The Orange and The Red (White and Blue)

Good news from the homeland (my mother’s family is from Odessa). Opposition candidate Victor Yuschenko has trounced  the establishment candidate Yanukovych by a 52-44 margin.

A fitting victory for a pro-democracy movement that has filled the streets of Kiev for the past several weeks. And a sound blow to authoritarian rule in one of the most important of the former Soviet republics.

As is often the case, the movement behind the man is much better than the man himself. We should all take heart in the courageous example set by millions of Ukrainians who were determined to move their country out of the past.

Lamentable it has been that some on the British and American left  actually seemed upset over Yuschenko’s movement. Support from the Bush administration, they say, tainted the whole process. Many U.S. critics of Yuschenko are quick to point out that his American-born wife once worked for the Reagan administration. And the family of his opponent? Or his opponent himself ? Suddenly the KGB is purer than the American Enterprise Institute?

Finally, an excellent piece comes in from American leftist professor Steve Zunes who  forcefully argues why the American left should unreservedly support Yuschenko’s Orange Revolution.

Zunes, is a favorite of the American anti-war left so I hope his voice of reason will inspire those ready to write-off the new Ukrainian leader as a CIA agent to reconsider their knee-jerk impulse:

Some elements of the American left have committed a grievous error, both morally and strategically, in their failure to enthusiastically support the momentous pro-democracy movement in the Ukraine.

After more than three centuries of subjugation under Russian rule—first under the czars and then under the communists—followed by a dozen years of independence under corrupt and autocratic rule, the Ukrainian people appear to be on the verge of a new era of freedom. This development is significant, given that—with a population and land mass comparable to France, rich in minerals, fertile farmland, and modern industry—a democratic Ukraine could become a pivotal, independent player in European and international affairs.

But rather than embracing this inspiring triumph of the human spirit against authoritarianism and repression, much of the left media has focused instead upon the opposition’s shortcomings and on the double standards and questionable motivations of the Bush administration’s support for the movement. Although these concerns are not without merit, they miss the fact that we are witnessing one of the most notable popular democratic uprisings in history. Furthermore, the left’s lukewarm response has given both the right and the mainstream media an opportunity to brand the entire progressive community with allegations that we oppose freedom and democracy.

Read it all as Zunes takes on the leftist criticism point by point.

Zunes concludes his argument by reminding Americans that the world is much more complicated than being merely pro or anti-Bush: 

Perhaps the understandable cynicism that so many American progressives are experiencing at this point in history makes it difficult for many of us to fully appreciate such a hopeful development, especially when it is supported by those who are responsible for so much violence and injustice both at home and abroad. But despite the double standards and cynical opportunism of the Bush administration, let’s not deny ourselves this occasion to celebrate an incipient peoples’ victory.

Comments

[Josh Legere]

Also see Ann Appelbaum's piece in the Washington Post a few weeks back on this subject.

The winning candidate probably isn't the ideal candidate but the fact that thousands of people were willing to freeze their arses off for democracy is a triumph.

[Stephen Cheng]

Yeah, I felt like I was one of the few left-of-center people who supported the orange revolutionaries. Glad they won.

This piece on National Review actually sounds more progressive compared to anything The Nation published concerning Ukraine. http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200412060921.asp
If anything, this proves that "Progressive" is a term to be earned.

[jim hitchcock]

Marc, as usual, I think you've hit on it. The story is not about the candidate; never has been. Can anybody say it was Boris Yeltsin who brought the Soviet Union to it's knees in 1991? Of course not. It was the people, finally finding their voice and saying, enough is enough. One can only hope that we have not become too passive in America, to accept that Democrat vs. Republican is somehow different than the Yes/No of the Soviet system, and to think we cannot learn from this reminder of the beginning of our nation.

[Michael J. Totten]

Marc: "Support from the Bush administration, they say, tainted the whole process."

I'm still trying to figure out why supporting democracy movements in other countries is supposed to be bad. Supporting the authoritarian candidate would have been wicked, and being neutral would have been illiberal and idiotic.

