One of my favorite reasons against Hillary is the "baggages" she carries: "Oh, I'm just so tired of the whole Monica Lewinsky past!" And by association, let's not vote for Hillary.
As it turns out, Obama also has something on his back -- his pastor whose controversial comments have caused such a stir.
In both cases, the candidates were associated with people who have been intimately associated with them (Rev. Wright has introduced Obama to his faith, married him and his wife, and baptized his children), and these people did something unsavory in the past. How much bearing does that have on the qualification of the candidates? Very little. The only criterion, it seems to me, is go back and evaluate the person, and the person alone. Let's filter out these noises!
Talking about baggages, we should examine our own life, and think about the baggages we carry everyday. They may be mistakes we made or adversities we endured in the past. Are those necessarily bad things? Have they helped build our characters and made who we are today?
The bottom line is: let's elect a qualified human being to the Presidency, not a saint or savior. That has not happened and will not happen.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama's Speech on Race
I'm impressed with Obama's speech. It addresses the complexity inherited in the issue and that is what political discourse should have been all along!
Human affairs are some of the most complex. But when the time comes for us to select a political leader, whose full time job is to deal with such matters, we are all reduced to slogan-shouting, party-affiliating, emotional charged simpletons. Because of the short attention span, it has become dangerous to get into different aspects of an issue: NAFTA, exit from Iraq, etc.
As I have argued in earlier posts, the political process that comes after the elections is well-equipped to deal with such complexities, while election itself is anything but.
Human affairs are some of the most complex. But when the time comes for us to select a political leader, whose full time job is to deal with such matters, we are all reduced to slogan-shouting, party-affiliating, emotional charged simpletons. Because of the short attention span, it has become dangerous to get into different aspects of an issue: NAFTA, exit from Iraq, etc.
As I have argued in earlier posts, the political process that comes after the elections is well-equipped to deal with such complexities, while election itself is anything but.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Republicans are voting for Hillary!
Many Obama supporters are passing along alarming news that Republicans in Mississippi are voting for Hillary Clinton. What does that mean? Clinton is probably a Republican. Voting for Clinton is the same as voting for a Republican, so you'd better think twice if you want to support Clinton.
If that is the rationale, then Obama clearly has work cut out for him -- his message of unity rather than divisiveness (American -- not Democrat or Republican, one America, not Blue or Red states) is not getting through to his ardent followers. For them, "Republican" is a almost a disgusting dirty word. It is almost forgotten that behind that label is a living breathing person who simply holds beliefs different from yours.
Another theory is that they believe a Clinton is easier to defeat in the General Election against a Republican candidate. However, a recent poll shows that if the election were held now, Obama is not faring much better than Clinton against McCain, so that is such a contrived reasoning.
Overall the Obama phenomenon does not seem to bring people together (unless of course you support the man), but tends to drive them apart, despite his messages. Why? Precisely because he's leading a movement. You either are part of the movement, or you should be run over by it. I've seen many Obama supporters who are the most partisan and least inclusive.
If that is the rationale, then Obama clearly has work cut out for him -- his message of unity rather than divisiveness (American -- not Democrat or Republican, one America, not Blue or Red states) is not getting through to his ardent followers. For them, "Republican" is a almost a disgusting dirty word. It is almost forgotten that behind that label is a living breathing person who simply holds beliefs different from yours.
Another theory is that they believe a Clinton is easier to defeat in the General Election against a Republican candidate. However, a recent poll shows that if the election were held now, Obama is not faring much better than Clinton against McCain, so that is such a contrived reasoning.
Overall the Obama phenomenon does not seem to bring people together (unless of course you support the man), but tends to drive them apart, despite his messages. Why? Precisely because he's leading a movement. You either are part of the movement, or you should be run over by it. I've seen many Obama supporters who are the most partisan and least inclusive.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Compromises
What a wimpy word, compromise that is.
Isn't it because politicians in Washington do nothing but make compromises that our country is in such troubles? Shouldn't we stand for something solid and absolute?
Well, you've gotta realize that in politics, there is rhetorics and then there is reality. You speak absolutes in rhetorics to whip up support, then you make trade-offs in policies to move things along.
Consider the problem of outsourcing.
