As we honor the dead and the living during this Memorial Day for their utmost sacrifice for God and country, it is good to revisit Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” to remind ourselves about the meaning and purpose of their sacrifice.
The Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Capitalism as the Great Equalizer
This quote from Milton & Rose Friedman's book, Free to Choose, says it all:
Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.
Socialism’s utopian vision of a classless society is exactly the opposite of the above. Its notion of equality is premised on a false reading of human nature. That is why those who have lived under socialist regimes have become equal, yes, but equal only in poverty and slavishness as they remain beholden to powerful totalitarian governments. They are certainly not equal in rights and liberties that bring out the best in every human being. For socialists have only an abstract notion of the “people.” They love them only from afar and view them only as a collective whole. Even though the likes of Chavez claim to work on behalf of the people, socialists do not have respect for the ability of the “masses” to think and decide for themselves. This premise is central in Marxist-Leninist thought: the herd must be led by a party, the vanguards of “enlightened ones,” towards the right path of the revolution. Hence, in a condescending way, socialist regimes believe that they must continue to think for the masses, order them around, tell them what is good for them because they, the vanguards, know better and think better.
Socialism fails to see the character and freedom-loving nature of every human being. While its collective analysis of human events fails to grasp the worth and dignity of each individual, free-market capitalism empowers individuals, challenges them to be creative and inventive, and turns them into strong, assertive, competitive, and accomplished human beings.
Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.
Socialism’s utopian vision of a classless society is exactly the opposite of the above. Its notion of equality is premised on a false reading of human nature. That is why those who have lived under socialist regimes have become equal, yes, but equal only in poverty and slavishness as they remain beholden to powerful totalitarian governments. They are certainly not equal in rights and liberties that bring out the best in every human being. For socialists have only an abstract notion of the “people.” They love them only from afar and view them only as a collective whole. Even though the likes of Chavez claim to work on behalf of the people, socialists do not have respect for the ability of the “masses” to think and decide for themselves. This premise is central in Marxist-Leninist thought: the herd must be led by a party, the vanguards of “enlightened ones,” towards the right path of the revolution. Hence, in a condescending way, socialist regimes believe that they must continue to think for the masses, order them around, tell them what is good for them because they, the vanguards, know better and think better.
Socialism fails to see the character and freedom-loving nature of every human being. While its collective analysis of human events fails to grasp the worth and dignity of each individual, free-market capitalism empowers individuals, challenges them to be creative and inventive, and turns them into strong, assertive, competitive, and accomplished human beings.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
“The New International Order:” America, One Among Many
When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trash the United States and get away with it, one can’t help but wonder if the U.S. is losing its grip on world affairs. Whenever the State Department bases its decisions on the consensus of the international community, it sends out mixed signals to its friends and enemies that the U.S. is either afraid to live with its own decisions or feels obligated to explain itself to the rest of the world.
Both bespeak of weakness, which is the last thing that this country’s foreign policy needs right now. For if the leadership in Washington gets it right, it should know that these actions can only ultimately lead to the decline of a powerful America as we know it.
But in yesterday’s speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, President Barack Obama promised to shape a new "’international order’ as part of a national security strategy that emphasizes his belief in global institutions and America's role in promoting democratic values around the world,” through diplomacy. He spoke about the importance of cooperation and partnerships “to confront the economic, military and environmental challenges of the future.”
The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,'" he said in prepared remarks. "Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds.
Meanwhile, America continues to face threats from at least two radical forces: Islamism and a reemerging communism that is being spawned by autocratic rulers in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Chavez and Ahmadinejad, the epitome of everything that America is fighting against, are joining forces with other countries and building alliances in order to defeat a common enemy that is the U.S.
Dealing with the global economic crisis, sustaining global growth, helping countries alleviate poverty – all these require international cooperation and collaboration. But these are traditional areas of international cooperation and collaboration for which there are institutions and diplomatic tools already in place.
Otherwise, the world remains a dangerous place.
Socrates teaches us in our meditation of the human condition that we must always begin with reality, wherever it takes us. It is important to realize that global realities present different challenges, and that the strategies that we map out in response to these challenges should be informed by an accurate reading of the human condition and its manifest realities.
Both bespeak of weakness, which is the last thing that this country’s foreign policy needs right now. For if the leadership in Washington gets it right, it should know that these actions can only ultimately lead to the decline of a powerful America as we know it.