"Suddenly the KGB is purer than the American Enterprise Institute?"

Every time I read something like this my opinion of the neoconservatives rises. Thank God the left still has people like you.

[Michael Turner]

"I'm still trying to figure out why supporting democracy movements in other countries is supposed to be bad. Supporting the authoritarian candidate would have been wicked, and being neutral would have been illiberal and idiotic."

There's a world of difference between supporting a democracy movement and supporting a specific candidate.

And there are several solar systems worth of difference between supporting democracy around the world vs. lip service to free elections when it looks like a convenient candidate has a chance of winning.

I think it's great that there were relatively free elections in Afghanistan, even if that elected government still holds sway over little more than Kabul, and even if about 90% of women there are still under the impression that they have to ask their husbands for permission to vote, and, and even if the literacy rate of Afghanistan is so low that, in the run-up to the election, you could find an outraged 'voter' here and there, livid over not being able to lay their hands on more voter ID cards, and simply because - could I make this up? - they had been given the impression that these were FOOD RATION CARDS. Believe it or not, I don't have much of an issue with all that.

I think it's pretty ridiculous, however, that considerable logistical support for throwing out the Taliban came from Uzbekistan, in its dictator's decision to afford the U.S. military access to its soil. Gee, we don't hear a whole lot about how bad things are for the people of Uzbekistan, under an unelected government that employs torture on an administrative basis. Gosh, I wonder why that is, exactly?

The article in The Nation cited (but, curiously, not quoted) by Marc hits the nail on the head: it's not an issue of support for democracy, it's an issue of selective support. Not to mention, but also looming large: selective undermining of elected governments, where THAT happens to be convenient. Somehow, I don't think Marc needs to be reminded about that sort of thing.

Watch the Meme On The Move. Liberals Hate Christmas. Didn't you just love that one? Well, we're taking the Christmas trees down now, so we need a new one. Here it is, just in time for the new year: Leftists Hate Democracy. How to back it up, though? Easy. Just quote people out of context, or, hey, don't even quote them, just generalize wildly. Anyone can play.

[Michael J. Totten]

Turner: "it's not an issue of support for democracy, it's an issue of selective support."

So, you and the Nation would rather have nothing than something? Nonsense. That's the lamest excuse you could possibly come up with.

If you think we should do more of what we did in Ukraine, great. I agree. But that's not what you said, nor is it what the Nation article said.

"Leftists Hate Democracy. How to back it up, though? Easy. Just quote people out of context, or, hey, don't even quote them, just generalize wildly. Anyone can play."

Marc Cooper is a leftist. So is Steve Zunes. Why would they be interested in playing a game where leftists are quoted out of context in order to discredit the left?

Think, Michael.

[GMRoper]

From The Nation's article on the UKRAINES UNTOLD STORY: "The pattern is that US diplomats orchestrate a campaign of financial help and marketing advice to civil groups, which is described as nonpartisan although in practice it is only put at the service of one side. Using consultants and poll experts, they explain how to choose catchy slogans and punchy logos and organize street comedy and rock concerts to create attractive grassroots campaigns to mobilize young people. Exit polls are a crucial tool. By getting their data on the table as soon as voting ends and being widely disseminated in the opposition media, they create an alleged truth against which the official results are measured."

Michael Totten is correct. The above sounds exactly like a description of American 527's and exit polling on the early part of election day here. Mr. Turner, it's not selective on only one side, it's selective period. And in the furtherance of democracy, (specifically pro-American democracies) what is the problem?

[Michael Turner]

Turner: "it's not an issue of support for democracy, it's an issue of selective support."

Totten: "So, you and the Nation would rather have nothing than something? Nonsense. That's the lamest excuse you could possibly come up with."

Interesting conclusion leap there: because I object to selective support, I (grouped somehow with The Nation) must therefore be in favor of NO support.

As Michael Totten himself preaches below (but apparently does not practice): "Think, Michael."

Totten: "If you think we should do more of what we did in Ukraine, great. I agree. But that's not what you said, nor is it what the Nation article said."

