I've received a mail from the Tuft's President and it was the speech that was made by President-Elect Obama on the issue of race in the United States titled, "A More Perfect Union". I share similar sentiments on the wonderful cogent and powerful message that was communicated in this speech. More importantly, I see some nuggets of wisdom that we can apply even in Singapore that prides itself on principles of meritocracy and racially harmonious society.
The world needs to embrace global citizenship. Singapore for one has a country that depends so much on the interactions with the outside world, in terms of attracting FDI, human capital and even trade should continue to be a cosmopolitan society. A place that people can come and fulfil dreams see out a better life and belong. That should be the guiding principle of our policy and not one of exclusion and denial. I think it is therefore worthwhile to read and consider what the 44th President of the United States have spoken in this wonder speech on a more perfect union. This is also my snub to the partisan politics that I've witness in my country that argues for a more nationalist and protectionist policy. Narrow-mindness will never get my vote.
=======================================================
"A More Perfect Union," Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, Philadelphia, PA, March 18, 2008
Note: Video as well as the text of this speech is also available online at http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_53.php
"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Role of Force
To relieve some stress and to show how complex the world can be, I present to you my visual map of the evolving security concepts in the world today.
This was created by VUE (Visual Understanding Environment by Tufts University.
This was created by VUE (Visual Understanding Environment by Tufts University.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Noam Chomsky's take on the election and state of democracy in the U.S.
I must say that I have utmost respect for Prof Noam Chomsky and his insightful opinions. More importantly, I identify with a good number of things which he says.
This is article that I am about to share. He mentions something very similar to what I have mentioned previously. That is about how the democratic election is a great advertising campaign and that we don't really know what the candidates stand for. That creates a weakness of delivering the people the policies that they want.
Anyhow, I won't spoil the fun and I need to write a real paper. Enjoy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections
This is article that I am about to share. He mentions something very similar to what I have mentioned previously. That is about how the democratic election is a great advertising campaign and that we don't really know what the candidates stand for. That creates a weakness of delivering the people the policies that they want.
Anyhow, I won't spoil the fun and I need to write a real paper. Enjoy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections
Friday, November 28, 2008
Is Democracy the Answer?
The title of this post was part of the subtitle of an article written by Miriam Fendius Elman titled "Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?". It was a fantastically well written and balance critic of the popular democratic peace theory.
Early this week, I was in anguish as I was made to read and accept much of the democratic peace theory from as our of the conflict resolution intervention approaches from my Conflict Resolution Theory class. As you know, I've often felt strong rejection to the idea that democracy is the panacea for peace. I have often advocated that it is a useful and effective institution and political structure for the rejection and representation of the people in face of poor governance. It is therefore a means of ensuring that a country is well governed.
Miriam Fendius Elman's article was therefore a vindicating breath of fresh air when I felt cornered but the onslaught of zealous evangelists of the religion of democracy.
People say non-democratic countries like China are dangerous but I'd say that Chinese foreign policy exihibits is more cogent, consistent and rationale compared to U.S. foreign policy. People say non-democratic countries like China could easily wage war with other nations because it does not have to be responsible to the populace but I'd say that it is precisely that the CCP is in power that it is able to rein in Chinese nationalism by moderating a pragmatic nationalim.
The obsession and blind faith for democracy is truly shocking because the world is more dynamic, complex and multi-dimensional for the answer to lie in a singular system. Indeed the system can correct itself, but it does not mean it is without weakness and at the end of it all we still need good leaders that epitomises rationality and exemplary morals.
As the Chinese saying goes "Things(systems) are dead, people are living". (东西是死的，人是活的）
So don't get me wrong in saying that I'm advocating for autocracies but rather I'm advocating for a pragmatic and good governance above all.
Here is a wonderful article (which I believe is quite on the point. 一针见血） written by Zhao Suisheng on Chinese pragmatic nationalism from the Washington Quarterly, Winter 2005-2006, pp. 131 - 143. (that was used in my Rise of China class)
http://www.twq.com/06winter/docs/06winter_zhao.pdf.
Early this week, I was in anguish as I was made to read and accept much of the democratic peace theory from as our of the conflict resolution intervention approaches from my Conflict Resolution Theory class. As you know, I've often felt strong rejection to the idea that democracy is the panacea for peace. I have often advocated that it is a useful and effective institution and political structure for the rejection and representation of the people in face of poor governance. It is therefore a means of ensuring that a country is well governed.
Miriam Fendius Elman's article was therefore a vindicating breath of fresh air when I felt cornered but the onslaught of zealous evangelists of the religion of democracy.
People say non-democratic countries like China are dangerous but I'd say that Chinese foreign policy exihibits is more cogent, consistent and rationale compared to U.S. foreign policy. People say non-democratic countries like China could easily wage war with other nations because it does not have to be responsible to the populace but I'd say that it is precisely that the CCP is in power that it is able to rein in Chinese nationalism by moderating a pragmatic nationalim.
The obsession and blind faith for democracy is truly shocking because the world is more dynamic, complex and multi-dimensional for the answer to lie in a singular system. Indeed the system can correct itself, but it does not mean it is without weakness and at the end of it all we still need good leaders that epitomises rationality and exemplary morals.
As the Chinese saying goes "Things(systems) are dead, people are living". (东西是死的，人是活的）
So don't get me wrong in saying that I'm advocating for autocracies but rather I'm advocating for a pragmatic and good governance above all.
Here is a wonderful article (which I believe is quite on the point. 一针见血） written by Zhao Suisheng on Chinese pragmatic nationalism from the Washington Quarterly, Winter 2005-2006, pp. 131 - 143. (that was used in my Rise of China class)
http://www.twq.com/06winter/docs/06winter_zhao.pdf.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
I seem to be a Conservative!
After an interesting email sharing from a peer at school I am beginning to find myself classified as a conservative. I've always thought of myself as a merely a pragmatist, believing that government need to govern with some good common sense, regulate when there are issues that free market economies cannot do, let it rest when free market is the best. Educate people if you need, let it rest when people exercise some personal preference and differentiate law from morality (personal only because universal morality is shifting sands).
This author the the below article however tucks all of it nicely into the conservatism tag, of which I'm sure it is what he calls himself. It's unveil satire at its best. Read well and enjoy.
This author the the below article however tucks all of it nicely into the conservatism tag, of which I'm sure it is what he calls himself. It's unveil satire at its best. Read well and enjoy.
We Blew It
A look back in remorse on the conservative opportunity that was squandered.
by P.J. O'Rourke
11/17/2008, Volume 014, Issue 09
Let us bend over and kiss our ass goodbye. Our 28-year conservative opportunity to fix the moral and practical boundaries of government is gone--gone with the bear market and the Bear Stearns and the bear that's headed off to do you-know-what in the woods on our philosophy.