But in yesterday’s speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, President Barack Obama promised to shape a new "’international order’ as part of a national security strategy that emphasizes his belief in global institutions and America's role in promoting democratic values around the world,” through diplomacy. He spoke about the importance of cooperation and partnerships “to confront the economic, military and environmental challenges of the future.”
The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,'" he said in prepared remarks. "Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds.
Meanwhile, America continues to face threats from at least two radical forces: Islamism and a reemerging communism that is being spawned by autocratic rulers in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Chavez and Ahmadinejad, the epitome of everything that America is fighting against, are joining forces with other countries and building alliances in order to defeat a common enemy that is the U.S.
Dealing with the global economic crisis, sustaining global growth, helping countries alleviate poverty – all these require international cooperation and collaboration. But these are traditional areas of international cooperation and collaboration for which there are institutions and diplomatic tools already in place.
Otherwise, the world remains a dangerous place.
Socrates teaches us in our meditation of the human condition that we must always begin with reality, wherever it takes us. It is important to realize that global realities present different challenges, and that the strategies that we map out in response to these challenges should be informed by an accurate reading of the human condition and its manifest realities.
Punishing North Korea
South Korea is banking on the UN Security Council to punish North Korea for the sinking of its warship that killed 46 of its sailors. Most likely, the UN will condemn the attack, impose sanctions, and cut trade ties between the North and the South, North Korea’s source of hard currency. For its part, the US State Department will see to it that North Korea will be added again to its list of states that sponsor terrorism.
But how would all these measures diminish the military prowess of an isolated “Stalinist regime”?
For all the world's indignation over this autocrat’s totalitarian rule, his international law violations over missile testings, the sinking of a South Korean naval ship – all legitimate causes for war for which only the North Korean people will benefit in the end -- perhaps an effective retaliatory act to the sinking of South Korea’s naval ship should revolve around the idea of how to incapacitate North Korea’s missiles, especially those pointed down south. Talks along these lines rather than economic sanctions will perhaps have some impact on North Korea’s military prowess.
But how would all these measures diminish the military prowess of an isolated “Stalinist regime”?
For all the world's indignation over this autocrat’s totalitarian rule, his international law violations over missile testings, the sinking of a South Korean naval ship – all legitimate causes for war for which only the North Korean people will benefit in the end -- perhaps an effective retaliatory act to the sinking of South Korea’s naval ship should revolve around the idea of how to incapacitate North Korea’s missiles, especially those pointed down south. Talks along these lines rather than economic sanctions will perhaps have some impact on North Korea’s military prowess.
On Governance in Iraq and Afghanistan: U.S. Is Just Making Do
For as long as America foots the bill in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, leaders of these countries do not have a right to ask America to back off even on matters political. But that’s what Maliki did when he warned the US in this piece, “Political Angling Amid Uncertainty in Iraq,” that any interference the US makes in Iraq’s political process could only be detrimental. When a State Department’s assistant secretary suggested in light of Iraq’s recent elections that “top contenders for prime minister should consider accepting other positions to speed up the process” . . . Maliki said it was not America’s place to get involved.
Any astute student of world affairs would say that the US is only “making do” in Iraq and Afghanistan on things related to governance and political stability, for obvious reasons. America did transfer that political responsibility to local leaders at a time when they were not ready in the ways of republicanism and self-rule.
That is exactly the same mistake Woodrow Wilson committed in the Philippines. Many a time, I do wonder whether the Philippines would have turned out a successful constitutional republic early on had Wilson not implemented (with urgency) a “Filipinization” of its political process. I also wonder if a “Marshall Plan” approach to Iraq and Afghanistan would have changed the political calculus there in a way that it did in Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany rose from the ashes after their WW II defeat through massive infusions of economic resources from outside. But that defeat provided a blank slate on which these two countries were able to rewrite their political destiny.
But it seems late for hindsights now; we just have to make do.
Any astute student of world affairs would say that the US is only “making do” in Iraq and Afghanistan on things related to governance and political stability, for obvious reasons. America did transfer that political responsibility to local leaders at a time when they were not ready in the ways of republicanism and self-rule.
That is exactly the same mistake Woodrow Wilson committed in the Philippines. Many a time, I do wonder whether the Philippines would have turned out a successful constitutional republic early on had Wilson not implemented (with urgency) a “Filipinization” of its political process. I also wonder if a “Marshall Plan” approach to Iraq and Afghanistan would have changed the political calculus there in a way that it did in Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany rose from the ashes after their WW II defeat through massive infusions of economic resources from outside. But that defeat provided a blank slate on which these two countries were able to rewrite their political destiny.
But it seems late for hindsights now; we just have to make do.
