Comments on: The Stalinist Moment In Iran

By: Steynian 368 « Free Canuckistan!

Steynian 368 « Free Canuckistan! — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:43:22 +0000

[...] THE STALINIST Moment In Iran …. [...]

By: Dr D Pence

Dr D Pence — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:59:01 +0000

Professor Reno. You have written many good essays but the ease of the blogsphere has a diluting effect on your authority. The conservative and liberal press aproach to the Iranian election is mindful of the NY Times role in the discrediting of the Diem government of South Vietnam in 1963. It turns out the press and their selected sources were quite wrong about the reality of the religious and nationalistic Diem. Unlike that pivotal tragic episode in the history of American political reporting, there are many more sources about the real people and historical loyalties and interests of the major electoral and institutional figures in the Iranian election. The idea that a few well known Catholic principles or the intuitive wisdom of a good Catholic philosopher can be properly applied to this historical situation and teach us something of significant merit is a recurring conceit of “Catholic conservative public intellectuals.” Let me in a fraternal spirit suggest it a far better use of your good name and First Things public space to direct readers to writers like George Friedman at Stratfor and First Things own David Goldman. Both of these men are highly principled and Goldman actually has an acute sense of the sacred and Gods presence in the world. At the same time they know and teach about the realities of Iranian history and personalities. They tell a very different story than CNN and the plethora of columnists of every ideological hue who treat historical events like the iranian election as an opportunity to share the principles of their philosophies or the accents of their personalities. Goldman/Friedman journalistc reporting is both more interesting and helpful in understnading this dangerous moment. As Tom Wolfe taught us in his essay on the new journalism– telling accurate narratives of real people always gets us closer to the truth while invariably proving to be more interesting and fantastic than our own impressions of a given subject.

By: Bill Harnist

Bill Harnist — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:35:33 +0000

Read Eric Hoffers, The True Believer.

By: Government Drone

Government Drone — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:14:46 +0000

Your description of Stalin in the 1920s isn’t quite right. During that decade it was Trotsky who was the radical pushing “barracks socialism” & a permanent revolution. It was Stalin who appeared to be talking sense, backing the sort-of-free-market New Economic Policy, and saying the Soviets ought to concentrate on building Socialism in one country rather than engage in perpetual revolution abroad. Of course, after Trotsky & other “leftists” were eliminated as a political force, he quickly changed his tune.

I’m not at conversant with the twists & turns of the Iranian revolution & aftermath to know just how to map the Soviet experience onto present-day Teheran. Khamenei could still play the role of Stalin, using Amadinejad as a Kalinin with Moussavi as a Bukharin; this would suggest that once the pesky election “loser” is safely out of the way, it could be the “winner” who is targeted for getting too big for his britches.

It’ll be something to watch unfold over the next few months, if nothing else.