|
Freedom of Speech and separation of church and state
were the two most important reasons why I came to the United States from Iran
on my own when I was sixteen. I remember the time when I was playing
basketball with friends at my middle school while wearing a shirt with
"U.S.A." on it; I got called to the sideline by the
"discipline official" at school and asked if I could refrain from
wearing that shirt again. He asked me, "Have you ever seen an American
wear a shirt with "Iran" on it?" I thought to myself,
"No. But he can if he chooses to." I said "No sir."
But I came to the United States only to find that the idea that I would
be able to criticize something or someone and always be afforded an
objective ear was an illusion. It is true that we are legally allowed to
say just about anything short of openly calling for the assassination of
the president. But there are nonetheless thousands of groups that
constantly attempt to control you and keep themselves immune from criticism
by directly and indirectly questioning your character as the critic.
When I questioned whether going to war was in the best interest of the
United States, I was called "unpatriotic." When I criticized my
fellow democrats on campus, I got called a "conservative." When I
criticized capitalism, republicans called me "socialist." When I
criticized feminists for refusing to allow men to join their organization
(or for anything else for that matter), I was called a "male
chauvinist." I wonder if they know that I moved on after college to
volunteer 20 hours a week on the board of NOW in Chicago and participated
in fighting for equality, an opportunity that I was not given on my own
campus. Following college, I made the argument that while Iran is a
repressive state the regime of which I didn't support, the country did have
the legal right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium. I got
called an "apologist for Iran" instead of getting my arguments
addressed. And God forbid should one dare to criticize Israel or AIPAC in
America. You are instantly labeled an "anti-Semite;" if you are
Jewish, then you must be a "self-hating Jew."
I have unfortunately noticed the disturbing usage of a series of terms
from the Hillary Clinton campaign and supporters who seek to diffuse any
criticism of her - legitimate or otherwise. When she was first criticized
for dancing around a question about immigration at the Philadelphia debate
instead of answering it, many of her supporters first accused Tim Russert
of being "biased," and then moved on to call criticisms
"sexist." "Boys have been rough on her," Bill Clinton
said following the debate. But I have more recently been observing the
systematic usage of a new term - "Hillary Haters" - which the
campaign has been attaching to her critics who are accused of taking a
pleasure in "bashing" her.
This is hardly a new tactic designed to help the criticized party avoid
actually having to address criticisms by implying that there is some sort
of personal deficiency on the part of people who are making the criticisms.
There is a major difference between criticizing - which is what I often
hear from people who disagree with Hillary - and hating. Hating is
personal; it has an element of irrationality, prejudice and ugliness to it.
And it implies a personal flaw on the part of a person who is accused of
doing the "hating." By implying this personal flaw, the
criticized party also claims that it is hence unnecessary to address any of
the criticisms because the charges made against the candidate are not
rooted in reason, but hatred. While that may seldom be the case, the vast
majority of the charges this blogger has read or heard toward Ms. Clinton
are neither sexist nor rooted in hatred. They are rather the result of the
actions that only she is accountable for.
One such legitimate criticism is based on the fact that while Hillary
Clinton claims "experience," she and John Edwards have served in public
office shorter than anyone else on the Democratic side. Therefore, making
the criticism that she is falsely claiming experience without explaining
what definition of the word "experience" would leave her the
person with the most of it is a legitimate problem and one that she has not
addressed. Another legitimate criticism is her inability to fulfill her
task of implementing universal healthcare during President Clinton's first
half of first term when Democrats were in control of the White House and both
the House and the Senate, which is not only a proof of her inability to
reach compromise but also an indication of the kind of melodramatic
politics that America is likely to go through again if she is elected to
the Oval Office because of her baggage from the 90s. A third legitimate
criticism that has been left unanswered by those who instead resort to
calling critics "hater" is that throughout the presidential
debates, she has repeatedly refused to give straight answers to straight
questions. Her supporters also have not answered the question, "when
did it become acceptable for a democrat to not only plant questions in town
hall meetings, but to have a systematic way of doing so using pre-typed
questions for different age groups and demographics? Is this the kind of
party we have become?" It doesn't sound like a hateful question at
all.
Another criticism that she has not addressed is that because of her vote
for the war - which is now the most critical issue on which democrats can
win the election because of the war's unpopularity - how can we vote for
her or John Edwards in the primaries without thinking that as soon as
either one begins to make the case to bring our troops home, the republican
frontrunner can say that she or he voted for the war. Isn't this the issue
that hurt John Kerry and earned him the label "flip-flop"? Should
we lose another election by supporting another candidate who can be
defeated the same way? She has also not addressed the statistical fact that
she is going through the election cycle with the highest negative - people
who, for whatever reason, say that they cannot bring themselves to vote for
her - than any other candidate on either side? How can we send someone into
the general election without thinking the weak position we are putting
ourselves in? How can we trust her in bringing the country together? These
are not questions that come from "haters," but legitimate
criticisms from people within her own party who are trying to decide who
can be the best person who can win the election in 2008 and have not had
their criticisms addressed yet.
Whether the labels are designed to question the legitimacy and character
of the people who are making the criticisms or divert attention under the
guise of political correctness from the need for her to address these
criticisms, Clinton supporters have exclusively engaged in name-calling on
the democratic side instead of addressing the legitimate criticisms that
are made against their candidate. It is only by consciously observing this
pattern that we can call them out on it and refuse to cave from demanding
answers that she has to give if she wants to be considered as the
Democratic Party's nominee.
Link to the article on The Huffington Post.
|
