Caught In The Act
In addition to his duties at the Cap Times, Nichols also contributes to The Nation and writes a blog on their site. While he was waxing poetic about the Iraqi election today, he was singing a different tune on his blog in a post entitled "Occupation Thwarts Democracy".
Bryan was so dead on that I'm just going to quote his post on the Madison.com forum:
John Nichols writes in his blog on The Nation:
"That democracy has been denied in Iraq is beyond question. The charade of an election, played out against a backdrop of violence so unchecked that a substantial portion of the electorate-- particularly Sunni Muslims--avoided the polls for reasons of personal safety, featuring candidates who dared not speak their names and characterized by a debate so stilted that the electorate did not know who or what it is electing.
Now that this farce of an "election" in Iraq is done, the fight for democracy should move from Baghdad to Washington."
Today, John Nichols writes, "The images of Iraqis crowding polling places for that country's first free election in a half century were both moving and hopeful. The voting, while marred by violence, irregularities and boycotts, went off more smoothly than had generally been predicted."
How can the election be a farce, yet moving and hopeful? King John, I am so confused...
Not surprisingly, our intrepid columnist has yet to respond to Bryan's post. But I am surprised by two things here. First, how can a journalist today think that he talk out of both sides of his mouth and not get caught? While few places sell the Cap Times and The Nation alongside each other, online they're just a click away. It's a lot harder to hide your words today. Nichols should know better. Second, it's encouraging that Nichols thought he had to backtrack on his initial thoughts on Iraq. Even in ultra liberal Madison. You know you're a looney leftie when you your take is too liberal for Madison.
Posted by at February 1, 2005 10:24 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/658
|# March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment|
Two Points abuot this Jay Nichols paragraph from his Nation rant: Americans need to recognize that, in addition to the lives and dollars this occupation has cost the United States, it has also assaulted democratic ideals handed down by the founders of America's experiment with democracy. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and their kind did not warn casually against the "entangling alliances" that go with empire building. Having revolted themselves against an occupying force, they well recognized the necessity that democracy be homegrown.
1. What if we plead guilty to the charge of Empire Building? If empire building means releasing a population from tyrannical repression and allowing them the ongoing right to create by votes of individual free will their own government body, then the United States is guilty of empire building. What is wrong with this goal? What is wrong with empire building? It is a good thing for the world.
2. Nichols also makes an incorrect statement of history in saying the American Revolution was against an occupying force. European settlements under European governance created the new world society that would develop into the United States. The societies that created were continually present in America were not an external occupying force to be cast out. The American Revolution was more like remodeling. It took out an old failing system of government and replaced it with something much, much better. Representational Democracy.