An entire generation has been born, grown up, and had families of its own since Ronald Reagan was elected. And where is the world we promised these children of the Conservative Age? Where is this land of freedom and responsibility, knowledge, opportunity, accomplishment, honor, truth, trust, and one boring hour each week spent in itchy clothes at church, synagogue, or mosque? It lies in ruins at our feet, as well it might, since we ourselves kicked the shining city upon a hill into dust and rubble. The progeny of the Reagan Revolution will live instead in the universe that revolves around Hyde Park.
Mind you, they won't live in Hyde Park. Those leafy precincts will be reserved for the micromanagers and macro-apparatchiks of liberalism--for Secretary of the Department of Peace Bill Ayers and Secretary of the Department of Fairness Bernardine Dohrn. The formerly independent citizens of our previously self-governed nation will live, as I said, around Hyde Park. They will make what homes they can in the physical, ethical, and intellectual slums of the South Side of Chicago.
The South Side of Chicago is what everyplace in America will be once the Democratic administration and filibuster-resistant Democratic Congress have tackled global warming, sustainability, green alternatives to coal and oil, subprime mortgage foreclosures, consumer protection, business oversight, financial regulation, health care reform, taxes on the "rich," and urban sprawl. The Democrats will have plenty of time to do all this because conservatism, if it is ever reborn, will not come again in the lifetime of anyone old enough to be rounded up by ACORN and shipped to the polling booths.
None of this is the fault of the left. After the events of the 20th century--national socialism, international socialism, inter-species socialism from Earth First--anyone who is still on the left is obviously insane and not responsible for his or her actions. No, we on the right did it. The financial crisis that is hoisting us on our own petard is only the latest (if the last) of the petard hoistings that have issued from the hindquarters of our movement. We've had nearly three decades to educate the electorate about freedom, responsibility, and the evils of collectivism, and we responded by creating a big-city-public-school-system of a learning environment.
Liberalism had been running wild in the nation since the Great Depression. At the end of the Carter administration we had it cornered in one of its dreadful low-income housing projects or smelly public parks or some such place, and we held the Taser gun in our hand, pointed it at the beast's swollen gut, and didn't pull the trigger. Liberalism wasn't zapped and rolled away on a gurney and confined somewhere until it expired from natural causes such as natural law or natural rights.
In our preaching and our practice we neglected to convey the organic and universal nature of freedom. Thus we ensured our loss before we even began our winning streak. Barry Goldwater was an admirable and principled man. He took an admirably principled stand on states' rights. But he was dead wrong. Separate isn't equal. Ask a kid whose parents are divorced.
Since then modern conservatism has been plagued by the wrong friends and the wrong foes. The "Southern Strategy" was bequeathed to the Republican party by Richard Nixon--not a bad friend of conservatism but no friend at all. The Southern Strategy wasn't needed. Southern whites were on--begging the pardon of the Scopes trial jury--an evolutionary course toward becoming Republican. There's a joke in Arkansas about a candidate hustling votes in the country. The candidate asks a farmer how many children he has.
"I've got six sons," the farmer says.
"Are they all good little Democrats?" the candidate asks.
"Well," the farmer says, "five of 'em are. But my oldest boy, he got to readin'??.??.??.??"
There was no need to piss off the entire black population of America to get Dixie's electoral votes. And despising cracker trash who have a laundry hamper full of bedsheets with eye-holes cut in them does not make a man a liberal.
Blacks used to poll Republican. They did so right up until Mrs. Roosevelt made some sympathetic noises in 1932. And her husband didn't even deliver on Eleanor's promises.
It's not hard to move a voting bloc. And it should be especially easy to move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren't so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.
People are even more conservative if they have children. Nobody with kids is a liberal, except maybe one pothead in Marin County. Everybody wants his or her children to respect freedom, exercise responsibility, be honest, get educated, have opportunities, and own a bunch of guns. (The last is optional and includes, but is not limited to, me, my friends in New Hampshire, and Sarah Palin.)
Reagan managed to reach out to blue collar whites. But there his reach stopped, leaving many people on our side, but barely knowing it. There are enough yarmulkes among the neocons to show that Jews are not immune to conservatism. Few practicing Catholics vote Democratic anymore except in Massachusetts where they put something in the communion wafers. When it comes to a full-on, hemp-wearing, kelp-eating, mandala-tatted, fool-coifed liberal with socks in sandals, I have never met a Muslim like that or a Chinese and very few Hispanics. No U.S. immigrants from the Indian subcontinent fill that bill (the odd charlatan yogi excepted), nor do immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, or East Asia. And Japanese tourists may go so far as socks in sandals, but their liberal nonsense stops at the ankles.
We have all of this going for us, worldwide. And yet we chose to deliver our sermons only to the faithful or the already converted. Of course the trailer park Protestants yell "Amen." If you were handling rattlesnakes and keeping dinosaurs for pets, would you vote for the party that gets money from PETA?
In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.
The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we're in favor of living. We consider people--with a few obvious exceptions--to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.
If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.
Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It's called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven't done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do.
When the Monica Lewinsky news broke, my wife set me straight about the issue. "Here," she said, "is the most powerful man in the world. And everyone hates his wife. What's the matter with Sharon Stone? Instead, he's hitting on an emotionally disturbed intern barely out of her teens." But our horn rims were so fogged with detestation of Clinton that we couldn't see how really detestable he was. If we had stayed our hand in the House of Representatives and treated the brute with shunning or calls for interventions to make him seek help, we might have chased him out of the White House. (Although this probably would have required a U.S. news media from a parallel universe.)
Such things as letting the abortion debate be turned against us and using the gravity of the impeachment process on something that required the fly-swat of pest control were strategic errors. Would that blame could be put on our strategies instead of ourselves. We have lived up to no principle of conservatism.
Government is bigger than ever. We have fattened the stalled ox and hatred therewith rather than dined on herbs where love (and the voter) is. Instead of flattening the Department of Education with a wrecking ball we let it stand as a pulpit for Bill Bennett. When--to switch metaphors yet again--such a white elephant is not discarded someone will eventually try to ride in the howdah on its back. One of our supposed own did. No Child Left Behind? What if they deserve to be left behind? What if they deserve a smack on the behind? A nationwide program to test whether kids are what? Stupid? You've got kids. Kids are stupid.
We railed at welfare and counted it a great victory when Bill Clinton confused a few poor people by making the rules more complicated. But the "French-bread lines" for the rich, the "terrapin soup kitchens," continue their charity without stint.
The sludge and dreck of political muck-funds flowing to prosperous businesses and individuals have gotten deeper and more slippery and stink worse than ever with conservatives minding the sewage works of legislation.
Agriculture is a business that has been up to its bib overalls in politics since the first Thanksgiving dinner kickback to the Indians for subsidizing Pilgrim maize production with fish head fertilizer grants. But never, since the Mayflower knocked the rock in Plymouth, has anything as putrid as the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 been spread upon the land. Just the name says it. There are no farms left. Not like the one grampa grew up on.
