The New York Times' double standard on democracy
While whining that waging war on terrorism is anti-Democratic the New York Times has also made sure to promote radical theocracies as "democracies". This double standard on democracy should come as no surprise to anyone who realizes that the New York Times is trying to reposition itself from a city/national paper into an international news source. It has to go after that huge anti-American audience overseas to achieve that.
Case in point is the counter-factual op-ed by Hossein Derakhshan ironically titled "Democracy's Double Standard". In this opinion article the false premise that Iran is a democracy is put forth, and then President Bush is criticized for not supporting this "democracy". As with all arguments that use false premises the conclusion is invalid.
Iran is not a democracy, it is a theocracy. The country is controlled by a cabal of clerics who pick and choose who can "run" for office. Dissension is not merely outlawed, it is labeled as heresy. Dissenters are labeled as heretics and (if they are lucky) thrown in jail. Does that sound like a democracy to you? Of course not! Derakhshan even admits this near the end of his ant-Bush spiel:
It's true that Iranian elections are not quite democratic, because the unelected Guardian Council reserves the right to bar candidates.
Which is a bit like saying that the USSR was not quite free, then arguing that it was. This is what happens when your world view begins and ends with "George Bush is wrong"-you get stuck defending illogical positions simply to oppose the President.
Nor does it stop the hypocrisy at the Times, which spent much of the past two years downplaying the emerging democracy in Iraq because the Sunnis were boycotting the elections.
You have to hand it to the Times in one area, though. It knows its audience, and they love to hate President Bush. So a real democracy in Iraq gets downplayed and criticized while a harsh theocracy in Iran gets kid-glove treatment because they are at odds with President Bush. It is both logical and reasonable for people who love democracy to boycott the false elections in Iran as a protest against the theocracy that rules that nation with an iron fist. Yet the Times feels the need to criticize President Bush for doing so, claiming that "any" election is a step towards democracy.
Here's my challenge to the New York Times: go to Tehran and set up a news outlet there where you promote democracy. Let's see how long it takes you to end up in prison (or worse). Go ahead, I'll wait.... Prove me wrong by staying in Tehran and becoming the center of a pro-democracy movement.
I know you won't, however. Because you know that Iran is not a democracy and you would end up dead or in prison. Yet your desire to oppose President Bush drives you to make excuses for a repressive regime. What a sad way to run a newspaper.
Case in point is the counter-factual op-ed by Hossein Derakhshan ironically titled "Democracy's Double Standard". In this opinion article the false premise that Iran is a democracy is put forth, and then President Bush is criticized for not supporting this "democracy". As with all arguments that use false premises the conclusion is invalid.
Iran is not a democracy, it is a theocracy. The country is controlled by a cabal of clerics who pick and choose who can "run" for office. Dissension is not merely outlawed, it is labeled as heresy. Dissenters are labeled as heretics and (if they are lucky) thrown in jail. Does that sound like a democracy to you? Of course not! Derakhshan even admits this near the end of his ant-Bush spiel:
It's true that Iranian elections are not quite democratic, because the unelected Guardian Council reserves the right to bar candidates.
Which is a bit like saying that the USSR was not quite free, then arguing that it was. This is what happens when your world view begins and ends with "George Bush is wrong"-you get stuck defending illogical positions simply to oppose the President.
Nor does it stop the hypocrisy at the Times, which spent much of the past two years downplaying the emerging democracy in Iraq because the Sunnis were boycotting the elections.
You have to hand it to the Times in one area, though. It knows its audience, and they love to hate President Bush. So a real democracy in Iraq gets downplayed and criticized while a harsh theocracy in Iran gets kid-glove treatment because they are at odds with President Bush. It is both logical and reasonable for people who love democracy to boycott the false elections in Iran as a protest against the theocracy that rules that nation with an iron fist. Yet the Times feels the need to criticize President Bush for doing so, claiming that "any" election is a step towards democracy.
Here's my challenge to the New York Times: go to Tehran and set up a news outlet there where you promote democracy. Let's see how long it takes you to end up in prison (or worse). Go ahead, I'll wait.... Prove me wrong by staying in Tehran and becoming the center of a pro-democracy movement.
I know you won't, however. Because you know that Iran is not a democracy and you would end up dead or in prison. Yet your desire to oppose President Bush drives you to make excuses for a repressive regime. What a sad way to run a newspaper.