I don't think we should do more of what we did in Ukraine, because it wasn't promoting democracy, it was promoting one candidate (in thrall to corrupt Ukrainian backers) against another (in thrall to Moscow.) I think the best thing is what the article itself recommended: the EU should open talks about Ukraine membership in the EU, to pull Ukraine toward EU norms - i.e., toward more democracy than it would likely see now under either of these repugnant candidates.

"Leftists Hate Democracy. How to back it up, though? Easy. Just quote people out of context, or, hey, don't even quote them, just generalize wildly. Anyone can play."

Totten: "Marc Cooper is a leftist. So is Steve Zunes. Why would they be interested in playing a game where leftists are quoted out of context in order to discredit the left?"

Bad Memes get started when Journalists Say the Darndest Things. Why would they want to do that? I don't think they would. What effect is it likely to have, though? Precisely the one I predict. And why? Because they don't look at enough sides of the question (there are three, at least, not two.)

Marc linked, but didn't quote, the Nation article, because I think any amount of quoting would have started undermining his point. Zunes attributes a bunch of statements (in apparent block quotes) to some leftists with identifying a single one of them, and I believe for the same reason. Why does one source of opinion EVER neglect to quote, or to quote in context, when dissing some other source of opinion? At best, out of laziness, in forming opinions the way the vast majority of people do: rationalizing a sentiment after the fact, instead of really questioning.

"Think, Michael."

I did. And if YOU want try your hand (or rather your brain) at some thinking, try taking off your foreign policy blinkers and looking at this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/27/news/eddenber.html

In short, outside the Baltics perhaps, Ukraine is practically a model democracy compared to former Soviet republics. Uzbekistan parliamentary elections: "no opposition candidates." Plenty of U.S. money though, and military bases. Azerbaijan? "...government imprisoned many opposition leaders ... to express dissident views is nearly impossible." Armenia? The government "... arrested a handful of opposition political leaders and rounded up hundreds of supporters." Kazakhstan - oil-rich Kazakhstan - rigged the playing field so that "... only one opposition part member gain[ed] a seat in the lower house..." Belarus: no opposition in the legislature. Kyrgyzstan: elections are scheduled, so ... the government grabs control of the media.

As the article concludes: "...Western countries leaped to the defense of Ukrainians demanding electoral integrity .... But what would Western leaders have done had it not been possible for Ukrainians to take to the streets? Would their defense have been as firm? Elections in this part of the world are stolen all the time ... Western leaders need to be every bit as supportive of other struggling civil societies in the region, before there is nothing left to support."

The question Rachel Denber doesn't ask is: cui bono? Belarus reeks of Soviet-style dictatorship? Yeah, but who cares? It's just Belarus - a nowhere, a rat-hole. Kazakhstan reeks of Suharto-style dictatorship. Well, but ... jeez, they've got all that OIL. Don't want to piss off those guys. Uzbekistan tortures its citizens, but hey, they're helping us out in the War on Terror!

Ukraine, though, that's a different story. People Power - that always makes good press. It's an opportunity to show leadership in its classic form: see which way the crowd is going, and get out in front of them yelling, "this way! this way!"

But in that classic form of leadership, you just have to forget about those places where there's little or no freedom of assembly or of the press in the first place, and not much in the national interest (or in your political career) to be gained from promoting it. Just get what you can from those countries, and don't even bother, if there's nothing to get.

[Michael Turner]

GMRoper writes of a passage in The Nation article: "The above sounds exactly like a description of American 527's and exit polling on the early part of election day here."

Yeah! Those 527s funded by Putin and his people, and those exit polls engineered by Putin and the Russian media he has under his thumb. Yeah, exactly! It fits! To a T!

Oh, what? They weren't? Those 527s were funded by Americans, you say? Those exit polls were conducted by American media organizations, you say?

Oh, well, in that case ... it doesn't sound the same thing at all, does it? Unless, of course, you think democracy around the world is just American democracy writ large, but in the same ink. Then, of course, it's the same.