A "farm" today means 100,000 chickens in a space the size of a Motel 6 shower stall. If we cared anything about "nutrition" we would--to judge by the mountainous, jiggling flab of Americans--stop growing all food immediately. And "bioenergy" is a fraud of John Edwards-marital-fidelity proportions. Taxpayer money composted to produce a fuel made of alcohol that is more expensive than oil, more polluting than oil, and almost as bad as oil with vermouth and an olive. But this bill passed with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and was happily signed into law by President Bush. Now it's going to cost us at least $285 billion. That's about five times the gross domestic product of prewar Iraq. For what we will spend on the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 we could have avoided the war in Iraq and simply bought a controlling interest in Saddam Hussein's country.
Yes, we got a few tax breaks during the regimes of Reagan and W. But the government is still taking a third of our salary. Is the government doing a third of our job? Is the government doing a third of our dishes? Our laundry? Our vacuuming? When we go to Hooters is the government tending bar making sure that one out of three margaritas is on the house? If our spouse is feeling romantic and we're tired, does the government come over to our house and take care of foreplay? (Actually, during the Clinton administration??.??.??.??)
Anyway, a low tax rate is not--never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician--a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.
Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.
"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.
"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.
"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."
Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we'd be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn't land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry's freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.
But are we men and women of principle? And I don't mean in the matter of tricky and private concerns like gay marriage. Civil marriage is an issue of contract law. A constitutional amendment against gay marriage? I don't get it. How about a constitutional amendment against first marriages? Now we're talking. No, I speak, once again, of the geological foundations of conservatism.
Where was the meum and the tuum in our shakedown of Washington lobbyists? It took a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives 40 years--from 1954 to 1994--to get that corrupt and arrogant. And we managed it in just 12. (Who says Republicans don't have much on the ball?)
Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren't after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn't meet two out of three of those qualifications. And where would you rather eat? At a Vietnamese restaurant? Or in the Ayn Rand Café? Hey, waiter, are the burgers any good? Atlas shrugged. (We would, however, be able to have a smoke at the latter establishment.)
To go from slime to the sublime, there are the lofty issues about which we never bothered to form enough principles to go out and break them. What is the coherent modern conservative foreign policy?
We may think of this as a post 9/11 problem, but it's been with us all along. What was Reagan thinking, landing Marines in Lebanon to prop up the government of a country that didn't have one? In 1984, I visited the site where the Marines were murdered. It was a beachfront bivouac overlooked on three sides by hills full of hostile Shiite militia. You'd urge your daughter to date Rosie O'Donnell before you'd put troops ashore in such a place.
Since the early 1980s I've been present at the conception (to use the polite term) of many of our foreign policy initiatives. Iran-contra was about as smart as using the U.S. Postal Service to get weapons to anti-Communists. And I notice Danny Ortega is back in power anyway. I had a look into the eyes of the future rulers of Afghanistan at a sura in Peshawar as the Soviets were withdrawing from Kabul. I would rather have had a beer with Leonid Brezhnev.
Fall of the Berlin wall? Being there was fun. Nations that flaked off of the Soviet Union in southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus? Being there was not so fun.
The aftermath of the Gulf war still makes me sick. Fine to save the fat, greedy Kuwaitis and the arrogant, grasping house of Saud, but to hell with the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq until they get some oil.
Then, half a generation later, when we returned with our armies, we expected to be greeted as liberators. And, damn it, we were. I was in Baghdad in April 2003. People were glad to see us, until they noticed that we'd forgotten to bring along any personnel or provisions to feed or doctor the survivors of shock and awe or to get their electricity and water running again. After that they got huffy and began stuffing dynamite down their pants before consulting with the occupying forces.
Is there a moral dimension to foreign policy in our political philosophy? Or do we just exist to help the world's rich people make and keep their money? (And a fine job we've been doing of that lately.)
If we do have morals, where were they while Bosnians were slaughtered? And where were we while Clinton dithered over the massacres in Kosovo and decided, at last, to send the Serbs a message: Mess with the United States and we'll wait six months, then bomb the country next to you. Of Rwanda, I cannot bear to think, let alone jest.
And now, to glue and screw the lid on our coffin, comes this financial crisis. For almost three decades we've been trying to teach average Americans to act like "stakeholders" in their economy. They learned. They're crying and whining for government bailouts just like the billionaire stakeholders in banks and investment houses. Aid, I can assure you, will be forthcoming from President Obama.
Then average Americans will learn the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's statement: "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are, 'I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help.'?" Ask a Katrina survivor.
The left has no idea what's going on in the financial crisis. And I honor their confusion. Jim Jerk down the road from me, with all the cars up on blocks in his front yard, falls behind in his mortgage payments, and the economy of Iceland implodes. I'm missing a few pieces of this puzzle myself.
Under constant political pressure, which went almost unresisted by conservatives, a lot of lousy mortgages that would never be repaid were handed out to Jim Jerk and his drinking buddies and all the ex-wives and single mothers with whom Jim and his pals have littered the nation.
Wall Street looked at the worthless paper and thought, "How can we make a buck off this?" The answer was to wrap it in a bow. Take a wide enough variety of lousy mortgages--some from the East, some from the West, some from the cities, some from the suburbs, some from shacks, some from McMansions--bundle them together and put pressure on the bond rating agencies to do fancy risk management math, and you get a "collateralized debt obligation" with a triple-A rating. Good as cash. Until it wasn't.
Or, put another way, Wall Street was pulling the "room full of horse s--" trick. Brokerages were saying, "We're going to sell you a room full of horse s--. And with that much horse s--, you just know there's a pony in there somewhere."
Anyway, it's no use blaming Wall Street. Blaming Wall Street for being greedy is like scolding defensive linemen for being big and aggressive. The people on Wall Street never claimed to be public servants. They took no oath of office. They're in it for the money. We pay them to be in it for the money. We don't want our retirement accounts to get a 2 percent return. (Although that sounds pretty good at the moment.)
What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That's not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. "Jeeze, 230 pounds!" But you can't pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters--all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs--think so too.
We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to--as it were--foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We've had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It's one more job we botched.
Although I must say we're doing good work on our final task--attaching the garden hose to our car's exhaust pipe and running it in through a vent window. Barack and Michelle will be by in a moment with some subsidized ethanol to top up our gas tank. And then we can turn the key.
P.J. O'Rourke is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The American Idol
Congratulations to Senator Barack Obama!
He has ran an awesome and inspiring campaign that has not only enraptured America but truly the world. For me, as a thinking and pragmatic student of international relations and political sciences, popping out the bubbly now is certainly way to early.
It has been wonderful the be inspired by the message of hope and change but now is where the rubber meets the road. The world is certainly watching what the most significant and popular U.S. president in recent times is going to do next. How is he going to embark on creating that change he promised?
