Ahmadinejad vs. Khrushchev

The fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allowed into the United States, and was given an audience at a prestigious university, continues to shock the conscience of many of our conservative friends.

Unlike most instances of conservative apoplexy, I sincerely understand the right’s argument on this one. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous despot with radical beliefs. He has contempt for the U.S., has threatened our allies, and abuses his people. I get it.

But Rick Perlstein reminds us of how the American character shined in 1959 when Nikita Khrushchev — considered at the time the most evil and dangerous man on the planet — visited the United States.

Khrushchev disembarked from his plane at Andrews Air Force Base to a 21-gun salute and a receiving line of 63 officials and bureaucrats, ending with President Eisenhower. He rode 13 miles with Ike in an open limousine to his guest quarters across from the White House. Then he met for two hours with Ike and his foreign policy team. Then came a white-tie state dinner. (The Soviets then put one on at the embassy for Ike.) He joshed with the CIA chief about pooling their intelligence data, since it probably all came from the same people — then was ushered upstairs to the East Wing for a leisurely gander at the Eisenhowers’ family quarters. Visited the Agriculture Department’s 12,000 acre research station … spoke to the National Press Club, toured Manhattan, San Francisco … and Los Angeles (there he supped at the 20th Century Fox commissary, visited the set of the Frank Sinatra picture Can Can but to his great disappointment did not get to visit Disneyland), and sat down one more with the president, at Camp David….

It’s not like it was all hearts and flowers. He bellowed that America, as Time magazine reported, “must close down its worldwide deterrent bases and disarm.” Reporters asked him what he’d been doing during Stalin’s blood purges, and the 1956 invasion of Hungary. A banquet of 27 industrialists tried to impress upon him the merits of capitalism. Nelson Rockefeller rapped with him about the Bible.

Had America suddenly succumbed to a fever of weak-kneed appeasement? Had the general running the country — the man who had faced down Hitler! — proven himself what the John Birch Society claimed he was: a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy?

No. Nikita Khrushchev simply visited a nation that had character. That was mature, well-adjusted. A nation confident we were great.

In the post Cold War-era, it’s easy to forget the context, but the USSR was the most dangerous rival the United States had ever seen. And we welcomed Khrushchev with open arms, anxious to show him and the world our greatness.

To be sure, the comparison is inexact. Russia was a global counter-weight; Iran is a regional player. Khrushchev was an official guest of the U.S.; Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University and the U.N.

But the historical analogy holds up anyway. Khrushchev had threatened to erase the United States off the map — and had the power to make it happen. Ahmadinejad denies the reality of butchery and slaughter, but Khrushchev actually orchestrated a few. He appeared quite mad when he went to the U.N., took off his shoe, and pounded it on the podium. He was the nation’s most dangerous foe in the midst of a generational war, and yet, upon his arrival, we showed no fear. Americans had confidence that our way was the right way, and we would not flinch.

In contrast, Ahmadinejad showed up at Columbia for a well-deserved admonishment — he was literally laughed at for his absurdities — and conservatives can barely contain their anxiety. Their collective freak-out suggests insecurities and weakness, as if Ahmadinejad’s mere presence should strike fear into all of us. “Panic! Americans will see how ridiculous Ahmadinejad’s ideas really are! Run for your lives!”

Please. I wasn’t born when Eisenhower welcomed Khrushchev, but I’m old enough to remember that we used to be bigger than we are today.

I’ve seen him described as a ‘despot’ and a ‘tyrant,’ but neither of these really seems to apply to his level of power in Iran.

He’s a rotten man, no doubt about it, but ‘tyrant’ and ‘despot’ do not describe him.

  • The fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allowed into the United States, and was given an audience at a prestigious university, continues to shock the conscience of many of our conservative friends.

    Well, w/ the Holocaust denial and the capital punishment across the board- including for merely being a homosexual- I think he fits in with a lot of people a lot more than they’d care to say.

    Isn’t Mel Gibson’s dad a Holocaust denier? And what about that fundie who let his flock know right after Craig got caught that Craig was defintitely a “homo,” in the fundie’s phrasing.

  • You forgot he’s also called a dictator.

    Yet, he was elected and will undoubtedly leave office after his term is up.

    Its his boss thats an actual Dictator.

  • Pity the poor right wing! Not being able to control the message TERRIFIES them; for if they an’t control the message, their idealogy is exposed for what it is, a fraudulent scam. Its laughable. They truly are scaredy cats; insecure, paranoid weaklings.

    And another observation I wrote about yesterday: What really is the diffrence between Bu$h and the Iranian president? They both are religious extremists, borerline insane, and pose very real danger to our world.

    But hey, at least Ahmadenidjad has a modicum of intelligence, hell he speaks English better than Bu$h does. That, and he has the guts to confront people that disagree with him.

