There are two issues with human rights.
One is selective enforcement. There are a long list of countries with abysmal human rights records, but it’s too strategically convenient or economically essential to look the other way. Whrn was the last time they made a fuss about Jamal Khashoggi? Human rights only gets invoked when sabre-rattling is useful, not as a solid and consistent moral framework.
The other is that it’s a “luxury product”. Can every country support a modern human-rights model, or does it require a certain level of economic and political stability? It’s hard to maintain rule of law amid active insurgency, or if you can’t even deploy the bureaucratic state. Once you’ve gotten past that threshold, will both leaders and the broader population be eager to switch from the system that got them where they are? You’ve got to convince people that being able to write an anti-government op-ed is more important than security, or the price of eggs. This is a long term soft sell: berating countries for not measuring up to Western standards isn’t going to get them to make that choice any faster.
If we’re going for the cartoon reference, surely Steamed Hams would work:
“Thousands of premium car sales, in this part of the year, in his part of the country, localized entirely within the last seconds of a government incentive scheme?”
“Yes.”
“May I see?”
“No.”
(Musk’s mother, off screen) “The company is on fire!”
“No, mother, it’s just a red hot deal!”