More Fetishism From the Left
I don't want to have two consecutive posts invoking psychoanalysis, but this is really too perfect. I often talk about the Left's fetishistic insistence on the universal validity of processes that work under equitable circumstances (even when the circumstances under which they worked patently do not apply). An excellent case in point can be found in yesterday's NYT:
Critics also say that Iraqis have no recent tradition of elections. Actually, Iraq had five elections for its 250-member Parliament from 1980 to 2000. Though all the candidates were pre-approved by the regime, voters did get a choice between Baathists and non-Baathists (the Baathists' share of seats ranged from 142 to 183). The point is, some people felt free to express a personal preference.
There are so many things wrong with this argument that it's hard to get a handle on what the underlying drive that's screwing everyhting up actually is. I'd suggest that it is exactly this idea that a process (elections, resistance to foreign occupation, give and take peace negotiations) that works is valid as such - and that therefore it can be transported across circumstances and contexts. No matter how rigged elections in Iraq were, this argument goes, they were not 100% rigged. Therefore they provided the same experience and served the same function as elections in any Western country, and the people of Iraq are thus ready for elections.
The process has become the desired object - it is fetishism in the strictist sense.
Critics also say that Iraqis have no recent tradition of elections. Actually, Iraq had five elections for its 250-member Parliament from 1980 to 2000. Though all the candidates were pre-approved by the regime, voters did get a choice between Baathists and non-Baathists (the Baathists' share of seats ranged from 142 to 183). The point is, some people felt free to express a personal preference.
There are so many things wrong with this argument that it's hard to get a handle on what the underlying drive that's screwing everyhting up actually is. I'd suggest that it is exactly this idea that a process (elections, resistance to foreign occupation, give and take peace negotiations) that works is valid as such - and that therefore it can be transported across circumstances and contexts. No matter how rigged elections in Iraq were, this argument goes, they were not 100% rigged. Therefore they provided the same experience and served the same function as elections in any Western country, and the people of Iraq are thus ready for elections.
The process has become the desired object - it is fetishism in the strictist sense.
