better than
that of Iran , what values
inherent to your system would you say make it better to live under than Iran 's system?
– Inherent? We don't judge things by inherent. We know our
system is better than Iran 's
because our liberal opponents here in America
like Iran 's
system better. You know who these guys are? They are the ones who believe Obama
was a great president. They are those who said nothing when the brave
demonstrators in Iran
confronted the security apparatus of the mullahs, knowing that they could die
defending freedom.
– But that's precisely the point I'm making. The people in Iran know what
the law says – however bad it may be – and they take the chance knowing what
the consequences can be. Do you still believe this is worse than the case of
the guy who thought he was protected like everyone else only to be shot in the
back by someone assigned to protect him? He was shot not because he chose to
take a chance on anything, but because he believed the promise of a democratic
system that's full of lies and deceit. Is this a better death than going down
with one's head held high?
– Ah, don't give me that crap. You can't equate what is done
deliberately by the security forces in Iran
with what a few rogue cops do in America . Tell me something else
about that inherent thing you were talking about earlier.
– Okay then. Tell me how many people die in Iran at the
hands of someone confronting them face to face once every ten or twenty years
as they freely demonstrate and make demands? And then tell me how many in America get
shot in the back during that same period of time because these people choose to
do nothing but mind their own business?
– Don't be silly, ask another question.
– Okay, I'll ask another question, but brace yourself
because it comes with a long preamble. Here it is: Known to be a neocon with a
Pax Americana agenda, you say this: 'we have the right and ability to lead
other peoples toward worthier forms of governance.' You then accuse the
liberals of losing any moral impulse. And you explain that they are
'internationalists if it means handing over US sovereignty to the United
Nations or the International Criminal Court,' but they are not
internationalists enough when it comes to fighting the bad guys out there. Is
that correct?
– Yes I said all that.
– Well then, tell me this: How many military bases and personnel does America have
overseas as opposed to how many lawyers or legislators it has out there?
– I see what you're getting at, and I'm not answering this question. Ask
me another one.
– You say, we can and must lead other peoples toward worthier forms of
governance. Tell me this: When and where after WW II did America lead
another people toward a worthier form of governance? Was it Vietnam or Afghanistan
or Iraq or Libya ?
– I declare this inquisition terminated. Adios!
It is obvious from the above give-and-take that the neocon editors of
the Weekly Standard would answer the question asked earlier like this: It is
better to die under circumstances not of your choosing as long as you get shot
in the back a dozen times with democratic bullets – than it is to confront a
security officer, get shot with one autocratic bullet, and go down with your
head held high.