Of Moderate Muslims
Professor Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University is hopeful that the majority of the Muslim population around the world will take back from the radical minority extremists the rightful authority to interpret a moderate, modern version of Islam. To view his National Review interview video, “The U.S. & the Middle East with Fouad Ajami, click here.
In another video presentation, the Heritage Foundation featured former Afghan presidential candidate, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, about his views on the future of Afghanistan: that amidst political wranglings and major disagreements among Afghan government officials and confusions on the part of international players on how best to approach the problems of Afghanistan, interested parties (the US and the rest of the world) must always take the side of the people.
These are voices of reason. We must pay heed to what they say.
In another video presentation, the Heritage Foundation featured former Afghan presidential candidate, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, about his views on the future of Afghanistan: that amidst political wranglings and major disagreements among Afghan government officials and confusions on the part of international players on how best to approach the problems of Afghanistan, interested parties (the US and the rest of the world) must always take the side of the people.
These are voices of reason. We must pay heed to what they say.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Politics and Geopolitics of Immigration
“The GOP’s harsh immigration stance will cost it,” so says Michael Gerson in this piece, “A Suicidal Stand on Hispanics” (Washington Post, Friday, May 14th), where he admonishes fellow Republicans about their anti-immigration position and the political fallout that can potentially come from it. While defending the GOP from the Democrats’ charge that the Party is becoming an “anti-immigrant party” (Gerson does argue that being offended by those who break immigration laws, or expressing concern about illegal abuse on public services, or believing that enforcement should precede immigration reform do not necessarily make one an anti-immigrant), he points to elements within the Republican ideological coalition that are anti-immigrant, specifically, “those who believe that Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, are a threat to American culture and identity.”
And so he raises this alarm:
Immigration issues are emotional and complex. But this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.
Indeed, Republicans should find this alarming, and, for the sake of the party’s future, must pay heed.
But even more alarming is the potential geopolitical fallout that can come from not pursuing “a good neighbor policy” towards Mexico. Given its internal problems (including out-of-control drug cartels whose profit-seeking activities may at some point be exploited by terrorists from Latin America and the Middle East), Mexico needs assistance and support from the US, whether that takes the form of free trade, or open immigration, or something else. Although it is not a failed state, Mexico has problems that affect the US directly. A stable Mexico is America’s geopolitical stake.
Observing the American Union's fortune in having Canada as its neighbor up north and Mexico down south, Tocqueville once said that the Union did not dissolve because it had no great wars to fear: “The great good fortune of the United States is not to have found a federal Constitution enabling them to conduct great wars, but to be so situated that there is nothing for them to fear.”
It is indeed our fortune to be surrounded by neighbors whose principles of politics and government, cultural beliefs, and ways of life are similar to ours. We ought to be thankful.
And so he raises this alarm:
Immigration issues are emotional and complex. But this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.
Indeed, Republicans should find this alarming, and, for the sake of the party’s future, must pay heed.
But even more alarming is the potential geopolitical fallout that can come from not pursuing “a good neighbor policy” towards Mexico. Given its internal problems (including out-of-control drug cartels whose profit-seeking activities may at some point be exploited by terrorists from Latin America and the Middle East), Mexico needs assistance and support from the US, whether that takes the form of free trade, or open immigration, or something else. Although it is not a failed state, Mexico has problems that affect the US directly. A stable Mexico is America’s geopolitical stake.
Observing the American Union's fortune in having Canada as its neighbor up north and Mexico down south, Tocqueville once said that the Union did not dissolve because it had no great wars to fear: “The great good fortune of the United States is not to have found a federal Constitution enabling them to conduct great wars, but to be so situated that there is nothing for them to fear.”
It is indeed our fortune to be surrounded by neighbors whose principles of politics and government, cultural beliefs, and ways of life are similar to ours. We ought to be thankful.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
American Muslims and Prejudice
Mr. Walied Shater, a former Secret Service agent whose past assignments includes serving at the US Secret Service’s most important division, the Presidential Protective Division, in a Washington Post op-ed piece today pleads for a better treatment for his fellow American Muslims. He argues that because of an anti-Muslim rhetoric that “has reached epic proportions in broader U.S. society -- largely tolerated, rarely condemned,” American Muslims feel under siege.
This siege mentality, he says, is caused by many factors: toxic rhetoric from fringe hate groups, the demonization of Muslims by Hollywood, questions of loyalty by conservative commentators, etc. He goes on to say that . . . “Nothing is more debilitating to the psyche of American Muslims than to have those positions in authority remain silent after such comments or, worse, contribute to the hostility.” He then urges U.S. leaders to do much more to help bring American Muslims into the mainstream.”
