Who is Iran?

When I say "Iran," what do you think of?  An enemy nation, part of the "axis of evil?" A fundamentalist Islamic regime and a bastion of anti-American sentiment?  Millions of covered women and bearded men observing Islam and preparing for holy war, possibly with nukes, against Israel and America?

Although you may not believe all of the above statements to be 100% true, I'm sure some of these descriptions of the country a plurality of Americans consider to be the our nation's greatest enemy sound familiar.  Indeed, they have come to define the media and political discourse on Iran for years, especially since the "war on terror" began.  But as I learn more about the government and people of Iran in my global issues and world literature classes, I have come to realize the dangerous fallacy in viewing all of Iran in such an antagonistic and closed-minded light.  Although there are those in Iran that wish to see the fall of Israel and the demise of the West, to understand the scope and extent of these beliefs in Iran is the responsibility of every American, especially those in charge, who wish to see a more peaceful Middle East and world.

Reading Lolita in Tehran, written by Azar Nafisi, an English literature professor who taught in an Iranian university before forming her own private class of seven bright Iranian women to study banned literature (more complete summary here), exposes the thoughts and experiences of the students' lives as they explore other people's fiction as well as their own.  As the women seek to discover their own identity under a regime determined to eliminate, or at least homogenize, it, the reader sees the complexity of these women underneath the chador (traditional Iranian veil).  Most of these students wear bright colors, western clothing, party with bootlegged alcohol, and all of them have an identity more individual than the Islamic regime - and our own media - would have us know.  In fact, in 2008, only one-fifth of Iranians surveyed held an unfavorable view of Americans, and most wanted more exchange between the two countries (according to Juan Cole's book Engaging the Muslim World).  Although many in the Islamic regime hold anti-American views, it is clear that the government and the people are not the same.

From a historical standpoint, the divergence between the people and government of Iran is clear, if we take the time to look.  After two revolutions to overthrow the monarchy ruling Iran were thwarted by Western nations, Iranians were finally able, in 1979, to overthrow the American-backed Shah.  Leftists, communists, feminists, Islamic fundamentalists, and many groups in between revolted against the Shah, but the religious Muslims under Ayatollah Khomeini was able to form a government.  The Islamic Republic of Iran was born before many revolutionaries realized it, and the Ayatollah silenced his opposition enough to centralize power.

The current Islamic regime does not represent the vibrant Persian culture veiled in Iran.  To understand this difference is a crucial first step in facing, or, perhaps optimistically, in working with, our nation's "greatest enemy."

We're all soaked now

On election night, November 2nd, one word seemed to be on every voter's mind and on every pundit's lips: wave.  The midterm election that resulted in Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives and making huge gains in the Senate and statehouses around the country was, as Fox News reported, an "historic" wave, with Republicans "thundering" into Washington.  This metaphor of election as wave is one that has swept the country and that politicians are riding to gain power (see what I mean?).

In my English class this week, we learned about conventional metaphors, or those metaphorical comparisons prevalent in a society's everyday language that influence its conceptual system (for a fuller definition with examples, click here).  The election as wave metaphor has come to define our understanding of elections, with the past 3 elections being called "wave" elections, and the election of 1994 carrying the same label.

So what does the election as wave metaphor mean for our political system, and for our nation as a whole?  The New York Times reporter Matt Bai, in "Another Election, Another Wave," notes the effect of these sweeping wave elections.  Politicians, he claims, take these waves as mandates for power, governing unilaterally because their party won significantly more votes than the opposition.  And it seems, on some level, that both politicians and the rest of us now expect waves every 2 years, with some Republicans already acknowledging that they could loose power in 2012 if they don't embrace tax and spending cuts (see this article in the Philidelphia Inquirer).  This growing expectation of wave elections has led to increased partisanship and rule under perceived "mandates" that are as transient as, well, waves.

