September 4, 2008
Watching the Republican convention last night, with it’s sea of white faces, men all dressed up in suits and ties, older (it seemed) woman with swish clothes, jewelry and puffy hair – and everyone in those cowboy hats; I couldn’t help from thinking that it’s increasingly becoming an anachronism. It’s a party of people completely out of touch with the changing demographics of the country – and more importantly, the world. It continues to be reactionary; with rhetoric continuing to rely on fear-mongering, nationalistic machismo and emphasis on homogeneity.
In just over 30 years, whites will be a minority in this country and the number of Spanish-speaking citizens will make up more than a quarter of the population. For those people embodied by Republicans who feel insulted by Spanish language signs and phone cues and advocate English as the official language; they better be careful what they wish for; the tables could someday be turned and Spanish might be the officially designated tongue. The great Republican re-alignment that was supposed to have taken place broke down with the fear-based immigration reform. Hispanics are now less likely to vote with the GOP and the demographics will only put them further behind.
Unfortunately, the fear and suspicion are completely misplaced, unnecessary and counterproductive. In fact the great strength of the U.S. has been it’s pliability; it’s capacity to absorb and adapt to new people and new influences – not resist them.
The Republicans still see the world in Cold-War terms, celebrating military bravery and national swagger; believing that that U.S. has a monopoly on morality, freedom (and in it’s most dark, recent forms, believes we have the right force our brand down the throats of others). And there is a continuing delusion that we enjoy a quality of life unmatched by other nations.
The truth is, the world is changing dramatically. Global competition is now economic – not military. Globalization is boosting the economic lives of people all over the world and their equality with us will transform our relationships.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
9/11 Was Big - This Is Bigger
Washington Post
By David Rothkopf
Sunday, October 5, 2008
By David Rothkopf
Sunday, October 5, 2008
"Two September shocks will define the presidency of George W. Bush. Stunningly enough, it already seems clear that the second -- the financial crisis that has only begun to unfold -- may well have far greater and more lasting ramifications than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001"........ Full Story
The implications of this observation are tremendous; with nothing short of a complete restructuring of the world order and, I'm afraid, some serious 'come to Jesus' reckoning in the U.S. that could likely generate massive social upheavals. Canada is looking better every day!
Monday, September 15, 2008
The World Isn't So Dark
http://mobile.newsweek.com/detail.jsp?key=30477&rc=wo
By Fareed Zikaria in Newsweek - an excellent expression of the fundamental difference in world-view between Obama and McCain. It also illustrates the communication problem: Obama's is more nuanced and complicated (and accurate), but McCain's is more simplistic and panders to the fear and paranoia instinct.
Defending the Insiders
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/news.jsp?key=277994&rc=op
Defending The Insiders - a great editorial by Norm Ornstein on the folly of running against Washington in the hope of accomplishing anything once they get here (are you listening Sarah Palin?)
______________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Food For Thought
A recent intelligence forecast being prepared for the next president should actually inform Americans who that president should be. The article referencing the forecast and its conclusions is at - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903302.html
...but it envisions a "steady decline in U.S. dominance in the coming decades, as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change and destabalized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water and energy." It also predicts that the one key area of continued U.S. superiority - military power - will "be the least significant" asset in the increasingly competitive world of the future because "nobody is going to attack us with massive conventional force."
This is a reality check to all those Americans who continue to believe that American swagger and military bravado are possible -- or even useful. Furthermore, it should inform voters in the upcoming election that the qualities of the next president should rely less on his role as commander-in-chief and more on his diplomatic skills in a world where the U.S. must share a leadership role with other nations with whom we have mutual economic dependencies. Americans continue to place too much stock in the military role - based on irresponsible fear mongering - when the real threats and challenges are economic.
...but it envisions a "steady decline in U.S. dominance in the coming decades, as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change and destabalized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water and energy." It also predicts that the one key area of continued U.S. superiority - military power - will "be the least significant" asset in the increasingly competitive world of the future because "nobody is going to attack us with massive conventional force."
This is a reality check to all those Americans who continue to believe that American swagger and military bravado are possible -- or even useful. Furthermore, it should inform voters in the upcoming election that the qualities of the next president should rely less on his role as commander-in-chief and more on his diplomatic skills in a world where the U.S. must share a leadership role with other nations with whom we have mutual economic dependencies. Americans continue to place too much stock in the military role - based on irresponsible fear mongering - when the real threats and challenges are economic.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Myths About Those Civic-Minded Voters
An excellent editorial from the Washington Post on September 7 -- addressing the topic that no one dares talk about -- the appauling ignorance of the American public.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666.html
5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters
By Rick ShenkmanSunday, September 7, 2008; Page B05
One thing both Democrats and Republicans agreed about in their vastly different conventions: The American voter will not only decide but decide wisely. But does the electorate really know what it's talking about? Plenty of things are hurting American democracy -- gridlock, negative campaigning, special interests -- but one factor lies at the root of all the others, and nobody dares to discuss it. American voters, who are hiring the people who'll run a superpower democracy, are grossly ignorant. Here are a few particularly bogus claims about their supposed savvy.