  • thanks for the excellent post, cb. it’s just one more reminder of how low this country has sunk………

  • CB wrote: “The fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allowed into the United States, and was given an audience at a prestigious university, continues to shock the conscience of many of our conservative friends.”

    I don’t think the shock has anything to do with just allowing him to visit. The upsetting thing to the right wing is that, by exposing Ahmadinejad to the scrutiny of the average U.S. citizen, Columbia has undone much of the dehumanizing that the RW has pushed concerning Iran, and poked a few holes in their war drums.

    The laughter at Columbia revealed that, dangerous though he may be, Ahmadinejad is also a sad deluded little man who is not quite The Greatest Threat the World Has Ever Known.

  • Excellent post. This goes to the heart of the thing I understand the least about Modern Conservatism, the Rightwingnutosphere, George Bush and the Republican Party:

    What threat do they see? All the terrorists in the world working together, in concert and unfettered would not be able to overcome the might and rightousness of the United States of America. We are Great, Powerful, Generous, Selfless and Brave – when asked to or given the chance we can overcome anything, with willing sacrifice and cheerfulness.

    And yet a pair of small minded fraidy-cats have managed to, you know, convince their small minded constituents that death, destruction and the expulsion of Christianity are just one wiretapped call to Bin Laden away.

    I really don’t get it.

  • This is really the point. Debates about rudeness are really power plays our what’s permissable to say, and the GOP usually wins. Though we have the right to be rude, it’s not always in our self interests. We’re conveying an image to the rest of the world, and waging a war of ideas.

    Here at home, that means we must be allowed to speak. To our guests and the outside world, we need to hold ourselves high. In both cases, it’s about exhibiting confidence: confident enough to say what we believe, and confident enough that our system of government will withstand any enemy.

  • As someone who was old enough to be around (and old enough to be aware of the visit) when Krushchev came to America, I immediately thought of the difference between the visit of Krushchev and the visit of Ahmadinejad.

    Of course, it was “liberal” America that stood up to Krushchev – just as it was liberal America that won the Cold War. I remember that the fathers and grandfathers of today’s professional bedwetters were wetting their beds back then, too. But back then they were laughed at as the ridiculous fools they were (and their descendants are).

  • The ‘Rights’ idea of diplomacy is to hurl insults and outrage against an insane elected official and then can’t understand why anyone could see Bush the same way. Where was the outrage when we installed the Shaw of Iran who tortured and murdered his people as well. The little man came here and the Right had to face the man not the Huge powerful monster they tried to make him into. A confidant secure nation would have just listened and let the little man make a fool out of himself but here we have people like Duncan Hunter screaming punishment for allowing him to speak. Rice, who is a hypocrite by her actions of state, trying to use the visit to promote hatred toward Iran. Why should he be held accountable when you refuse to be held accountable, you refuse to testify or discuss what state has been doing to Iraq, and Iran. The American public was not “blinded” buy the little man, we know what he is, but we also know what you are Rice.
    We let him tal;k and saw what he was. You, Rice, will not give us that opportunity.
    With the thousands of nukes we possess some how Iran with “a” nuke hardly scares me. All the evidence says Iran is not building a nuke, No WMD here, oh its IEDs…right.
    Great diplomats we have. Hurl insults and call them names and then wonder why we can’t talk to them…Just pathetic State Dept…just like everything else in the Bush administration…completely broken.

  • Call me old-fashioned, but I think it’s in poor taste to invite someone to speak and then insult him in the introduction. As in the Khrushchev analogy, that kind of behavior speaks more of weakness than of strength, and we’re better than that. Or should be.

    I remember an old courtroom drama where an attorney walks over to his bitter rival and shakes his hand before the trial started.

    His friends were aghast. “What did you do that for? You know what a snake he is.”

    The lawyer calmly replied, “I just wanted to show that I have better manners than the son-of-a-bitch.”

    I was only a little kid when I saw that but it’s stuck with me ever since. And I still think it has value for us today.

  • “Nikita Khrushchev simply visited a nation that had character. That was mature, well-adjusted. A nation confident we were great.”

    It’s a telling sign that the confidence we once had that we were right and that we do things for the right reason seems to have been replaced by fear — not only fear of the “other” but fear that we are no longer right or doing things the right way.

    Reading “Of Wolves and Men,” Barry Lopez describes how wolves will make themselves known to a herd of animals and the weak, lame or sick in the herd will show themselves to the wolves by preparing themseleves for flight before the other more confident animals show any sign of concern. The open fear we seem to have about allowing a fool to speak before our public shows how sick and lame our own concept of ourselves is if we no longer have the confidence that our ideas can easily humble Ahmadinejad’s ramblings.