The weight is enormous and already we have letters from former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (though this was not target at Obama specifically) and even from the Russian activist and chessmaster Gary Kasparov.
For me, my call is not too different. From my part of the world, it is our great desire to continue to see a strong and influential America. It's presence is the anchor of stability of the region even though people might not realise it. This strength and security provided is like oxygen and you know it's important only when you lose it.
To counter the American decline, the immediate task is to place the U.S. economy on recovery and to return to the roots of its original success. This is certainly not achieved by become a socialist and a welfare state because that will encourage government dependency and create a negative spending spiral. America needs to reinvent the American Dream and push its people to the leading edge of innovation by bold reforms in education to allow meritocracy and equal opportunity and ensuring standards. Given people fish instead of teaching them how to fish would turn "New England" to the problems of England itself.
The industries of the U.S. should continue to push ahead with more R&D, abandon low productivity, low tech and failing assembly line industries that can be easily copied and done at even lower cost by China, Vietnam and other emerging economies. Funds used for protectionism should be diverted instead for focused job retraining and to move American people to the higher level jobs. Promote enterprise and create a vibrant and entrepreneurial business environment with lower taxes, aids to SMEs and funds for research. It must also address what is known as the reverse brain or "Flight Capital" as described by David Heenan.
In international affairs, it must co-opt China, Russia and India to share the weight of the world. It must heal the divide between the West and the Islamic World and continue to encourage them to embark on the march to modernity. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, it must understand the need for these countries to manage and learn, despite failures. It must then use strategic and limited successes as useful points of exits. It must however, not fail to demonstrate resolve in dealing with the inhumane acts of terrorism.
The list of task is not exhaustive and the enormity of the task is unmeasurable. This requires a Herculean effort of good governance beyond a mere popularity contest. The real test of the Presidency has just begun.
He has ran an awesome and inspiring campaign that has not only enraptured America but truly the world. For me, as a thinking and pragmatic student of international relations and political sciences, popping out the bubbly now is certainly way to early.
It has been wonderful the be inspired by the message of hope and change but now is where the rubber meets the road. The world is certainly watching what the most significant and popular U.S. president in recent times is going to do next. How is he going to embark on creating that change he promised?
The weight is enormous and already we have letters from former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (though this was not target at Obama specifically) and even from the Russian activist and chessmaster Gary Kasparov.
For me, my call is not too different. From my part of the world, it is our great desire to continue to see a strong and influential America. It's presence is the anchor of stability of the region even though people might not realise it. This strength and security provided is like oxygen and you know it's important only when you lose it.
To counter the American decline, the immediate task is to place the U.S. economy on recovery and to return to the roots of its original success. This is certainly not achieved by become a socialist and a welfare state because that will encourage government dependency and create a negative spending spiral. America needs to reinvent the American Dream and push its people to the leading edge of innovation by bold reforms in education to allow meritocracy and equal opportunity and ensuring standards. Given people fish instead of teaching them how to fish would turn "New England" to the problems of England itself.
The industries of the U.S. should continue to push ahead with more R&D, abandon low productivity, low tech and failing assembly line industries that can be easily copied and done at even lower cost by China, Vietnam and other emerging economies. Funds used for protectionism should be diverted instead for focused job retraining and to move American people to the higher level jobs. Promote enterprise and create a vibrant and entrepreneurial business environment with lower taxes, aids to SMEs and funds for research. It must also address what is known as the reverse brain or "Flight Capital" as described by David Heenan.
In international affairs, it must co-opt China, Russia and India to share the weight of the world. It must heal the divide between the West and the Islamic World and continue to encourage them to embark on the march to modernity. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, it must understand the need for these countries to manage and learn, despite failures. It must then use strategic and limited successes as useful points of exits. It must however, not fail to demonstrate resolve in dealing with the inhumane acts of terrorism.
The list of task is not exhaustive and the enormity of the task is unmeasurable. This requires a Herculean effort of good governance beyond a mere popularity contest. The real test of the Presidency has just begun.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wall Street Journal's Barrage against Barrack
Yesterday, I was pretty surprise to find so many editorials in the WSJ that were targeted at Senator (or can I claim President) Obama. One of the key reason is because of the assumption that he is going to win. Hence, it is time for him to move beyond politics and really start doing the right thing.
Here one on the meeting expectations of the crowd
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html
This one projects hope that the dominance of democrats do not change the judiciary and that it is still center and not extreme left
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
This one projecting the hope that this election will not turn America to become protectionist or isolationist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533132337982833.html
This one to urge that he would address the causes of problems and not mere positioning to mitigate effects.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523804578478175.html
Last but not least, one which exhorts him and his party to start putting their foot down and not be so cryptic because this is where the rubber meets the road.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523845602478211.html
So what should we make of all this? Some questions for thought
Firstly, what is the alternative? Does Senator McCain have his failing? Because he is losing the fight, we no longer hear his critics.
Secondly, can the people get what they expect and project on Senator Obama? Will the fears expressed above materialise? Will he be able to truly govern from the center and take the best ideas from both sides to move the country forward? Will he truly move above the politics?
I think the two segments of questions should be consider before exercising the sacred vote.
Here one on the meeting expectations of the crowd
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html
This one projects hope that the dominance of democrats do not change the judiciary and that it is still center and not extreme left
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
This one projecting the hope that this election will not turn America to become protectionist or isolationist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533132337982833.html
This one to urge that he would address the causes of problems and not mere positioning to mitigate effects.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523804578478175.html
Last but not least, one which exhorts him and his party to start putting their foot down and not be so cryptic because this is where the rubber meets the road.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523845602478211.html
So what should we make of all this? Some questions for thought
Firstly, what is the alternative? Does Senator McCain have his failing? Because he is losing the fight, we no longer hear his critics.
Secondly, can the people get what they expect and project on Senator Obama? Will the fears expressed above materialise? Will he be able to truly govern from the center and take the best ideas from both sides to move the country forward? Will he truly move above the politics?
I think the two segments of questions should be consider before exercising the sacred vote.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Power of Media, Money, Movement...
I think I have mentioned that the U.S. Election on 4 Nov as being sealed. This continues to be the case. I think Senator Barack Obama has run a superb campaign and seriously, Senator John McCain is outclassed on all aspect. There was simply no way it could have worked out any other way.
Does issues matter? Hardly. Perception is everything.
So how does one create at that perception? Firstly, you need a excellent personality so that you can create a cult movement, with that you can then raise money and with money you can buy plenty of media. Of course, then we are thrown into a chicken an the egg problem. How do you create that cult movement in the first place? Well, you need media but media needs money.
The force multiplier here is therefore the Internet. It is the greatest leveller of playing field and it is also the greatest unbalancer of the level playing field. If you conduct an excellent internet PR campaign you can work wonders and this example should really go down into the history books for revolution of political activism.
