Daniel Halper writes in The Weekly Standard today:
On â€œThe Early Showâ€ this morning, Obama said that â€œwhat we can do is bear witness and sayâ€“to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that weâ€™ve seen is a testimony toâ€“I think what Dr. King called theâ€“the arc of the moral universe. Itâ€™s long but it bends towards justice.â€
Perhaps this is so, but Martin Luther King didnâ€™t â€œbear witnessâ€ to the civil rights movement in Americaâ€“he was a courageous participant. Obama now has a choice: Will he be a courageous participant or a weak witness? Will he declare that the elections in Iran were rigged, or will he continue to say that he does not know?
As Halper is probably aware, there is one fairly significant difference between Kingâ€™s relation to the civil rights movement and Obamaâ€™s relation to the current protests in Iran. King was, indeed, a â€œcourageous participantâ€ in the civil rights movement, but he was an American and a leader of the movement itself. Obama, by contrast, is neither an Iranian nor a leader of the Iranian protest movement â€” rather, he is the leader of a rival power that has a fraught history with Iran.
It is fairly obvious that the level of â€œparticipationâ€ that would be desirable, or effective, for a homegrown civil society leader would be different from that of a rival foreign leader. But to illustrate this obvious fact more sharply, consider the following thought experiment. In 1963, as King delivers his famous speech to the March on Washington, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev delivers a public message of his own to the protesters. â€œWe would like to tell these brave voices of freedom,â€ Khrushchev says, â€œthat they have the full support and solidarity of the USSR. The Soviet Union and the United States Communist Party are ready and willing to perform any measures within our power to help our American brothers and sisters obtain their rights from this oppressive regime. And although Dr. King pretends that he holds no hostility toward the American capitalist system of government itself, and wishes only to secure the ideals of the American founding for all of its citizens, we all know that he and his supporters really yearn for complete regime change in Washington. We in Moscow will do whatever it takes to help you achieve this goal.â€
Let us ignore the question of Khrushchevâ€™s intentions here: whether he is motivated by genuine sympathy and desire to aid the civil rights marchers, or a more cynical hope of destabilizing a rival government, or a narcissistic and self-righteous wish to take credit for the marchersâ€™ achievement in order to feel better about himself and appease his domestic critics. (And before anyone gets up in arms about â€œmoral equivalence,â€ let me note than I am not equating Obamaâ€™s America and Khrushchevâ€™s Russia, merely noting that Obama and Khrushchev occupy structurally similar positions as leaders of distrusted rival powers.)
Let us focus only on a simple tactical question: would Khrushchevâ€™s statement aid the civil rights movement? Would it be welcomed by King and his associates? Why or why not?