I think, though, that Mr. Shater is barking at the wrong tree. For one, where ethnic interpersonal relations in America are concerned, Americans nurture their friendships and personal dealings with other people not in accordance with what their leaders ask them to do but in what take place at community settings (say, in a soccer game, or at a church potluck party, or during a picnic in the community park). It is in these places where strangers become friends as each tries to bring out the best in him for the other. It is also there where prejudices and stereotypes fade away. Neighborliness feeds on kindness even as it builds communities.
Mr. Shater is raising the wrong issue, one that may even make the Muslim community in America separate and isolated. The right issue to raise is to ask what American Muslims (and, for that matter, the rest of the immigrant community) can bring to this country that will make it even more enriched and accommodating as it already is. To do so is to provide opportunities for immigrants to turn themselves into vibrant, strong, and useful citizens.
Indeed, in order to combat prejudices and stereotypes, we have only to prove ourselves otherwise.
This siege mentality, he says, is caused by many factors: toxic rhetoric from fringe hate groups, the demonization of Muslims by Hollywood, questions of loyalty by conservative commentators, etc. He goes on to say that . . . “Nothing is more debilitating to the psyche of American Muslims than to have those positions in authority remain silent after such comments or, worse, contribute to the hostility.” He then urges U.S. leaders to do much more to help bring American Muslims into the mainstream.”
I think, though, that Mr. Shater is barking at the wrong tree. For one, where ethnic interpersonal relations in America are concerned, Americans nurture their friendships and personal dealings with other people not in accordance with what their leaders ask them to do but in what take place at community settings (say, in a soccer game, or at a church potluck party, or during a picnic in the community park). It is in these places where strangers become friends as each tries to bring out the best in him for the other. It is also there where prejudices and stereotypes fade away. Neighborliness feeds on kindness even as it builds communities.
Mr. Shater is raising the wrong issue, one that may even make the Muslim community in America separate and isolated. The right issue to raise is to ask what American Muslims (and, for that matter, the rest of the immigrant community) can bring to this country that will make it even more enriched and accommodating as it already is. To do so is to provide opportunities for immigrants to turn themselves into vibrant, strong, and useful citizens.
Indeed, in order to combat prejudices and stereotypes, we have only to prove ourselves otherwise.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
What To Make of the Iraq Elections
Between Ayad Allawi’s recommendation to place Iraq under an impartial, internationally supervised caretaker government “to prevent the country from sliding into violence and counter what he says are efforts to change the vote results” and Nour al-Maliki’s rejection of it because it would undermine Iraq’s sovereignty, who between these two contenders for Iraq’s highest political office has a disinterested vision for a stable and united Iraq? If Allawi is willing to put his political future on the line and the welfare of his country in the hands of impartial (outside) judges, it is probably because he understands that the conditions in Iraq for genuine republicanism are still untenable. That is probably a sign of a reasonable and pragmatic leader who is willing to give up his own personal ambitions for the sake of what is good for his country.
Maliki’s interest in protecting Iraq’s sovereignty against foreign interference seems noble but idealistic. As it is, ethnic factionalism continues to divide Iraq. National reconciliation programs are unable to bridge the gap that divides the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. For as long as ethnic division rules the day, a united and stable Iraq cannot come about. If it is true that Maliki is protecting Iraq’s sovereignty in the name of nationalism, two questions need to be asked: one, which Iraq is he protecting? And two, if there is indeed a fully functioning Iraqi nation, why should nationalism in all its close-mindedness be good for that country right now?
Maliki’s interest in protecting Iraq’s sovereignty against foreign interference seems noble but idealistic. As it is, ethnic factionalism continues to divide Iraq. National reconciliation programs are unable to bridge the gap that divides the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. For as long as ethnic division rules the day, a united and stable Iraq cannot come about. If it is true that Maliki is protecting Iraq’s sovereignty in the name of nationalism, two questions need to be asked: one, which Iraq is he protecting? And two, if there is indeed a fully functioning Iraqi nation, why should nationalism in all its close-mindedness be good for that country right now?
Touched by Grace
I had blogged before about Mosab Hassan Yousef right after his interview with CNN when his book, Son of Hamas, first came out. I was struck by what he said: that the only way to peace in the Middle East is to follow the Christian teaching, “love your enemies.” Having lived with terrorists as a Hamas insider and later as an informant for Israel’s intelligence agency, he has been part of a Middle East conflict that has seemed to elude any attempt at peaceful resolutions.
