Michele Walk, Staff Writer
Ideology: Moderate | Writing From: Boston, MA
On Tuesday, according to CNBC, President Obama vowed “that the US is not in danger of overregulating the economy and that the outcome of the Iranian election will not make that much difference in his administration’s policies toward that country.”
While the President is very much entitled to his opinions, I must say that I beg to differ.
Though I didn’t support Obama in the fall, I still had high hopes for him as a President. I didn’t subscribe to his economic and social views, I thought perhaps he would bring beneficial change to America as a moderate, as he claimed during the campaign. Since he came into office, I have often disagreed with his policies and found few areas of support. A majority of these disagreements have been economic, especially regarding his propensity to support increased involvement in the American economy. He is expanding the Federal Government more than any other President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and is exercising control over the economy that is not his to exercise. GM, the company of whom we once said “what’s good for GM is good for America,” is now Government Motors, and we now have a “pay czar” that intrudes into the affairs of banks more than any other government post has. “Not overregulating?” If this isn’t over regulating, what is? However, despite different viewpoints on how issues should be addressed, most of the time I could still understand and agree with his underlying intent: to provide genuine help for those in need.
His response to the current election crisis in Iran, however, tells a different story. The Iranian people are begging for support from the rest of the world, and Obama and his administration, even though they are, in the words of Joe Biden, “deeply concerned” by the situation in Iran, have done absolutely nothing. Anyone who has viewed the so-far most reliable source for news out of Iran – Twitter – in the past week can see post after post from Iranians begging for help from the outside world which their government is so anxious to isolate them from. The Iranian government is killing their own people, and all the people demand is that their votes be counted and that they have some measure of freedom. How can President Obama, as the leader of the free world, sit idly by as this tragedy unfolds? I understand that he doesn’t want to be seen as meddling in other countries’ affairs; however, a humanitarian and political crisis like this calls for action. It would be entirely unacceptable for him to send in the American army; however, why can’t he band with other countries, such as France, in questioning the election results and condemning the killings? We as Americans pride ourselves on our freedoms and liberty, and for decades our Presidents, Democratic and Republican, have actively encouraged the spread of freedom. Say what you will about George W. Bush (I myself was not a fan), but his operations into Iraq and Afghanistan have at least brought the people more democracy than they have ever experienced and given them the hope that they one day may be have a representative government. The Iranian people are demanding democratic representation, and have shown extraordinary courage in order to defend their fundamental human rights to liberty and freedom in the face of an oppressive regime. We should be assisting the Iranian people in any way possible. The Middle East is rallying for democracy – now. So why not rally with them? The stirrings of true democracy are presenting themselves in Iran. As an established democracy, we should rally with the Iranian people and President Obama, the leader of the free world, should support their quest for a better government.
Obama has said his policies towards Iran will not change depending on the Iranian election. How can he pursue such an approach when Hossein Mousavi, the opposition leader, publicly stated in his campaign many times that he would like to open up diplomatic talks with the United States. While the Iranian President does not perhaps exercise full control over the country, he is still one of the country’s most important political leaders. For a candidate, one who has strong popular support no less, like Mousavi, to such an important office to consider re-opening civil diplomatic talks with the United States is a tremendous occurrence. For an Iranian politician, Mousavi is rather moderate, especially in comparison to “orthodox conservative” breed of Ahmadinejad. If Obama were to recognize Ahmadinejad as a legitimate ruler, which his comment would suggest, it would be an insult to democracies across the globe and humanity in general. While there is no doubt that the United States would still oppose Iran having a nuclear program, to say that the Iranian peoples’ demands for democratic representation wouldn’t change a thing is absurd. The people of Iran, and indeed people everywhere, have the right to free and fair elections.