I'm dismayed by the whole sound biting and piecemeal internet videos and TV media showcase because it really deflects any real thinking and considerations. It is also the known difference between 'cold' media like the television and 'hot' media like the papers. Yet if you succeed in using 'cold' media you can eventually dominate 'hot' media. It's extremely strategic and it is just like warfare.
Here is a nice video to break it down for you.
http://online.wsj.com/video/obama-money-blowout/EC57E98C-EC4F-469A-BAF5-D28DF72700EB.html
So what is it's implication for the country that I hail from? Plenty.
I like the fact that currently, there are some real caps on electoral media so that people are not detracted by soundbites and media onslaught but having an honest consideration on issues and candidate qualifications for office.
However, I think that the lack of coverage on the opposition by the local media outlets are just not leveling the playing field. We certainly need a stronger focus on issues and understanding of the hearts of the leaders that we are to elect.
Last but not least, I think the notion of mandatory voting is so vital. The ability of people to choose just opens people to a whole lot of cajoling and voter management.
Does issues matter? Hardly. Perception is everything.
So how does one create at that perception? Firstly, you need a excellent personality so that you can create a cult movement, with that you can then raise money and with money you can buy plenty of media. Of course, then we are thrown into a chicken an the egg problem. How do you create that cult movement in the first place? Well, you need media but media needs money.
The force multiplier here is therefore the Internet. It is the greatest leveller of playing field and it is also the greatest unbalancer of the level playing field. If you conduct an excellent internet PR campaign you can work wonders and this example should really go down into the history books for revolution of political activism.
I'm dismayed by the whole sound biting and piecemeal internet videos and TV media showcase because it really deflects any real thinking and considerations. It is also the known difference between 'cold' media like the television and 'hot' media like the papers. Yet if you succeed in using 'cold' media you can eventually dominate 'hot' media. It's extremely strategic and it is just like warfare.
Here is a nice video to break it down for you.
http://online.wsj.com/video/obama-money-blowout/EC57E98C-EC4F-469A-BAF5-D28DF72700EB.html
So what is it's implication for the country that I hail from? Plenty.
I like the fact that currently, there are some real caps on electoral media so that people are not detracted by soundbites and media onslaught but having an honest consideration on issues and candidate qualifications for office.
However, I think that the lack of coverage on the opposition by the local media outlets are just not leveling the playing field. We certainly need a stronger focus on issues and understanding of the hearts of the leaders that we are to elect.
Last but not least, I think the notion of mandatory voting is so vital. The ability of people to choose just opens people to a whole lot of cajoling and voter management.
Friday, October 24, 2008
New York and the fate of Democracy
Today, I was forwarded an intriguing article. Please see here.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/council-to-debate-term-limits-change/?ei=5070&emc=eta1
The gist of it was that the New York City Council had just passed an admendment to extend the terms limits from 8 year to 12 years, which is what the people of New York has rejected twice in referendums. From the perspective and pure advocate of democracy, this stinks of powerful people seeking to extend their political lifespan and the outright violation of the people's wishes. From the raucous display in the public balcony during the debate, supporters of this motion was given the boos and thumbs down.
Although this seems like a win for Mayor Micheal Bloomberg, it may be political death for his continued extension of mayorship. A case of winning the battle but losing the war.
What was interesting to me however was not the act of heresy against the ideals of democracy but the the zealous defense for democracy. I think if they believed in the system of democracy and free election, there is no real loss in the passing of this amendment because at the end of the day the people are still able to exercise their choice. However, this very knee-jerked reaction to this situation, merely indicates yet again how people vote with their hearts and in irrational defence of an ideology rather than consideration of candidate's abilities to do the job. There is also this irrational notion of holding people to "rotation" in office that so as to prevents the politician hogging power. Unfortunately, this also prevent office holders from looking long term. Afterall, they can relish and enjoy a nice time in office and pass the buck to the next poor sod even if he messes up.
Of course, I am no dictator supporter and I believe the democratic mechanism must always be maintained and be available for people to remove the undeserving and incompetent. I however also believe in pragmatism whereby the system should allow people to celebrate and benefit from the continued leadership of visionaries and excellent administrators. Indeed no one is indispensable but good people are hard to come by.
Hence again, my advocacy for the dual pillars of good governance by way of excellent leaders and democracy as the check and balance to boot out the unfit and corrupt.
This way, we are able to suck out the very marrow and essence of what democracy truly provides. Leaders that the people truly deserves.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/council-to-debate-term-limits-change/?ei=5070&emc=eta1
The gist of it was that the New York City Council had just passed an admendment to extend the terms limits from 8 year to 12 years, which is what the people of New York has rejected twice in referendums. From the perspective and pure advocate of democracy, this stinks of powerful people seeking to extend their political lifespan and the outright violation of the people's wishes. From the raucous display in the public balcony during the debate, supporters of this motion was given the boos and thumbs down.
Although this seems like a win for Mayor Micheal Bloomberg, it may be political death for his continued extension of mayorship. A case of winning the battle but losing the war.
What was interesting to me however was not the act of heresy against the ideals of democracy but the the zealous defense for democracy. I think if they believed in the system of democracy and free election, there is no real loss in the passing of this amendment because at the end of the day the people are still able to exercise their choice. However, this very knee-jerked reaction to this situation, merely indicates yet again how people vote with their hearts and in irrational defence of an ideology rather than consideration of candidate's abilities to do the job. There is also this irrational notion of holding people to "rotation" in office that so as to prevents the politician hogging power. Unfortunately, this also prevent office holders from looking long term. Afterall, they can relish and enjoy a nice time in office and pass the buck to the next poor sod even if he messes up.
Of course, I am no dictator supporter and I believe the democratic mechanism must always be maintained and be available for people to remove the undeserving and incompetent. I however also believe in pragmatism whereby the system should allow people to celebrate and benefit from the continued leadership of visionaries and excellent administrators. Indeed no one is indispensable but good people are hard to come by.
Hence again, my advocacy for the dual pillars of good governance by way of excellent leaders and democracy as the check and balance to boot out the unfit and corrupt.
This way, we are able to suck out the very marrow and essence of what democracy truly provides. Leaders that the people truly deserves.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Presidential Race is Sealed... but there are some concerns..
This post is late and was meant to be out right after the final presidential debate. It was a gallant effort by Senator McCain to save his sinking presidential bid but unfortunately, he has been outplayed and conducted too many strategic errors.
The Obama campaign engine was too formidable to beat. It utilised a populist movement otherwise known as 'grassroot' action to catalyse the political momentum, plus it was an powerful electoral campaign funding generator. It commits people to acting on their choice in every conceivable means and it only makes them an even more staunch defender of their political choice.