Hi-tech companies in Silicon Valley support it because it promotes free-trade, lowers cost, raises productivity, and spurs economics growth in the area.
Manufacturers in Ohio are dead against it because it robs them of jobs, weighs down revenue, and brings recession to the area.
So who's right and who's wrong? Both are right and neither is wrong. Therefore people's representatives in Congress will have a fight where some are for it and others are against it. And this is exactly what should be happening -- precisely because the fight represents the underlying conflicts of interests in the constituents.
The language of the fight will be in the form of rhetorics: one side would say: you are evil because you are anti-free trade; the other would counter: you are immoral because you don't care the well-beings of working families.
In the end, however, the outcome of the fight will be in the form of a compromise. Outsourcing will continue and workers in traditional industries will get help. Again this is exactly what it should be.
So next time you are about to make a decision on politics, skip the rhetorics and get right down to the meat of the matter. It saves so much time and energy, not to mention money and other resources, and always gets you what you eventually get for real, which is what counts anyway.
Finally, heroics are for adolescents. Compromises are for adults.
Isn't it because politicians in Washington do nothing but make compromises that our country is in such troubles? Shouldn't we stand for something solid and absolute?
Well, you've gotta realize that in politics, there is rhetorics and then there is reality. You speak absolutes in rhetorics to whip up support, then you make trade-offs in policies to move things along.
Consider the problem of outsourcing.
Hi-tech companies in Silicon Valley support it because it promotes free-trade, lowers cost, raises productivity, and spurs economics growth in the area.
Manufacturers in Ohio are dead against it because it robs them of jobs, weighs down revenue, and brings recession to the area.
So who's right and who's wrong? Both are right and neither is wrong. Therefore people's representatives in Congress will have a fight where some are for it and others are against it. And this is exactly what should be happening -- precisely because the fight represents the underlying conflicts of interests in the constituents.
The language of the fight will be in the form of rhetorics: one side would say: you are evil because you are anti-free trade; the other would counter: you are immoral because you don't care the well-beings of working families.
In the end, however, the outcome of the fight will be in the form of a compromise. Outsourcing will continue and workers in traditional industries will get help. Again this is exactly what it should be.
So next time you are about to make a decision on politics, skip the rhetorics and get right down to the meat of the matter. It saves so much time and energy, not to mention money and other resources, and always gets you what you eventually get for real, which is what counts anyway.
Finally, heroics are for adolescents. Compromises are for adults.
On Politicians
People vote for Obama because they feel that he is a different kind of politician. As if all of a sudden, Mr. Smith -- uh, Mr. Obama -- will go to Washington and usher in a new era this time around. He certainly talks like one from a different kind on stage.
Then there is revelations that his aides were discussing NAFTA with the Canadians or Iraq with the British media, reassuring them that Obama would be a realist once he becomes the President. An uproar ensued, elections lost, and people got fired.
I have absolutely no doubt that Obama will not simply repeal NAFTA or promptly withdraw from Iraq once he is elected. The campaign trail rhetorics are just political positionings to get votes. In other words, his aides were speaking the absolute truth. And that is simply unacceptable! Why? Because it shows that Obama is simply another politician, like the rest of them, who are practical, rational, and understands compromise and trade-off are the only ways to solutions.
Only problem is, that's bad campaign strategy. You've got to get the votes first, even that means catering to people's illusions and emotions. Once you are there, of course, you can apply the conventional, less inspirational but more effective tools of governing to problems at hand.
Obama is a smart man. He certainly understands how government works, and he is just another politician. He is really no better or worse than Hillary Clinton in this regard. But let that be our secret. People are so tired of George Bush for the last 8 years and they are desperate for something new. We've gotta give it to them, at least for the several months leading to November.
Then there is revelations that his aides were discussing NAFTA with the Canadians or Iraq with the British media, reassuring them that Obama would be a realist once he becomes the President. An uproar ensued, elections lost, and people got fired.
I have absolutely no doubt that Obama will not simply repeal NAFTA or promptly withdraw from Iraq once he is elected. The campaign trail rhetorics are just political positionings to get votes. In other words, his aides were speaking the absolute truth. And that is simply unacceptable! Why? Because it shows that Obama is simply another politician, like the rest of them, who are practical, rational, and understands compromise and trade-off are the only ways to solutions.
