(Here is an editorial on the Middle East by a pampered, college-educated liberal who knows a little but not enough of the whole story.)

I can't seem to get this off my mind, so I may as well write something about it. I was thinking the other day about how the U.S. is now all about "spreading democracy" or whatever, and how that, combined with this country's cultural imperialism, seems to be making an effort to "Americanize" the whole world. I thought of Iran, and tried to imagine what it would be like with a totally democratic system. It was hard. Are some countries just not built for America's vision of "democracy"? If you read or watch or listen to the news at all, you'll know that Iran just had a presidential runoff election. The man who won, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a conservative hard-liner (of the kind that Iran seems to keep churning out). That's mostly what I've been reading in the news: "hard-liner! hard-liner! the reforms are over! nuclear discussions will break down! dark ages are on the way!" And I was troubled.

But then, I was listening to National Pinko Radio (non-denominational deity, bless NPR) and there was a fascinating segment that actually compared the two candidates, rather than relying on overused, jingoistic phrases like "conservative hard-liner" (I did it too, see?) that the mainstream media are using these days to mean "bad" (exept, of course, in our own country). Anyway, it compared Mahmoud whats-his-name with Hashemi Rafsanjani, the guy who ended up losing. Rafsanjani's rich, pro-West, and pro-Big Business. So, awesome, they've got the Fiscal Republican running against the Moral Republican. I'm all in favor of social reform in Iran, but is an elitist, would-be tycoon what the country really needs? Apparently the voters did not think so. Still, the thought of an "ultraconservative" president gives me hives. We'll have to wait and see.