I think it's worth reviewing here why we have a post-Soviet era in the first place. There was this awful, brutal general in Poland, name of Jarulzeski. Jarulzeski ordered demonstrators shot in the streets. Wildcat unions? Radical students? Didn't matter - if they made trouble in the streets, they got shot at. And he later legitimized himself as some kind of democratic politician by running for office, in those elections where only Communists could run. Who was he kidding? Then, in some weird turn of events, he was on top of the Polish system, but ... capitulating to some Solidarity demands. Weirder still, somehow, he was also keeping about as many Polish troops on the border with Russia as Russia had stationed on its border with Poland. Wait a minute - I thought they were BOTH the Bad Guy. Why did they have their guns pointed at each other? And, the next thing you know, he's running against Lech Walensa in an open election, with no obvious signs of voter manipulation. Not long after, the people had spoken: they wanted this plumber guy to be running their country, not Jarulzeski. So the General shrugs, and steps down. (Later they kicked Walensa out and voted in some former Communists turned social democrats, who are all, interestingly enough, now on quite good terms with the Solidarity intellectuals they had formerly imprisoned.) There's talk about putting doddering old Jarulzeski on trial for his dictatorial abuses, but it's probably not going to get anywhere before he kicks the bucket. I think, deep down, everybody with a brain in Poland knows the truth: it was Jarulzeski who figured out how to turn Poland back into a democracy again without inviting a Soviet invasion.

Not longer after the Polish election, the Soviet Union started coming apart. But how much help did Jarulzeski get from the U.S. in the Reagan/Bush era? All I remember is him getting diplomatic slaps in the face. Poland got to democracy on its own terms, under its own power. Moves on Washington's part probably only slowed things down.

Now take a look at the poll results in Ukraine: the Moscow candidate is losing in a landslide. The Ukrainian people did this. And they probably would have done it without American partisan "help".

But let's hypothesize things going the other way instead - toward the Moscow-backed candidate. Well, you know who'd be getting the heat then, from American right-wing opinion makers? George Soros! The single largest donor to the cause of Ukraine democracy currently on the books.

Now let's go back to Zhunes:

"... the left’s lukewarm response has given both the right and the mainstream media an opportunity to brand the entire progressive community with allegations that we oppose freedom and democracy."

Hey, deal with it: you can't look coldly at facts without the risk of taking heat from someone else's passionate intensity. It's always braver to look coldly at the facts, though. You'll seldom get a good bedtime story out of it, but nobody lives happily ever after in real life anyway, so you may as well get the story straight

So is it a "grievous error ... both morally and strategically", to not "enthusiastically support the momentous pro-democracy movement in the Ukraine"? Hey, I'm with Winston Churchill on this point: democracy is absolutely the worst form of government, ever, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

From what I can tell, Ukrainians would, on their own, with no outside help, have gotten their own choice between a candidate who sucked and one who sucked even more. Calmly supporting their right to choose, from a distance, was the more moral stance (if there is a moral stance in these matters.) Not to mention the more strategic stance in the long run. And moving the pro-democracy focus to more places in the world where it would really matter is the REAL moral stance, even if, strategically, it doesn't significantly advance American national interest.

Of course, when "Zhunes" says "strategic", he means something different: gaining power for the Left. Well, sometimes the moral thing is to tell the truth, and the strategic thing is to shut up. Life can be life that. Politics in democracies is DEFINITELY like that. Sometimes you have to choose. Journalists should choose truth. And they should make a pact with their friends: "If I ever start talking about running for office, shoot me."

[Frydek-mistek]

Mr. Turner,
Let me get this staright. The US shouldn't support the, "Orange Revolution" but we should support Ukraine joining the EU.
The whole point of Putin(dictator) and Kucma pushing Janokovic(Yanukovich) on the Ukranian people is so that negotiations with joining the EU will NEVER happen.
I also don't understand how you can claim that the US(or whatever) isn't, "really" supporting democracy. Supporting thousands of people freely choosing to deonstrate for free elections IS supporting democracy. THAT is the main reason for the demonstrations. The average Ukranian is not so naive to actually believe that Juscenko(Yushchenko) is going to be some kind of savior, but they KNOW that elcting Janukovic(Yanokovish) gives them NO CHANCE at democracy. Maybe American money payed for some tents, bowls of soup, and music,but c'mon. It is PATHETIC and PATRONISING if anyone(Leftists and whoever that professor was on MArc's radio show)) really beleive that these demonstrations only took place because of "help" from the west. As if to say the Ukranian people are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Frydek-Mistek

[Michael Turner]

Um, make that "Zunes", not "Zhunes", toward the end of my last. At least I didn't start writing "Zhdanov" ....