Only problem is, that's bad campaign strategy. You've got to get the votes first, even that means catering to people's illusions and emotions. Once you are there, of course, you can apply the conventional, less inspirational but more effective tools of governing to problems at hand.
Obama is a smart man. He certainly understands how government works, and he is just another politician. He is really no better or worse than Hillary Clinton in this regard. But let that be our secret. People are so tired of George Bush for the last 8 years and they are desperate for something new. We've gotta give it to them, at least for the several months leading to November.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
The case for Hillary Clinton
Clinton is fighting an up hill battle now before the Texas and Ohio primaries. She might not make it and it seems moot to write about my support. But I have been so frustrated with how things are framed against her in the media that voicing them here may be the only therapy from this less than rational political season.
Clinton is the right person for the job. Unfortunately she's running a poor campaign. Yet being America, lots of the times it is really coming down to putting up the show. It's gotta be entertaining or exciting. The real ends -- the politics and nitty-gritty policies -- are boring. In fact most people I know usually avoid talking about politics. It is such an uncool topic. Now thinking about it, it does take someone with "rock star" qualities to get people excited. The only question is: is the excitement about the rock star or the politics, which is what really counts in the long term?
So what's wrong for voting for Hillary Clinton? Here's the popular rundown:
I'm tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. These are wealthy people who are connected, and they will monopolize politics. Down with political dynasties!
The Clintons are from typical middle class families. Before they entered politics, their families have no connections with the rich and the powerful. Hillary's father was a small business owner and her mother was a homemaker. Bill was raised by his mom, who remarried after his biological father died in an accident when Bill was little. He was from such a disadvantaged circumstances that he was termed the "first black president".
Hillary Clinton is where she is today because of her own effort and her passion in public service. She was the first First Lady who was elected to the Senate after her husband left the presidency. If family connections are all it takes to run for public office, imagine Laura Bush try the same. She would have no chance. Neither would 40+ other first ladies.
Hillary Clinton failed miserably during her healthcare reform in the 1990s
And it is something you hold against her? Whenever you try something new in life, you always run the risk of failures, and those are the real opportunities to learn and improve. The fact that she tried and failed will serve her well in her next attempt.
Obama runs on "change", just like Bill Clinton did back in 1992.
Yeah, but look at the series of obstacles Bill Clinton ran into after elected. The lack of understanding of political reality led to the landslide loss in the Senate in 1994 to Republicans. Wide-eyed idealism does not get things done. We don't want the detour in Obama in 2009.
Washington politics are broken. Obama can fix it with the "Yes, We Can" attitude.
The day when Obama is sworn in, the Congress and the Superior Court, two equal and independent branches of government, will still be there. Representatives of people who hold fundamentally different philosophical beliefs will still be there. So will conflicts of interests and ideology. Compromises will still be the way to move things forward. Change sounds good, but how is it related to the political reality specifically?
Clinton has more experience in navigating the system. That has been taken as a target for attack by Obama -- oh she's about "old" politics. But the system is the democratic system set up by the founding fathers. It is an illusion that anyone, working within the system, can revolutionize that system. And the experience to work within that system to get things done is exactly what we need!
The Clintons have so many baggages of the past.
None of the allegations on the Clintons have been confirmed by endless investigations. If innuendos are all we go by these days, what happens to the American sense of fairness and the well established presumed innocence? It is especially unfair to blame Hillary of the transgressions by Bill Clinton, as if she were liable for the Monica Lewinsky scandal!
Race / Gender / I hate how she laughs / and he's so charismatic!
Grow up! These are non-factors. It all boils down to who can get the job done.
He's leading a movement!
Movement is a dangerous thing. Jung pointed out the phenomenon of "collective unconsciousness" long time ago. In a mass movement, individual gives up their critical thinking and judgment and blindly follow the goal of the movement. Sometimes movement mobilizes people towards a just cause, and it is more effective than anything else. But oftentimes it leads to disasters. Cases in point are the Culture Revolution under Chairman Mao in China, or the Nazi movement in Germany after World War I. Many people have pondered the paradox of how the people that have produced Beethoven and Gothe could also follow the lead of a crazy man. Well, the answer lies in giving up individual thinking for the collective kind.
