242. The Descent of "The Economist"

-->

The Economist just (Leader, 3-8-14) called Ukraine's president Viktor Yanukovich "a home-grown autocrat."  That's another thing against him as a very bad man.  But it's a thing not accurately named.  Yanukovich was voted into office.  He is "a home-elected democrat."

So is Mohammed Morsi and so are Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck, to name elected officials demonstrated against in the streets by people we have been asked to sympathize with.  Asked, that is, by people who put goodness above democracy.  In America those people must not be very sensitive to words, since they, or their newspapers, are also quick, not noticing the irony, to reproach other people (nations, leaders) for their hostility to democracy.

By now there are now, as I count them, 83 ironies in Americans' use of the word "democracy" since their government backed the Egyptian generals (yes, we controlled them; we could have cut off parts to their tanks and planes) in their overthrow of the elected president.  There was a time when The Economist was sensitive to these ironies, at least enough to keep the blatant slant, the Murdoch slant, out of their nouns.  Maybe after you've made the "vileness" of a regime (Syria's. among others) sufficient cause for action against it the slant gets easier.

Democracy makes  "badness" hard to locate.  What do you call the people who elected the bad Yanukovich (in an election the international community found to be well within "democratic standards")?  What do you call the candidate who lost to him, prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, or the president elected to serve from 2005 to 2010, Viktor Yuschenko?   They were West-leaning so they must have been good, right?  Well the good politicians had their chance and the people had their choice.  And they elected the bad politician.  What are they, bad people? 

And you know what?  In all that time there wasn't an autocrat in sight.