On Jun 16, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> 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.
And being fundamentally liberal, they cannot deliver the goods, but only promise that the poor's best hopes is in the "rising tide", no? Free the Blackberry-toting, texting and twittering crowd and they shall lift your lot ("twitter-down" replaces "trickle-down"?). So, perhaps you can ask Dabashi (and also take a shot at an answer here): is Ahmadinejad unable to deliver a better economy because is a charlatan, or because he doesn't understand economics (i.e., he doesn't see that laissez-faire liberalism is the only option), or he faces the same constraints that any economist populist faces: powerful (not necessarily the religious leaders) interests that prefer a different outcome?
BTW, I tend to agree with your description of Dabashi based on his previous appearances on your show (if that's where I remember him from), though this particular piece was over the top, IMHO.
And the section I quoted and called for Yoshie in response was to point out that her views ("Persian Prince" and all), to me, were a lot more palatable and edifying than the sort of Western posturing that Dabashi was calling out in his piece, which I tend to associate with both the right-wing (which wants a counter-jihad) or a good part of the left (Doug Ireland to your garden-variety liberal).
On Jun 16, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> At 01:35 PM 6/16/2009, ravi wrote:
> So he's saying A's supporters come from the poorest and most
>>> disenfranchised segments that he bussed in.
>>
>> So what of it? Are you saying that Dabashi is only speaking of those
>> bused in?
>
> He's talking about that sector of the population with the same
> affinities as those bussed in for a big rally. Call it patronage on
> the cheap. Dabashi's extrapolation may not be scientific, but it's
> more than close enough for journalism.
>
Sure, not only do I gather from other meagre reading that Dabashi's extrapolation is legitimate (i.e., Ahmadinejad draws huge support from the poor/disenfranchised/rural sector), but I am happy to yield to his more intimate knowledge. But here's the rub: either it is patronage, in which case these segments aren't being duped, or its not patronage and Dabashi is saying they are getting suckered. If it’s the latter, I want to know from Dabashi what the options are for the poor... should they choose Moussavi, who is equated by Dabashi to MLK and Mandela?
--ravi