[Frydek-mistek]

Michael Turner,

Recounting the political manuverings of a Polish general does not explain why we live in a post soviet era. We live in a post soviet era because the Bolsheviks ruled as oppressive, corrupt overlords and the poeple overwhelmingly threw down the system at the first chance we got. It really is that simple. Did American and Western play a role,YES, and as a Czech citizen I appreciate it.
I also appreciate whatever aid is being sent by the west to the Ukranian demonstarors. Janukovic and his patron Putin want to rule as undemocratic dictators and I support any group or person that is fighting against them, whethor they be a student, worker or billionare. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what its like to live in a totalitarian society, where you have no rights to free speech, fair trials, etc. If you did, you would know why the Ukranians are demonstrating and what they fear.
Frydek-Mistek

[Michael Turner]

Let me get this staright. The US shouldn't support the, "Orange Revolution" but we should support Ukraine joining the EU.

Did I say that? Gosh, why don't you try QUOTING me, and scrutinizing my actual words. Oh, here, I'll do it for you:

"I think the best thing is what the article itself recommended: ..."

Do you see it now? I wrote "I". For a simple reason: this is my opinion. Did I say everyone on the Left should share it? Did I say everyone in favor of more and better Ukraine democracy should share it? Perhaps I might think so, but - if I may infer your intent - I never claimed it should be American foreign policy. No, it's ultimately up to Ukrainians (and EU voters, of course) to decide about EU membership. If by "we" you mean "the U.S. government", then please understand that I ("I" - see it?) think "we" should stay out of that decision.

"The whole point of Putin(dictator) ..."

Actually, duly elected leader of a still-breathing democracy (and possibly yet more living proof that some benevolent dictatorships are nicer places to live)

"... and Kucma pushing Janokovic(Yanukovich) on the Ukranian people is so that negotiations with joining the EU will NEVER happen."

If so, yet another reason I might, if I were Ukrainian, hold my nose and vote for the guy who's in the plutocrats' pockets - i.e., for a better chance of EU membership in the long run. Too bad those were the only choices, but then again, democracy generally only gives you the choice between bad and worse.

"I also don't understand how you can claim that the US(or whatever) isn't, "really" supporting democracy. Supporting thousands of people freely choosing to deonstrate for free elections IS supporting democracy."

I can claim that on the strength of a view that your apparent tunnel vision on this issue doesn't afford you: I look elsewhere in the world, at places where democracy is non-existent, or a near-total sham, and see U.S. foreign policy STILL coddling dictators.

Seeing images of people in the streets, asserting the freedom to vote for the candidate of their choice - that can be a very moving sight. However, those are people with the freedom to be in those streets, asserting their right to a free vote. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone moved to tears by an empty street, or by a streets full of people shuffling along on their daily business under the presumption that there are police informers on every corner.

It's so much easier to root for a team that's obviously winning. When democracy is losing, or off the field entirely, few seem to notice. I have actually been moved to tears by that spectacle: I'm old enough to remember Prague Spring, and how that ended up - the saddest empty streets I've even seen in a photograph. However, it seldom reaches the point of being such a spectacle of conflict, and yet the dearth of democracy in the world is pervasive. Why not? Well, maybe that dearth doesn't usually make for such good TV, at least compared to "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

"The average Ukranian is not so naive to actually believe that Juscenko(Yushchenko) is going to be some kind of savior, but they KNOW that elcting Janukovic(Yanokovish) gives them NO CHANCE at democracy."

