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.
It really is striking how anxious about all this the thought-leaders and pundit seem to be. Exposing wackos for what they are is the best way to defuse their power. That’s what free speech and a free press are all about: if you attempt to silence or marginalize these people it gives them a grievance and legitimizes their position to their followers. Better to invite them into the light and let their ideas be scrutinized for what they are.