Of course, Obama's compaign is NOT a Nazi movement by any measure. I'm simply talking about the idea of "movement" philosophically. In fact, I feel safe that that kind of craziness would not have much of a chance in the American society, precisely because our form of government ensures that no single individual, no matter how charismatic he or she is, will have the absolute power to change anything, that even the President must work within the checks and balances of the system.
Clinton is the right person for the job. Unfortunately she's running a poor campaign. Yet being America, lots of the times it is really coming down to putting up the show. It's gotta be entertaining or exciting. The real ends -- the politics and nitty-gritty policies -- are boring. In fact most people I know usually avoid talking about politics. It is such an uncool topic. Now thinking about it, it does take someone with "rock star" qualities to get people excited. The only question is: is the excitement about the rock star or the politics, which is what really counts in the long term?
So what's wrong for voting for Hillary Clinton? Here's the popular rundown:
I'm tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. These are wealthy people who are connected, and they will monopolize politics. Down with political dynasties!
The Clintons are from typical middle class families. Before they entered politics, their families have no connections with the rich and the powerful. Hillary's father was a small business owner and her mother was a homemaker. Bill was raised by his mom, who remarried after his biological father died in an accident when Bill was little. He was from such a disadvantaged circumstances that he was termed the "first black president".
Hillary Clinton is where she is today because of her own effort and her passion in public service. She was the first First Lady who was elected to the Senate after her husband left the presidency. If family connections are all it takes to run for public office, imagine Laura Bush try the same. She would have no chance. Neither would 40+ other first ladies.
Hillary Clinton failed miserably during her healthcare reform in the 1990s
And it is something you hold against her? Whenever you try something new in life, you always run the risk of failures, and those are the real opportunities to learn and improve. The fact that she tried and failed will serve her well in her next attempt.
Obama runs on "change", just like Bill Clinton did back in 1992.
Yeah, but look at the series of obstacles Bill Clinton ran into after elected. The lack of understanding of political reality led to the landslide loss in the Senate in 1994 to Republicans. Wide-eyed idealism does not get things done. We don't want the detour in Obama in 2009.
Washington politics are broken. Obama can fix it with the "Yes, We Can" attitude.
The day when Obama is sworn in, the Congress and the Superior Court, two equal and independent branches of government, will still be there. Representatives of people who hold fundamentally different philosophical beliefs will still be there. So will conflicts of interests and ideology. Compromises will still be the way to move things forward. Change sounds good, but how is it related to the political reality specifically?
Clinton has more experience in navigating the system. That has been taken as a target for attack by Obama -- oh she's about "old" politics. But the system is the democratic system set up by the founding fathers. It is an illusion that anyone, working within the system, can revolutionize that system. And the experience to work within that system to get things done is exactly what we need!
The Clintons have so many baggages of the past.
None of the allegations on the Clintons have been confirmed by endless investigations. If innuendos are all we go by these days, what happens to the American sense of fairness and the well established presumed innocence? It is especially unfair to blame Hillary of the transgressions by Bill Clinton, as if she were liable for the Monica Lewinsky scandal!
Race / Gender / I hate how she laughs / and he's so charismatic!
Grow up! These are non-factors. It all boils down to who can get the job done.
He's leading a movement!
Movement is a dangerous thing. Jung pointed out the phenomenon of "collective unconsciousness" long time ago. In a mass movement, individual gives up their critical thinking and judgment and blindly follow the goal of the movement. Sometimes movement mobilizes people towards a just cause, and it is more effective than anything else. But oftentimes it leads to disasters. Cases in point are the Culture Revolution under Chairman Mao in China, or the Nazi movement in Germany after World War I. Many people have pondered the paradox of how the people that have produced Beethoven and Gothe could also follow the lead of a crazy man. Well, the answer lies in giving up individual thinking for the collective kind.
Of course, Obama's compaign is NOT a Nazi movement by any measure. I'm simply talking about the idea of "movement" philosophically. In fact, I feel safe that that kind of craziness would not have much of a chance in the American society, precisely because our form of government ensures that no single individual, no matter how charismatic he or she is, will have the absolute power to change anything, that even the President must work within the checks and balances of the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)