Some Highlights:
1) Our voters are pretty smart:
......According to an August 2006 Zogby poll, only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them.....six in ten young people would not find Iraq on the map.....fewer than halp of all Americans know who Karl Marx was or which war the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in.....and worse, just 49 percent of Americans know that the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in a war is their own.
2) Bill O'Reilly's viewers are dumber than Jon Stewart's:
Liberals wish. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowlege levels of viewers (of the two shows) is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scoring in the "high knowledge" category.
3) If you just give Americans the facts, they'll be able to draw the right conclusions:
Unfortunately, no. ......just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, after smonths of unsubtle hinting from the Bush administration, some 60 percent of Americans came to believe that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11 attacks......and even after the 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it, some 50 percent of Americans still insisted that he did.
4) Voters today are smarter than they used to be:
Actually,....in some categories, they score lower. In the 1950's, only 10 percent of voters were incapable of citing any ways in which the two major parties differed.....by the 1970s, that number had jumped to nearly 30 percent. What's deplorable and incomprehensible: education levels are far higher today......
5) Young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news:
Again, no. 60 percent followed the news of 9/11 (40 percent weren't??) Only 32 percent said they followed the anthrax attacks .... How many young people read newspapers....just 20%. And the Internet? Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the Internet for news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666.html
5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters
By Rick ShenkmanSunday, September 7, 2008; Page B05
One thing both Democrats and Republicans agreed about in their vastly different conventions: The American voter will not only decide but decide wisely. But does the electorate really know what it's talking about? Plenty of things are hurting American democracy -- gridlock, negative campaigning, special interests -- but one factor lies at the root of all the others, and nobody dares to discuss it. American voters, who are hiring the people who'll run a superpower democracy, are grossly ignorant. Here are a few particularly bogus claims about their supposed savvy.
Some Highlights:
1) Our voters are pretty smart:
......According to an August 2006 Zogby poll, only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them.....six in ten young people would not find Iraq on the map.....fewer than halp of all Americans know who Karl Marx was or which war the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in.....and worse, just 49 percent of Americans know that the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in a war is their own.
2) Bill O'Reilly's viewers are dumber than Jon Stewart's:
Liberals wish. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowlege levels of viewers (of the two shows) is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scoring in the "high knowledge" category.
3) If you just give Americans the facts, they'll be able to draw the right conclusions:
Unfortunately, no. ......just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, after smonths of unsubtle hinting from the Bush administration, some 60 percent of Americans came to believe that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11 attacks......and even after the 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it, some 50 percent of Americans still insisted that he did.
4) Voters today are smarter than they used to be:
Actually,....in some categories, they score lower. In the 1950's, only 10 percent of voters were incapable of citing any ways in which the two major parties differed.....by the 1970s, that number had jumped to nearly 30 percent. What's deplorable and incomprehensible: education levels are far higher today......
5) Young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news:
Again, no. 60 percent followed the news of 9/11 (40 percent weren't??) Only 32 percent said they followed the anthrax attacks .... How many young people read newspapers....just 20%. And the Internet? Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the Internet for news.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
It's Not About You
How often I hear from people their frustration with legislators and
the political system because it doesn't reflect the values or
efficiencies THEY want. "If only they would do the RIGHT thing". As
though some benevolent dictator could make it all work perfectly
(which I sometimes think they're actually looking for). What they fail
to appreciate is that there is someone else across town or across the
state who has a diametrically opposing view. And they have just as
much right to have that view represented. So who is right and how is
it resolved? That is the nature of our messy, slow, inefficient
system - in which compromise and accommodation are (or should) be
highly valued. The most effective lawmakers are those that really want
to get a result and not stand on principle. More recently, that's been
a problem ....... but that's another entry
the political system because it doesn't reflect the values or
efficiencies THEY want. "If only they would do the RIGHT thing". As
though some benevolent dictator could make it all work perfectly
(which I sometimes think they're actually looking for). What they fail
to appreciate is that there is someone else across town or across the
state who has a diametrically opposing view. And they have just as
much right to have that view represented. So who is right and how is
it resolved? That is the nature of our messy, slow, inefficient
system - in which compromise and accommodation are (or should) be
highly valued. The most effective lawmakers are those that really want
to get a result and not stand on principle. More recently, that's been
a problem ....... but that's another entry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
