On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:55 PM, ravi wrote:
> I was toying with that question myself. But is this the right
> analogy (are we back at "What's the matter with Kansas"?)? Bush/
> McCain are not and do not claim to be economic populists, do they?
> AFAIK Ahmadinejad claims to be so, and from the little I know, he
> seems to have instituted some redistribution programs[?]. On the
> other hand, some white hicks voted for Bush because of the
> Christianity thing and on that front, the hick was choosing his best
> option. If Iranians are choosing along those same lines (adherence
> to Islam) then again Ahmadinejad seems to be their logical choice.
I don't deny that the rural poor may have good reasons for supporting Ahmadinejad, but he hasn't really delivered a better economy - as Dabashi pointed out, the country is suffering from what we once called stagflation. Not that the "liberals" would deliver the goods either. But the 62% vote is just implausible. And it looks like they may have overplayed their hand. If you're going to steal an election, it makes more sense to do so with 51% than 62%.
Doug