The McCain campaign was flawed from the start, right from the point of selecting who he wants as a VP on his presidential ticket. Choosing to capitalise on the relating to regular people in hopes that regular people would like a regular VP was a bad choice. At the end of the day, as much as people want their leaders to be able to emphatise and relate to, they want their leaders to be capable and competent to lead. Colin Powell who has now endorsed Obama would have been a much better choice. Plus, he ignored the signs. The economy has been flagging all this while and it was inconceivable that he did not see it coming. Maybe it was a strategic decision to avoid such a difficult issue but like common saying goes, "You've got to face the music" eventually. Hence, the whole initiative was lost and the strategy of the campaign was just purely tactical discrediting of the opponent.
I'm not an American and I have no political affliation and hence I consider myself to be pretty bipartisan. It is therefore in my humble opinion that the race is sealed. We can be certain of a Obama victory.
My bigger question however is, "What's next?" From the onset, I have always believed that it was a choice between the lesser of two (evils). Both did not have a clear plan to save the declining economy.
I have however some deep reservations of Senator Obama for several reasons. Firstly, was his extremely misleading and protectionist showing. In the third debate, he gave an example of contrasting cars sales of U.S. cars in South Korea and Korean cars in the U.S. Because America was unable to sell more cars to South Korea as compared to the the sales in the other direction, he asserts that it was not 'fair' trade and wanted to fix that. Also, he reiterated the policies of punishing U.S. companies for 'shipping jobs overseas' and incentivise companies keeping jobs in America.
The problem of that argument is that it is flawed on several counts. The reason for the trade imbalance was not due to trade protectionism nor dumping by the Koreans. It's just simply because Hyundais are selling better than Fords (I own Ford stock by the way, sadly. But I believe in Mullaly), beating them in price, design, fuel consumption and just every other sales inducing metric. American cars are stuck being nowhere because they cannot compete on the lower end which is dominated by the Japanese and Koreans and yet they are outclassed on the high ends by the BMWs and Mercedes. The U.S. automobile industry therefore needs to pull up their socks and regain some innovative ability to sell cars and if not they will certainly face the reality of failure. Protectionism won't save it.
The same argument holds true when you create policy restrictions to prevent firms from finding the most cost effective means to conduct business. The real solution is really to bump up education and push for job retraining to shift your workforce to niche areas areas that developing nations are not able to compete and take your jobs. Over protection of trade unions are also extremely harmful for businesses and eventually hurt the unions themselves when companies shut down. I might be biased but I have seen how limiting these unions and being pro-business have benefited by country. Basically, protectionism destroys the spirit of enterprise.
The second problem I find is the liberal use of money. Sure, throwing money (especially obscene amounts) can often get the job done. Unfortunately, it is something that the U.S. government needs to conserve more of. The details of the U.S. Federal programmes really needs to be looked into so that they can get more bang for their buck. Cost cutting by centralising certain redundant functions across state departments, instituitionalising cost effectiveness programmes, etc. So sure, use a scapel and make the incisions but please bring the sucking tubes because this is a liposuction that we're doing here. I know I make it sound easy here but what I am proposing is not THE solution because there isn't such a thing as a pancea. All this means is simple to take a step in the right direction and to adopt an adaptive management of government programmes that would continually calibrate itself on KPIs that measure effectiveness.
Last but not least, taxes. I think redistribution of wealth always goes down well with the people and gets you elected, but I think at the end of the day, if you can lower taxes overall it will be even better. More importantly, you want to make sure that your taxes are favourable for businesses. They pull in FDIs, create jobs and of course their prosperity adds to the tax coffers. Taxes of course are important because they pay for your programmes so unless you apply point 2 above, you cannot work on this.
Interestingly, there is a trick or two which Obama can take from the McCain play book (pro-business ideas) and should remember that it's not big government but rather good governance that the U.S. needs.
The Obama campaign engine was too formidable to beat. It utilised a populist movement otherwise known as 'grassroot' action to catalyse the political momentum, plus it was an powerful electoral campaign funding generator. It commits people to acting on their choice in every conceivable means and it only makes them an even more staunch defender of their political choice.
The McCain campaign was flawed from the start, right from the point of selecting who he wants as a VP on his presidential ticket. Choosing to capitalise on the relating to regular people in hopes that regular people would like a regular VP was a bad choice. At the end of the day, as much as people want their leaders to be able to emphatise and relate to, they want their leaders to be capable and competent to lead. Colin Powell who has now endorsed Obama would have been a much better choice. Plus, he ignored the signs. The economy has been flagging all this while and it was inconceivable that he did not see it coming. Maybe it was a strategic decision to avoid such a difficult issue but like common saying goes, "You've got to face the music" eventually. Hence, the whole initiative was lost and the strategy of the campaign was just purely tactical discrediting of the opponent.
I'm not an American and I have no political affliation and hence I consider myself to be pretty bipartisan. It is therefore in my humble opinion that the race is sealed. We can be certain of a Obama victory.
My bigger question however is, "What's next?" From the onset, I have always believed that it was a choice between the lesser of two (evils). Both did not have a clear plan to save the declining economy.
I have however some deep reservations of Senator Obama for several reasons. Firstly, was his extremely misleading and protectionist showing. In the third debate, he gave an example of contrasting cars sales of U.S. cars in South Korea and Korean cars in the U.S. Because America was unable to sell more cars to South Korea as compared to the the sales in the other direction, he asserts that it was not 'fair' trade and wanted to fix that. Also, he reiterated the policies of punishing U.S. companies for 'shipping jobs overseas' and incentivise companies keeping jobs in America.
The problem of that argument is that it is flawed on several counts. The reason for the trade imbalance was not due to trade protectionism nor dumping by the Koreans. It's just simply because Hyundais are selling better than Fords (I own Ford stock by the way, sadly. But I believe in Mullaly), beating them in price, design, fuel consumption and just every other sales inducing metric. American cars are stuck being nowhere because they cannot compete on the lower end which is dominated by the Japanese and Koreans and yet they are outclassed on the high ends by the BMWs and Mercedes. The U.S. automobile industry therefore needs to pull up their socks and regain some innovative ability to sell cars and if not they will certainly face the reality of failure. Protectionism won't save it.
The same argument holds true when you create policy restrictions to prevent firms from finding the most cost effective means to conduct business. The real solution is really to bump up education and push for job retraining to shift your workforce to niche areas areas that developing nations are not able to compete and take your jobs. Over protection of trade unions are also extremely harmful for businesses and eventually hurt the unions themselves when companies shut down. I might be biased but I have seen how limiting these unions and being pro-business have benefited by country. Basically, protectionism destroys the spirit of enterprise.
