G.K. Chesterton once referred to “easy speeches to comfort cruel men.” Leaders like Reagan (and his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher) were not terribly interested in providing comfort to cruel men. They instinctively identified with the victims of oppression rather than the oppressors — and they were, more often than not, willing to give those views public voice. What we are dealing with is a cast of mind, a disposition toward words, their power and meaning, and their capacity to shape events.
Mr. Wehner links to an article by Bret Stephens (WSJ, Wanted: 'Hope' for Iran, June 16, 2009):
Here's a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. "WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT," this demonstrator wrote. "Time is not on our side... The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one."
Someday a future president may have to apologize to Iranians for Mr. Obama's nonfeasance, just as Mr. Obama apologized for the Eisenhower administration's meddling. But the better Eisenhower parallel is with Hungary in 1956. Then as now a popular uprising coalesced around a figure (Imre Nagy in Hungary; Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran), who had once been a creature of the system. Then as now it was buoyed by inspiring American rhetoric about freedom and democracy coming over Voice of America airwaves.
This is the real test of Obama: Will he ignore the pleas for help and recognition from Iran's desperate citizens yearning to be free in their own nation, or will he remain silent and impotent?
H/t Instapundit.
Posts