I see. He would just cancel any future elections. And Ukrainians - who have recently shown such force in the streets - would suddenly be powerless to do anything about it. You know this for a fact. Hm, quite some ESP talent you have there.

"Maybe American money payed for some tents, bowls of soup, and music,but c'mon. It is PATHETIC and PATRONISING if anyone(Leftists and whoever that professor was on MArc's radio show)) really beleive that these demonstrations only took place because of "help" from the west."

Well, if you're grouping me with those "Leftists" (I'm not a leftist), beware of putting words in my mouth. If you're not grouping me with them, then I guess we're just in violent agreement. In a post above, I assert rather boldly that, without "help" from the West (OK, except maybe for nonpartisan election monitoring) the vote would have gone the same way. THEREFORE: *partisan*, selective involvement actually posed greater risks to our image abroad. That's where my opinion most strongly overlaps that of the cited Nation article - America already has a very long history of selective, partisan involvement in other country's elections. Why lengthen it?

[Wait, wait, cognitive dissonance alert: did this guy just now assert, almost in the same breath, that Ukrainians could vote in a guy who would crush their democratic aspirations, but also that those aspirations are indomitable? Maybe I'm not reading carefully enough....]

"As if to say the Ukranian people are incapable of thinking for themselves."

Can you supply a quote from one of your adversaries that even glancingly implies as much? I can't, from what I've read so far. And in each case, I Read The Whole Thing. (Twice, in one case.)

[Michael Turner]

Sorry for the overposting, but Typo Obsessive Syndrome strikes again: in a post above, I wrote "Lech Walensa". Of course, the standard English orthographic rendering is "Walesa." It's pronounced more like "Valensa" in Polish, if that's any excuse.

[Michael Turner]

"Recounting the political manuverings of a Polish general does not explain why we live in a post soviet era. We live in a post soviet era because the Bolsheviks ruled as oppressive, corrupt overlords and the poeple overwhelmingly threw down the system at the first chance we got. It really is that simple."

Let's see now - the Hungarians revolted against oppressive corrupt Bolshevik overlords. Soviet tanks crushed them. Eight years go by.

Then Czechs revolted against oppressive corrupt Bolshevik overlords. Soviet tanks crush them. Again, more years go by.

Then Poles start rebelling. These rebellions are put down. But ... by Poles. Without a Soviet invasion. Then, in the course events, Poland eventually had elections featuring, as major status quo candidate, the very guy most responsible for putting down the rebellions. He loses to the opposition candidate. He leaves office. And within a year, the entire Soviet empire unravels.

Maybe I'm overcorrelating, but I don't think you have Russian democracy without the end of Russian empire, and I don't think you have that end of Russian empire without an imperial possession - Poland - liberating itself for all the others to see. Seeing is believing. To not see change is to be fearful that change is impossible - as none other than Machiavelli noted, and he sure got that one right.

The fact is, the people of the USSR could have overthrown their tyrannical government at any time. They just didn't believe it.

[Frydek-Mistek]

Michael Turner
1. Could you please provide the, "more proof" that some benevolent dictatorships are nicer places to live. I'm curious how Russia can be a , "still breathing democracy" while exemplifying the benefits of living under a benevolent dictator.
2. Have you ever actually lived under a benevolent dictator?
3. How will Yanukovich be a better choice for the long term EU aspirations of the Ukraine?
Frydek-Mistek

[Mavis Beacon]

That’s an interesting little tangent about the "American 527's" working in foreign lands. (I personally support them, I'm all for funding pro-democracy movements.) GM, conservatives and friends did get their panties in a bunch when those Guardian organized letters from British citizens arrived urging Americans to vote for Kerry. Sure Bush isn't an authoritarian dictator, but then they weren't funding the opposition, just sharing an outsider's perspective. Do I think outside meddling is inherently improper? No-but a lot of locals probably do.

This sentence from Steele’s Nation piece really gets my goat, “intervening in foreign elections under the guise of an impartial interest in helping civil society has become the run-up to the postmodern coup d'état, the CIA-sponsored Third World uprising of cold war days adapted to post-Soviet conditions.”