The second problem I find is the liberal use of money. Sure, throwing money (especially obscene amounts) can often get the job done. Unfortunately, it is something that the U.S. government needs to conserve more of. The details of the U.S. Federal programmes really needs to be looked into so that they can get more bang for their buck. Cost cutting by centralising certain redundant functions across state departments, instituitionalising cost effectiveness programmes, etc. So sure, use a scapel and make the incisions but please bring the sucking tubes because this is a liposuction that we're doing here. I know I make it sound easy here but what I am proposing is not THE solution because there isn't such a thing as a pancea. All this means is simple to take a step in the right direction and to adopt an adaptive management of government programmes that would continually calibrate itself on KPIs that measure effectiveness.
Last but not least, taxes. I think redistribution of wealth always goes down well with the people and gets you elected, but I think at the end of the day, if you can lower taxes overall it will be even better. More importantly, you want to make sure that your taxes are favourable for businesses. They pull in FDIs, create jobs and of course their prosperity adds to the tax coffers. Taxes of course are important because they pay for your programmes so unless you apply point 2 above, you cannot work on this.
Interestingly, there is a trick or two which Obama can take from the McCain play book (pro-business ideas) and should remember that it's not big government but rather good governance that the U.S. needs.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Free Market Spiral
This is such a momentous period in history. I've often thought about it hypothetically but I never believed that it could happen.
The Free Market Spiral.
Free markets in my opinion are the greatest and most efficient allocation mechanism in the entire world. Using the concept of utility, which is the satisfaction that an individual derives from a good, the market it able to use a price mechanism to indicate their level of utlity and thereby promote the allocation of resources to the production of the good. Using an established demand curve derived from utility and a supply curve derived from cost of the resource, we can attain an equilibrium where the market pays for exactly what that good can provide in terms of utility.
If we're in an agrarian or pure production state, this would have been pretty straightforward.
Then enters the complex world of commerce and leverage. With the establishment of banks that are able to collect deposits and make loans based on the fact that not everyone will draw their money out at the same time, we now have essentially a system that runs excesses or what I call money in circulation. Because of the innate and inherent trust in the system, everything will be fine and dandy.
Unfortunately, this is no longer the case in recent times. With fear at all time highs, the trust to lend has corroded. This seizes up the circulation of the financial system and basically disrupts the price mechanism. Eventually, this will warp the notion of utility and shift the demand curves itself and reset the equilibrium. In real terms, the financial crisis will damage the brick and mortar business as well.
People have been mistaken all this while, thinking that they have a free-market economy but have actually been living with an anomaly which is known as the banking system which is not based on 'real' resources but on a flow model. Hence, the free-market model is not really free and that this banking system is guarded by a regulator which is the central bank, otherwise known as the lender of last resort.
Today however, we witness something quite remarkable which I see as a real paradox. The democratic system (a political equal of the free-market) has been exercised by the people to curtail the government and in doing so tied the hands of the regulator who has been doing the job of regulating and mitigating the quasi-free market/banking system.
The end result is the demise of the effectiveness of the very system and the potential destruction of the ideology.
I guess people have forgotten that it was not idealogy failure that lead to the fall of communism but more of the lack of pragmatism that lead to its demise. It's only attractive when it works.
Hence, I leave you with a nice Op-Ed from the Asia Journal of Public Affairs. The emphasis that good governance is a necessity, because nothing is a given.
http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ajpa/issue1/Dean_Op_Ed.pdf
The Free Market Spiral.
Free markets in my opinion are the greatest and most efficient allocation mechanism in the entire world. Using the concept of utility, which is the satisfaction that an individual derives from a good, the market it able to use a price mechanism to indicate their level of utlity and thereby promote the allocation of resources to the production of the good. Using an established demand curve derived from utility and a supply curve derived from cost of the resource, we can attain an equilibrium where the market pays for exactly what that good can provide in terms of utility.
If we're in an agrarian or pure production state, this would have been pretty straightforward.
Then enters the complex world of commerce and leverage. With the establishment of banks that are able to collect deposits and make loans based on the fact that not everyone will draw their money out at the same time, we now have essentially a system that runs excesses or what I call money in circulation. Because of the innate and inherent trust in the system, everything will be fine and dandy.
Unfortunately, this is no longer the case in recent times. With fear at all time highs, the trust to lend has corroded. This seizes up the circulation of the financial system and basically disrupts the price mechanism. Eventually, this will warp the notion of utility and shift the demand curves itself and reset the equilibrium. In real terms, the financial crisis will damage the brick and mortar business as well.
People have been mistaken all this while, thinking that they have a free-market economy but have actually been living with an anomaly which is known as the banking system which is not based on 'real' resources but on a flow model. Hence, the free-market model is not really free and that this banking system is guarded by a regulator which is the central bank, otherwise known as the lender of last resort.
Today however, we witness something quite remarkable which I see as a real paradox. The democratic system (a political equal of the free-market) has been exercised by the people to curtail the government and in doing so tied the hands of the regulator who has been doing the job of regulating and mitigating the quasi-free market/banking system.
The end result is the demise of the effectiveness of the very system and the potential destruction of the ideology.
I guess people have forgotten that it was not idealogy failure that lead to the fall of communism but more of the lack of pragmatism that lead to its demise. It's only attractive when it works.
Hence, I leave you with a nice Op-Ed from the Asia Journal of Public Affairs. The emphasis that good governance is a necessity, because nothing is a given.
http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ajpa/issue1/Dean_Op_Ed.pdf
Friday, September 26, 2008
Information Overload
What a wild and whacky two weeks.
I've never be inudated with so much information and so much perspective. I sought to understand. In good naval tradition, I needed to find anchor and get back to first principles. What I found was back on my pet peeve topic of good governance. Righteous, morally courageous leaders who would do the right thing.
It's not about democracy. It's not about free-markets only or government intervention or the lack of it. It's all down to looking at the basic axioms of the problem. In this case it was the root of human nature. That there would be greed that would motivate creativeness and would defeat the most brilliant of legislature. As the good book by Confucius writes in the Analects.
The Master said, “If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”
Anyhow, this was also the week of debate for McCain and Obama on Foreign Policy. Thanks to the superior peer quality, I was directed to this wonderful exchange and debate of their foreign policy advisors hosted by the NBR (National Bureau of Asian Research)
or link here. http://www.nbr.org/asiapolicydebate/apdebate.html
It was also in this speech that a McCain advisor mentions a Washington Post of article by Singapore's founding father, Lee Kwan Yew on the cost of withdrawal from Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702429.html
I then found a whole slew of recent articles on the current affairs which he has made comments on which continues to illustrate my shared belief of good governance.
On China and bouquets for China:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/25/content_10107642.htm
On the Financial Crisis:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_282299.html
A related piece by Inquirer.net, quoting my other role model Kishore Mahbubani:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080924-162482/End-of-an-era
On the accepting the Rise of China and India:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_281940.html
On why I like my brand of customised governance for my own home:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_281940.html
This really ties in with my Conflict Resolution Theory classes which featured good reading by Mohammed Ayoob (State Making, State Breaking and State Failure) and Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Synder (Why Emerging Democracies go to war) from "Leashing the Dogs of War" - Conflict Management in a Divided World.