In addition, David M. Kennedy, in an opinion piece for The New York Times, draws parallels between the wave elections of late and the paralyzing partisan oscillations (another word with wave connotations) of the late 1800s, the Gilded Age.  The Gilded Age was certainly not a time of memorable political achievements; in fact, it was a time of great corruption and inaction in the face of dire issues.  That sorry trend seems to be repeating itself today.  Although this may mean we will eventually ascend from the partisan shuffle into a successful and beneficial movement like the Progressive movement under Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, right now we seem to be stuck in the political limbo of wave elections.

But, beyond historical comparisons and political punditry, the election as wave metaphor reflects the short-sightedness of voting Americans and those they elect.  A Pew Research poll found that Americans are considerably less happy with the results of this last midterm wave than with previous wave elections.  Clealry, the huge majority in the House and Republican wins elsewhere do not reflect the public opinion of Americans with much proportion.  Americans got swept up in this wave, with the news media and politicians proclaiming it days and weeks before the election even took place.  We have come to understand elections as waves, avenues for wiping out the ruling party and sweeping in the minority for a few years.  With the election as a wave, politicians are not rewarded for making the tough decisions and sacrifices necessary for America's long term stability (just look at the unpopularity of the recent report by the bipartisan deficit commission).  Instead, they must resort to wave-creating, short-sighted partisanship.

The metaphor of election as wave, although it sounds both powerful and refreshing, is really neither, and is certainly not a comparison that will pave the way for American success.  Rather, the US after the November 2nd wave is soaked in stagnation.

P.S.
For a comical interpretation of the election as wave metaphor, watch this video from Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.  As he says, all the phenomena being compared to this election, including the wave, "killed thousands of people."

Sanity

Last Saturday, October 30, satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hosted the Rally to Restore Sanity (or, satirically, the March to Keep Fear Alive) in Washington, DC.  Over 200,000 people attended the rally, and over 2 million watched on TV.  A blogger for the Washington Post calls it our generation's Woodstock.  Clearly, it was a big event with meaning for many people, including me.

But, when I heard the title of the rally, I began to think about the meaning of the word "sanity."  The Oxford American Dictionary defines sanity as "the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner," "sound mental health," and "reasonable and rational behavior."  So what does it mean, in the context of Stewart and Colbert's rally, to restore sanity?

At the rally, people carried signs with messages ranging from "Real patriots can handle a difference of opinion," to "Does my ability to spell make me a socialist?" Stewart and Colbert performed various skits mocking the polarization and irrational antagonism visible in Washington and on the cable news networks. As one conservative rally-goer put it, the rally was about both sides "being able to take a joke...because we talk to each other, not shout at each other."  Another man said, "I'm tired of the silliness."

Thousands of people showed up to the rally in support of a more sane politics, one that, to use the definition, is more reasonable and rational.  To them, sanity means civilized discourse, compromise, tenants our country was built upon but seem lost amidst the vitriol of politics and 24/7 punditry.  As John Avlon wrote in an opinion piece for CNN.com, "We have to work together to solve problems, but our polarized politics and the partisan media are stopping our ability to reason together as Americans."  But why didn't Stewart call it the "Rally to Restore Compromise/Understanding"?  Because sanity is what we expect from each other, it is "normal," as the definition says, and it is necessary for the functioning of a successful society.  The word carries meaning for more than just the politics of the day; it is what our nation has relied on for hundreds of years and what it must revive for the future.

I think Jon Stewart defined sanity best.  At one point in his serious and sagacious closing speech, he pointed to a jumbotron screen showing traffic merging into a tunnel.  He then made up identities for the drivers of the cars on screen, from a gay investment banker to a fundamentalist vacuum salesman.  He said that, although the occasional jerk will cut off someone in the merging process, most of the cars will merge peacefully and without incident, whatever their beliefs or the political affiliation of the bumper stickers.  And the jerk will be chastised, not put on cable TV or in government.  That is how America functions every day.  That is sanity.  And that is what the Rally to Restore Sanity aimed to bring to Washington DC last Saturday.