Equating the pro-dem Ukranian effort and the coup in Chile is pretty vile. Steele is so suspicious of any intervention that he in essence an isolationist. No American government will ever advance a pure leftist agenda internationally or even one bereft of capitalist designs. But if the U.S is advocating for democracy and human rights (even if they also want trade liberalization) through non-violent means and without installing puppet rulers (I’m sure there are a few more qualifiers I’m missing but you get the idea), then we should support that effort.

[Marc Cooper]

To Turner et al.... drumroll... a confession from moi, WebMaster Cooper.... I linked to the Nation article by Steele so you WOULD READ IT! If I didnt want you to read it, or if I wanted you not to see what he wrote I would have have hidden it... DUH!... Let me repeat: DUH!
Steele's intent is crystal-clear: The Russians were wrong to meddle in the Ukrainne but the US was wronger because...because....because it's America!
Michael, please keep uppermost in mind that yours tuly is someone who had to physically flee the blood and fire rained down on Chile by US intervention so really.. it's highly unlikely I am naive on such topics. So, yes the Bushies are selective.. my god.. even cynical! But the Ukrainian movement was a worthy recipient of its favors, period... end of sentence.
I suggest you read Peter Kornbluh's "Pinochet File" which is a 400 page indictment of U.S. support for Pinochet. However, on the night of the 1988 plebsicite, when Pinochet was contemplating an auto-coup to offset his electoral defeat, lo and behold Kornbluh reports the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION (for its own reasons) directly intervened and blocked his move, opening the way for the restoration of democracy. Now what do you propose? That we rewind history to protest the Reaganites very selective use of political and economic force against Pinochet and demand that the dictator go ahead with his plans-- thereby offering the Chilean people the oppty to resist a prolonged dictatorship in the streets? All on their own? Against his tanks? With the US turning its back to them? sounds lovely.

[Thomas Kelly]

Marc, where you not one of those people who critized others who wanted a recound... thus leading to a re-election in this country?

[Todd Pearson]

Jeff Goldblum has a line in Jurassic Park that has always stuck with me.

"B. D. Wong (Henry Wu): You are saying that a group of animals, entirely composed of females, will breed?

Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm): No, I am merely stating that uhh... life finds a way."

I don't believe that democracy is inevitable in the same way that evolution is inevitable, but I do believe that, whenever possible, democracy will eventually find a way. The reality is that since 1974 the number of democracies in the world has tripled, from 40 to about 120. Democracy found a way in Ukraine.

[Stephen]

Thomas Kelly: "Marc, where you not one of those people who critized others who wanted a recound... thus leading to a re-election in this country?"

I don't claim to be Marc Cooper's spokesperson, but really, there's no point in drawing parallels between the Ukrainian and American elections. The US is, to begin with, a liberalised nation, more liberalised compared to Ukraine's political system. Furthermore, it was clear that incumbent Viktor Yanukovych was wrongfully tampering with the electoral process of his nation. Hence the subsequent wave of civil resistance.

[reg]

While I think that the tone of the Steele article is too "even-handed" regarding events in the Ukraine ("Yuvshenko" isn't much better, etc., which puts too much emphasis on the putative leader, his ties and past, and the liklihood that he will disappoint, rather than the grassroots awakening that he embodies and the rather monumental corruption and stagnation that is being ousted), I don't see anything in the article that actually expresses regret at the democratic movement itself.

I also find it hard to see how the issue of outside intervention in an election could be considered beyond or beneath discussion, of no interest, meaningless or irrelevant. It's naive not to take the regional interests of Russia seriously - not giving them primacy, but recognizing those interests as an inevitable factor that's going to impact events - assuming one has aborbed a grain of pragmatism or historical context into evaluation of political strategies. It's also naive not to assume that fairly massive direct U.S. aid to a foreign political movement is going to have absolutely no impact on the ultimate directon that movement takes, that there will be no quid pro quos and that the Bush administration could possibly have a committment to "democracy" that isn't warped by their particular ideology, economic interests and rather unique view of the limitless legitimacy and likely effectiveness of American power wielded as a blunt instrument in the global arena. As a specific example of taking these issues into account, I see nothing retrograde and some common sense in Steele's suggestion that the Ukraine would be better served by EU integration than NATO integration.