I end of with a quote again from the Analects.
The Master said, “To rule a country of a thousand chariots, there must be reverent attention to business, and sincerity; economy in expenditure, and love for men; and the employment of the people at the proper seasons.”
I've never be inudated with so much information and so much perspective. I sought to understand. In good naval tradition, I needed to find anchor and get back to first principles. What I found was back on my pet peeve topic of good governance. Righteous, morally courageous leaders who would do the right thing.
It's not about democracy. It's not about free-markets only or government intervention or the lack of it. It's all down to looking at the basic axioms of the problem. In this case it was the root of human nature. That there would be greed that would motivate creativeness and would defeat the most brilliant of legislature. As the good book by Confucius writes in the Analects.
The Master said, “If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”
Anyhow, this was also the week of debate for McCain and Obama on Foreign Policy. Thanks to the superior peer quality, I was directed to this wonderful exchange and debate of their foreign policy advisors hosted by the NBR (National Bureau of Asian Research)
or link here. http://www.nbr.org/asiapolicydebate/apdebate.html
It was also in this speech that a McCain advisor mentions a Washington Post of article by Singapore's founding father, Lee Kwan Yew on the cost of withdrawal from Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702429.html
I then found a whole slew of recent articles on the current affairs which he has made comments on which continues to illustrate my shared belief of good governance.
On China and bouquets for China:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/25/content_10107642.htm
On the Financial Crisis:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_282299.html
A related piece by Inquirer.net, quoting my other role model Kishore Mahbubani:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080924-162482/End-of-an-era
On the accepting the Rise of China and India:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_281940.html
On why I like my brand of customised governance for my own home:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_281940.html
This really ties in with my Conflict Resolution Theory classes which featured good reading by Mohammed Ayoob (State Making, State Breaking and State Failure) and Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Synder (Why Emerging Democracies go to war) from "Leashing the Dogs of War" - Conflict Management in a Divided World.
I end of with a quote again from the Analects.
The Master said, “To rule a country of a thousand chariots, there must be reverent attention to business, and sincerity; economy in expenditure, and love for men; and the employment of the people at the proper seasons.”
Friday, August 1, 2008
Democracy and Governance
There is a good number of people who often view democracy and governance as an opposing dichotomy. Democracy speaks of freedom and the rights of the individuals. Governance however comes from the root word of 'to govern' or to preside and manage a group of people.
I however believe that they are both the same sides of the coin and in fact important pillars of a progressive society. In other words, democracy and governance must be balanced. The background behind what prompted this post is in essence the problem that we are witnessing in the world today. Rising oil and food prices, students shooting out in schools and all other problems of society.
I know that people might berate me for the lack of respect for democracy and believe strongly in the rights of the individual but the problem I find is that without a mechanism to aggregate those rights, you get anarchy. I am a firm believer of the Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and the free market. Because of the system of valuation and scales derived by a monetary system, a free market economy is an extremely neat decentralised control system for the allocation of scare resources. Not everything however can work in a "vote" system.
To aggregate society and in respecting the rights of the individual, we have given everyone a right to decide and we make selection by the common wisdom of the herd. It is however unfortunate that the herd instinct may not be the right instinct. We have witness bad policies of price controls and subsides in times when the free market economy needs a free hand to right itself and solve problems of scarcity. This is all because of the political will of the masses that are exerting extreme pressures on their leaders to meet their own self-interest for the short term. It is interesting and my opinion that Adolf Hilter was chosen by a democracy that was enraptured in nationalistic zeal.
I think we need to move to a new level where we balance democracy with good governance. We need strong leaders with good morals and ethics who have moral courage to defy the narrow interests of the individuals and consider the greater good of the community. This is sorely lacking in today's world. I am following the American Election with great curiosity and find that the continuous feedback loop of popular and opinion polls to be extremely disruptive. Presidential Candidates must move quickly and reverendly to the "heartbeat" of the people and at times pander after the select communities which they are addressing. By being so excessively sycophantic towards the masses, they makes statements, backtrack, side-step and basically do whatever it takes to win. Then of course when the dust settles and the decision is final, the people realise that they hardly knew the man they elected, because everything he said on the electoral race could hardly be counted upon and did not define how he would make choices for future challenges.
Is this the result from democracy that I desire? I guess not, and I'd take good governance anyday. In fact, I think people forget that the real purpose of the democracy is to ensure good governance. It is therefore the means to an end (good governance) and people should not take their eyes off the prize (because real good leaders would advance the rights and interest of the individuals anyway).
To the government and leaders, please never forget that.
To the fanatics of democracy, I think you're missing the point.
I however believe that they are both the same sides of the coin and in fact important pillars of a progressive society. In other words, democracy and governance must be balanced. The background behind what prompted this post is in essence the problem that we are witnessing in the world today. Rising oil and food prices, students shooting out in schools and all other problems of society.
I know that people might berate me for the lack of respect for democracy and believe strongly in the rights of the individual but the problem I find is that without a mechanism to aggregate those rights, you get anarchy. I am a firm believer of the Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and the free market. Because of the system of valuation and scales derived by a monetary system, a free market economy is an extremely neat decentralised control system for the allocation of scare resources. Not everything however can work in a "vote" system.
To aggregate society and in respecting the rights of the individual, we have given everyone a right to decide and we make selection by the common wisdom of the herd. It is however unfortunate that the herd instinct may not be the right instinct. We have witness bad policies of price controls and subsides in times when the free market economy needs a free hand to right itself and solve problems of scarcity. This is all because of the political will of the masses that are exerting extreme pressures on their leaders to meet their own self-interest for the short term. It is interesting and my opinion that Adolf Hilter was chosen by a democracy that was enraptured in nationalistic zeal.
I think we need to move to a new level where we balance democracy with good governance. We need strong leaders with good morals and ethics who have moral courage to defy the narrow interests of the individuals and consider the greater good of the community. This is sorely lacking in today's world. I am following the American Election with great curiosity and find that the continuous feedback loop of popular and opinion polls to be extremely disruptive. Presidential Candidates must move quickly and reverendly to the "heartbeat" of the people and at times pander after the select communities which they are addressing. By being so excessively sycophantic towards the masses, they makes statements, backtrack, side-step and basically do whatever it takes to win. Then of course when the dust settles and the decision is final, the people realise that they hardly knew the man they elected, because everything he said on the electoral race could hardly be counted upon and did not define how he would make choices for future challenges.
Is this the result from democracy that I desire? I guess not, and I'd take good governance anyday. In fact, I think people forget that the real purpose of the democracy is to ensure good governance. It is therefore the means to an end (good governance) and people should not take their eyes off the prize (because real good leaders would advance the rights and interest of the individuals anyway).
To the government and leaders, please never forget that.
To the fanatics of democracy, I think you're missing the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