So I read his book, curious about what he has to say. Who could be a better source of insight about all that is wrong in the Middle East than Mosab himself who has lived his life through it all! What he offers, as I read through, is not a political treatise for conflict-resolution. Nor is it a guideline for political settlements that is usually invoked at peace negotiations. His is simply a witnessing to a moral truth, his moment of grace: to love your enemies is to be free, and goes about proving it. Even Christians have difficulty understanding this paradox: it is in overcoming one’s hatred and pride that one becomes free.
As a student of politics, I, of course, would like that this abstract, moral truth be translated into concrete policy prescriptions, into some kind of a set of guidelines that takes into account hard facts on the ground. I think, though, that Mosab is telling us that all these will come about only after we recognize and embrace this moral truth. If Jews and Palestinians will sit down together, with each other’s best interest at heart, he asks, can’t peace be far behind?
The Bible study Mosab attended in West Jerusalem included a Jewish man named Amnon who later on was imprisoned during the entire time that Mosab himself was in prison for refusing to serve in the Israeli military. Mosab has this to say:
He was there because he refused to work with the Israelis; I was there because I had agreed to work with them. I was trying to protect the Jews; he was trying to protect Palestinians.
I didn’t believe that everybody in Israel and the occupied territories needed to become a Christian in order to end the bloodshed. But I thought that if we just had a thousand Amnons on one side and a thousand Mosabs on the other, it could make a big difference. And if we had more . . . who knows?
So I read his book, curious about what he has to say. Who could be a better source of insight about all that is wrong in the Middle East than Mosab himself who has lived his life through it all! What he offers, as I read through, is not a political treatise for conflict-resolution. Nor is it a guideline for political settlements that is usually invoked at peace negotiations. His is simply a witnessing to a moral truth, his moment of grace: to love your enemies is to be free, and goes about proving it. Even Christians have difficulty understanding this paradox: it is in overcoming one’s hatred and pride that one becomes free.
As a student of politics, I, of course, would like that this abstract, moral truth be translated into concrete policy prescriptions, into some kind of a set of guidelines that takes into account hard facts on the ground. I think, though, that Mosab is telling us that all these will come about only after we recognize and embrace this moral truth. If Jews and Palestinians will sit down together, with each other’s best interest at heart, he asks, can’t peace be far behind?
The Bible study Mosab attended in West Jerusalem included a Jewish man named Amnon who later on was imprisoned during the entire time that Mosab himself was in prison for refusing to serve in the Israeli military. Mosab has this to say:
He was there because he refused to work with the Israelis; I was there because I had agreed to work with them. I was trying to protect the Jews; he was trying to protect Palestinians.
I didn’t believe that everybody in Israel and the occupied territories needed to become a Christian in order to end the bloodshed. But I thought that if we just had a thousand Amnons on one side and a thousand Mosabs on the other, it could make a big difference. And if we had more . . . who knows?
The Irony of Philippine Elections
Enlightened citizens who live in a democracy look to elections as mechanisms with which to effect change, both in leadership and in policy directions of the country. The irony of Philippine elections is it perpetuates the status quo of old-style, personality-driven politicking that judges candidates on the basis of their dynastic legacy, celebrity status, or social and economic standing.
This Washington Post article, “In the bright glow of a political legacy,” rightly portrays Benigno Aquino III as a legacy candidate. A low-key personality, who, several months ago had no intention of running for president, Aquino was catapulted to national fame when her mother, former President Corazon Aquino, died of cancer. Her death, according to the article, evoked “a mass outpouring of grief” . . . “that fired up the dynastic machinery of Philippine politics,” and her son “has come to embody a national yearning for decent leadership . . .” Despite an unimpressive political resume, Aquino seems poised to win the elections, although he’d be the first to acknowledge that “his candidacy was an invention of voters nostalgic for the moral clarity they associate with his parents. ‘It became an entry point,’ he said. ‘All of this became possible because of the people.’”
But who is driving the people to make these political choices? Where do Filipinos get their political education but from the political elite and the mass media who constantly intrude into their daily lives with all kinds of propaganda messages. How much of the people’s political choices is driven by political hysteria, or by celebrity endorsements, or even by bribes (for in many parts of the country, vote-buying is still the norm)?
