Questioning the Left

For a long time I have watched the videos of Democracy Now and admired the efforts of Amy Goodman. Since long before I discovered Democracy Now on the web I have been observing the subtle and sometimes not so subtle efforts of infiltrators from the right quietly working in the left at all levels in the ranks. In 2003 I saw the Victorian Peace Movement in Australia transform itself after the global demonstration of Feb 15th from the organisation whose stated aim was to stop the war into one whose next demonstration would be “after the war starts” and therefore up to George W Bush to decide and an implicit declaration that the stated aim had been officially abandoned. 
I have witnessed leftwing organisations rounding up enthusiastic activists into what the activists hoped was an organised body with a dedicated leadership but which instead would do nothing with the gathered energy other than guide them repeatedly into futile demonstrations, potential confrontations with police and situations that would provide fodder for the media festival of ridicule of the futility of dissent and a relentless cycle of collection of funds to be squandered on leaflets and banners and PA systems for self-infatuated would-be “public speakers”; an ugly thing to do to enthusiastic youth looking for guidance and the means to intelligent change. 
Organisations of the left that have been corrupted to a cosy status quo with the right have a nasty tendency to adopt an oddly uncharacteristic stance at critical times, which seem counter to their goals; anti-war policies become suddenly sensitive to a need to “support the troops”, anti-occupation policies become suddenly concerned as to “what will happen if we pull out?”. We are slow to wake up here in the left. 
Today the right wing is unleashing its machinery against the state of Iran with the obvious aim of destabilising the government and more significantly discrediting the Iranian political system. Armies of brave journalists (who never visited Iraq – at least not beyond the green zone – are suddenly swarming into Iran to gather footage of violent demonstrations and confrontations with riot police. Yet strangely. I’ve seen nothing in the footage to compare with what I’ve seen on the streets of Britain and Europe. Urgings and encouragements to unrest and violence are beamed back into Iran by the western media using every available technology; urgings that I never saw in 2000 when the US masses were outraged by the obvious fraudulent theft of their presidency. There is even talk of violent revolution and overthrow of the entire political system and it inspires me to wonder when we will see such urgings from the corporate media in the west? 
But to come to my point, what concerns me here is the language of this general theme coming from Democracy Now and the very mouth of none other than Amy Goodman. 
These days I am much more ready to burn my idols in the glare of scrutiny but someone so admirable as Amy Goodman deserves care to be objective. Nevertheless, I am troubled at the very outset that Amy’s analysis is at the level of the regime’s responses rather than at the level of the context in which the events are occurring, the reactions and influence of western media or the signs of covert interference by the US and other western governments. 
 
Amy is in the fray yapping at the heels of Ahmedinejad; subjecting his responses to assessment against standards that would not be applied to the US government response to such unrest or even drawing comparisons with how such situations have been handled in the west. 
 
Her opening sentence paints Ahmedinejad in the position of denial and instantly moves to the arrests of “journalists, prominent reformists and associates of the opposition candidates”. There is no attempt at comparison with western government responses to such situations and the deeper analysis of why this happens in Iran but not in the US. This is a question that might lead us to try to imagine the associates of Al Gore, the man who became “overwhelmingly humble” in accepting an obviously fraudulent defeat, calling on his supporters to demonstrate against the outcome of the vote and fomenting a “revolutionary” situation. Such comparisons give us the potential for greater insights to our own political systems than they do to Iran’s. 
Amy then also paints Ayatollah Khamenei in the position of denial and her journalistic remark “Hundreds of thousands of silent protesters flooded the streets of Tehran yesterday despite a continuing government crackdown.” Reminds me of the reporting in the US of the attempted coup against Venezuelan president Chavez. 
 
The assertions that demonstrators were “killed by Iranian paramilitary and security forces” is not a matter of certainty and is not consistent with the scale of security forces and riot police on the streets in relation to the scale of demonstrations. In the footage that I’ve seen I’ve been surprised by the subdued government response and assumed that the government was indeed sensitive to international opinion and taking care to avoid foreign speculations.  
 
One would have thought that Amy’s report that “The leading opposition candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, addressed the protesters Thursday, asking them to prepare for a major march on Saturday” just screamed out for comparison with Al Gore in 2000. But there was no such analysis. 
Amy introduces McLeod stating that “he was arrested, detained and beaten by Iranian security forces”, which inclines one to a dark impression. However, while Amy’s interview with McLeod is contextualised and presented to suggest a desperate government suppressing dissent, it seems to me there is nothing in what McLeod reports that is not experienced by dissenting activists in any western country and would also be experienced by journalists were it not for the fact that the corporate media were less willing to cooperate with the government.  
I see nothing in this sequence that doesn’t compare with treatment people receive in western countries: 
“I was approached by a police officer, who grabbed me. He was a riot police officer. … I was hauled off the bike and grabbed by the neck and beaten and hit by about, I don’t know, five officers, … I was hauled back onto the bike … taken by the arm, with my arm behind my back, into the basement of the car park down a flight of dark stairs and held there and questioned. …And then I was released.” 
As McLeod says himself “I had a few minor injuries, but I consider myself quite lucky” but he adds a dark speculation “compared to what could have happened” that is inconsistent with what he actually experienced. 
Again, in his remarks about the Basij, “the paramilitary forces that are known for—have killed a number of people?” I am at least gratified to find a question mark here. 
His other remarks: “they are absolutely terrifying. This is a sort of a quasi-legal, hard-line Islamic group that is basically above the law, because they’re said to be following a religious law. And they basically roam the streets after 10:00 at night, armed with chains, sticks, belts, anything they can get their hands on, and they beat anybody they suspect of being protesters” suggest to me that the Basij differ from those “special forces” police we have in western countries that ordinary police call “meat eaters” other that that the Iranian variety are less formally equipped. 
 
Personally, I’m extremely disappointed here by many aspects of this article and Amy’s story. 
· The story is accommodated to the corporate media theme of discrediting the Iranian Political System 
· It gives no analysis in relation to the higher level discussion of western efforts to foment revolution in Iran 
· It journalistically denigrates Ahmedinejad, Khamenei and the response of the Iranian government with no attempt at objective comparison with how politics, government and dissent are conducted in western countries. 
 
I have to say that at this critical time I am left with the strong impression that Amy is emulating the pattern of those left advocates who tend to drop the ball at moments critical to our side of the discussion.

Guest