  • The sad thing is I think MA knows frankly that he can make too many Americans wet their pants easily. He’s essentially leading us, letting us look bad for freaking out over a man who, in his country, is more the Secretary of the Interior with a loudspeaker.

    So the right is dancing to his tune – making him look big, bad, and powerful and us look weak and immature.

    And if the war against Iran comes, if the conservatives get what they want, we’ll be throwing our military and our economy into a meat grinder. All MA has to do is outlast us.

  • I recall the “tale” about Kruschev furiously pounding on the table with his shoe! Those who were there just can’t agree about what happened!

    Anyway, it seems to me that a more accurate comparison is between Bush and Kruscchev, not Kruschev and Ahmadinejad. Bush is MUCH more dangerous to the world that Ahmadinejad and about on the level of Kruschev. The threat to use nuclear weapons in a first strike is the common thread between the old Communist regime to the Bush regime. Both Bush and Kruschev are pictured as slobs, for what that’s worth, though I never heard of Kruschev farting at his aides and thinking that was hilarious.

  • Columbia University president Lee Bollinger’s introduction of whatsisname (I’m not even gonna TRY to spell it) was nineteen minutes of name-calling. Not that the names weren’t true, but it seems to me that if you invite Satan himself to speak, you let him talk without the introductory rant.

    Bollinger was probably intimidated by the “shocked consciences” of our conservative friends (who knew that they HAVE consciences?) and was trying to give himself some political cover. But I think that Bollinger’s conduct was embarrassing.

    It would have been much more effective to give whatsisname a neutral, very brief introduction, and THEN let the audience laugh at him.

  • Contrary to Mr’ Benen’s admission that he had yet to be born when Mr. Kruschev visited this country, I had been—and although young, still remember the stories my uncles told about the war and the “Iron Curtain” so named by Mr. Churchhill.

    Eisenhower was, in this writer’s opinion—and the opinions of those of this writer’s family who slogged their way with Ike’s generous greatness across Europe (most of whom are Republicans themselves, by the way)—the last Republican worthy of the title “Mr. President.” Nixon wasn’t worth it; neither was Reagan or either of the two Bushes—but Dwight D. Eisenhower was.

    And George W. Bush, his administration, his fleet of cronies, and his legions of psychophantic misfits—COMBINED—are not worthy of being compared to the mud on the soles of Eisenhower’s boots—nor are they worthy of cleaning that mud away. Instead, they are but a reflection—a mirror’s image, if you will—of the cruel pettiness that now holds the office of Iran’s “head of state….”

  • It’s so much clearer now.

    Conservatives who want to invade Iran so more contractors can kickback MORE blood money can be hired.

    When the Iranian leader shows up and is publicly defeated by COLLEGE KIDS. It doesn’t much make the case for military intervention.

  • Does anyone else find abusive the introduction for Iran’s president at Columbia? I thought the duty of the person introducing a speaker was to say something nice. And if they can’t say something nice, then to not say anything at all. Didn’t Columbia invite him to speak? Doesn’t that mean extending courtesy?

    I don’t know what Ahmadinejad was hoping to accomplish. I suppose I understand that normally we wouldn’t have allowed him into the country, that we were simply following what is required of the country that houses the U.N. Still—!

  • I clearly remember watching Kruschev ranting and banging that shoe at the UN and saying “we will bury you”. I watched it on Huntley and Brinkley and I can remember David Brinkley laughing and essentially dismissing him as a loutish nut.

    The next morning in my 4th grade civics class (yes, they actually used to teach those sorts of things) I gave a speech saying this bufoon was actually more likely to bury himself.

    Can anyone point out the USSR on a map to me?

  • ***Can anyone point out the USSR on a map to me?***

    Why, yes—I can. It is currently known as the “United States Serfdom of Republicanistan.” It’s been abbreviated to “United States,” though….

  • To be sure, the comparison is inexact. Russia was a global counter-weight; Iran is a regional player. — CB

    Not only that. Khrushchev’s position gave him real power over his country; Ahmadinejad’s doesn’t. He takes his marching orders from the clerics, like everyone else in Iran. It’s the clerics who decide who can even run in elections, thus ensuring a malleable puppet. By making so much fuss about Ahmadinejad, people here are giving him more status and more legitimacy than he deserves. He is the head of state, but so is Queen Elizabeth. Bu it’s not the Queen who makes the decisions about how the country is run; she’s more… ornamental (loosely speaking).

  • Ahmadinejad would be better compared to Tony Snow. Sure Tony Snow can’t make any decisions for the Unites States, but he sure used to talk up a storm covering for the administration.

    Well Ahmadinejad isn’t allowed to blow his nose before asking permission from the clerics in Iran: They allow him to bluster away, makes him look stupid, while the puppet masters are behind the scenes pondering what stuff to throw at us next.

  • Comments are closed.