Support for a popular movement doesn't require romanticization or suspension of critical analysis. (Obviously the "left" has had quite enough of that. And fielding "unreserved support" for foreign political movements and particular political figures, however idealistic it may have appeared at the time, has closed far more eyes than it's opened over the years.) I'll stick to unreservedly supporting democratic and progressive goals, and assume that actual movements are being played out in a real world that tends to yield results that fall far short of ideals, that material interests will trump raw hopes and that taking a Westward leap is only revolutionary in the context of neo-Soviet political and economic stagnation. (I can't help but remember the Harvard Boys who did so much for Russia with their brilliant laissez-faire, cold-turkey schemes that drove the post-Soviet economy even further into a ditch than the central planners.)

That said, I haven't seen a single article from the left that actually expresses even a hint of opposition to the democratic movement itself. I don't look at any left or liberal political periodicals beyond The Nation, TNR and Dissent, but I checked the popular lefty newsites like Alternet, Buzzflash and TomPaine and saw nothing but articles supportive of the Ukrainian "Orange" movement, including the article Marc linked. Just for yuks I even checked the crackpot left orgs like CPUSA and International Socialists and saw nothing - literally - pro or con. Even the reliably Stalinist (nominally Trotskyist) Workers World Party had nothing attacking the imperialist siege of the Ukraine. So I'm trying to figure out who is actually upset about the Orange revolution, as opposed to raising questions about the character of official U.S. support. Let's not forget that in Venezuela exactly the same kind of U.S. assistance to an opposition movement that is supporting the "good guys" in the Ukraine was dedicated rather blatantly to producing a particular outcome - the ouster of the clearly popular, if unsavory, Hugo Chavez - rather than simply guaranteeing that the will of the majority was respected in the electoral process. And, in defense of The Nation, Jonathan Schell - the magazine's most esteemed and ubiquitous commentator on global events - has one of his opinion pieces in the current issue that specifically takes the hopeful position - one hopes not naively hopeful, as Schell often tends to strike me - that despite the usual outside interests hovering over the Orange events, nothing can override or displace the yearning for democracy and independence that is at the core of the Orange revolution. His support is about as unreserved as it gets, including explicit support for any outside assistance to the Ukrainians that aims to help guarantee the integrity of the election process itself.

For the edification of our rightward friends, it's of interest to note that the notorious left-wing influence peddler, George Soros, was also funneling money into the Ukraine through his Open Society Foundation. This time he turned up on the same side as his nemesis, George Bush. I'm waiting for Michael Moore to weigh in, so we can take the definitive temperature of "the anti-American left" on this issue. I know they're out there, and with Christmas-bashing suddenly off-season, I'm sure they've got time on their hands that could be fruitfully spent siding with Evil in the Ukraine.

[reg's Distraught English Teacher]

Please scratch "not" from "It's also naive >not< to assume that fairly massive direct U.S. aid to a foreign political movement is going to have absolutely no impact on the ultimate directon that movement takes..."

[marc cooper]

Reg.. Im currently at a remote bunker like location but when I return home I will forward u some of the offending pieces.

Mr Kelley: I did not "oppose" recounts in the U.S. I rather argued that it was asinine and counterproductive to argue that Bush stole the 2004 election.., and that to the degree Demovrats put their emphasis on that notion, the more lost they will be heading into the future.

I think comparing the stolen election in the Ukraine ti our own election only proves my point. If you think they are similar situations then, with all due respect, we probably share very little common language to further debate it.

[Marc Cooper]

Reg.. here's a link to read http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7&pid=2034 I dont know what interpretation you make of it... but I find this to be full of second guessing, qualifiers, alloys etc etc. Lip service is paid to the Orange movement and then we are told several reasons to be suspicious of it... right down to "those exit polls which were bought and paid for." Which exit polls aren't?