I posed these questions to my friends in the Philippines. Some of them did say that since the Filipinos are genuinely disgusted by the rampant corruption committed by their politicians, and Aquino, whose record is thin but clean, is deemed more promising than the rest. But while this premise can only be half-true, the rest is fallacy. And it affirms my point: that Philippine politics revolves around personalities rather than on institutions (yes, those cold, hard, and impartial institutions whose check-and-balance mechanisms can correct the very corruption that eats at the heart of Philippine politics), and on the rule of law that replaces the whimsical, capricious rule by men.
Elections are supposed to be partisan battles over principles and visions.
This Washington Post article, “In the bright glow of a political legacy,” rightly portrays Benigno Aquino III as a legacy candidate. A low-key personality, who, several months ago had no intention of running for president, Aquino was catapulted to national fame when her mother, former President Corazon Aquino, died of cancer. Her death, according to the article, evoked “a mass outpouring of grief” . . . “that fired up the dynastic machinery of Philippine politics,” and her son “has come to embody a national yearning for decent leadership . . .” Despite an unimpressive political resume, Aquino seems poised to win the elections, although he’d be the first to acknowledge that “his candidacy was an invention of voters nostalgic for the moral clarity they associate with his parents. ‘It became an entry point,’ he said. ‘All of this became possible because of the people.’”
But who is driving the people to make these political choices? Where do Filipinos get their political education but from the political elite and the mass media who constantly intrude into their daily lives with all kinds of propaganda messages. How much of the people’s political choices is driven by political hysteria, or by celebrity endorsements, or even by bribes (for in many parts of the country, vote-buying is still the norm)?
I posed these questions to my friends in the Philippines. Some of them did say that since the Filipinos are genuinely disgusted by the rampant corruption committed by their politicians, and Aquino, whose record is thin but clean, is deemed more promising than the rest. But while this premise can only be half-true, the rest is fallacy. And it affirms my point: that Philippine politics revolves around personalities rather than on institutions (yes, those cold, hard, and impartial institutions whose check-and-balance mechanisms can correct the very corruption that eats at the heart of Philippine politics), and on the rule of law that replaces the whimsical, capricious rule by men.
Elections are supposed to be partisan battles over principles and visions.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Spectacle at the UN
Whether one should view yesterday’s UN proceedings between Hillary Clinton and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a comic tragedy or a tragic comedy (take your pick), the spectacle simply amounts to this: by continuing to host and provide forum for Ahmadinejad’s tirades against the UN and the US, the UN and the US and the rest of the so-called international community only end up lending credibility and legitimacy to his defiant stance against uranium enrichment restrictions. That’s the comic part. The tragic part is not realizing they are doing this. The article says: “The Iranian couldn't have been clearer that his country intends to ignore any and all U.N. pressure to stop building its bomb. He averred that the world has "not a single credible proof" that Iran intends to build a bomb, notwithstanding the world's discovery of its secret uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz in 2002 and its secret underground facility near Qom last year. He even said the U.S. should be suspended from the U.N. atomic agency's board because ‘it used nuclear weapons against Japan’ and depleted uranium weapons in Iraq.”
Why the UN would dignify anyone “that bites the hand that feeds it” defies logic. To their credit, the article goes on to add, “Delegates from the U.S., U.K. and France walked out during the speech, to their credit. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs chimed in that the remarks were "wild accusations," and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to the podium later in the day to accuse Iran of "flouting the rules" and declaring it is "time for a strong international response." As if walking out does it.
In an earlier blog posting, I said that “If world leaders, the UN, and the press will unite in condemning, ostracizing, and isolating Ahmadinejad, perhaps a regime change in Iran, waged from outside, is possible. Conversely, if the US and the rest of the world continue to engage Ahmadinejad in the name of diplomacy, they do nothing but lend legitimacy to a president who at best cannot distinguish a truth from a lie.“
Why is all this hard to understand?
Why the UN would dignify anyone “that bites the hand that feeds it” defies logic. To their credit, the article goes on to add, “Delegates from the U.S., U.K. and France walked out during the speech, to their credit. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs chimed in that the remarks were "wild accusations," and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to the podium later in the day to accuse Iran of "flouting the rules" and declaring it is "time for a strong international response." As if walking out does it.
In an earlier blog posting, I said that “If world leaders, the UN, and the press will unite in condemning, ostracizing, and isolating Ahmadinejad, perhaps a regime change in Iran, waged from outside, is possible. Conversely, if the US and the rest of the world continue to engage Ahmadinejad in the name of diplomacy, they do nothing but lend legitimacy to a president who at best cannot distinguish a truth from a lie.“
Why is all this hard to understand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)