Is John McCain’s win in Florida tantamount to the defeat of conservatism?
The two men who led the charge against the Arizona senator sound flustered.
Rush Limbaugh offered a non-concession speech, effectively rubbishing the idea that his flock abandoned him in droves. (McCain’s invocation of Ronald Reagan suggests the senator has in fact come to the Maha Rushie.)
Sean Hannity conceded that McCain may have been Reaganism’s torch-bearer all along. Their sarcasm couldn’t conceal their inability to grasp the moment.
Among social, fiscal and national security conservatives, McCain probably drew support rather preponderantly from the last. Even there, the “Senator Amnesty” tag must have siphoned away some votes. Don’t waste time doing the math.
If McCain is unstoppable, so be it. Let the liberal media promote McCain until he becomes the Republican nominee they would love to destroy in November.
A McCain defeat would serve the conservatives in two ways. Reagan needed Jimmy Carter. Without the national malaise of the late 1970s, Reaganism wouldn’t have acquired the moral resilience to confront and overcome the challenges it did.
Secondly, a McCain defeat would teach Republicans to proffer the genuine article the next time.
Should McCain defeat his Democratic rival, well, he could at least have a chance to prove the conservative credentials he now seems to be so religiously invoking.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Future Will Be Kinder To Suharto
For most people, former Indonesian president Suharto will be remembered for his regime’s hugely autocratic rule and large-scale corruption. But many others cannot avoid recalling him as someone who brought stability to an ethnically fractured nation and then fired it off on a trajectory of economic progress.
The man must be measured in accordance with his times. In October 1965, Gen. Suharto led the army against an abortive communist coup. Some 500,000 communist sympathizers were reportedly killed in the subsequent mopping-up operations.
The following year he took control from the nation’s founder, Sukarno, becoming president in March 1968. The policy implications were striking. Gen. Suharto revoked Sukarno’s anti-American policy and switched to an anticommunist posture that found favor in Washington.
Suharto’s free-market policies pushed Indonesia’s industrialization and the country became a principal member of Southeast Asia. He also ordered his army to invade East Timor, although the full story of how that event fit into the wider Cold War geopolitics remains to emerge.
Under his regime, many anti-government activists were killed. Countless opposition politicians disappeared. It’s hard to believe Suharto ever considered his regime democratic. The man must be judged from that standpoint. And in an important way, he was.
The Asian financial crisis of 1997 put the Indonesian economy on the brink of collapse. Once prosperity seemed to vanish, public anxiety morphed into a pro-democracy movement. After Suharto stepped down, Indonesia held democratic elections to the legislature and the presidency. It is a democracy in the full conventional sense of the term.
How about the kleptomania? Last year, the World Bank reported that Suharto’s government had stolen up to $35 billion from state coffers. Suharto consistently denied involvement in corruption and a court declared him too ill to stand a corruption trial in 2000. While he was never officially charged with stealing state funds, Suharto could never clear his name either.
Corruption and gross human rights violations will remain an inextricable part of Suharto’s legacy. Future historians would certainly be kinder while appraising his wider record.
The man must be measured in accordance with his times. In October 1965, Gen. Suharto led the army against an abortive communist coup. Some 500,000 communist sympathizers were reportedly killed in the subsequent mopping-up operations.
The following year he took control from the nation’s founder, Sukarno, becoming president in March 1968. The policy implications were striking. Gen. Suharto revoked Sukarno’s anti-American policy and switched to an anticommunist posture that found favor in Washington.
Suharto’s free-market policies pushed Indonesia’s industrialization and the country became a principal member of Southeast Asia. He also ordered his army to invade East Timor, although the full story of how that event fit into the wider Cold War geopolitics remains to emerge.
Under his regime, many anti-government activists were killed. Countless opposition politicians disappeared. It’s hard to believe Suharto ever considered his regime democratic. The man must be judged from that standpoint. And in an important way, he was.
The Asian financial crisis of 1997 put the Indonesian economy on the brink of collapse. Once prosperity seemed to vanish, public anxiety morphed into a pro-democracy movement. After Suharto stepped down, Indonesia held democratic elections to the legislature and the presidency. It is a democracy in the full conventional sense of the term.
How about the kleptomania? Last year, the World Bank reported that Suharto’s government had stolen up to $35 billion from state coffers. Suharto consistently denied involvement in corruption and a court declared him too ill to stand a corruption trial in 2000. While he was never officially charged with stealing state funds, Suharto could never clear his name either.
Corruption and gross human rights violations will remain an inextricable part of Suharto’s legacy. Future historians would certainly be kinder while appraising his wider record.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
It Needs More Than The Fed
US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke zeroed in on the volatility of the global market. By slashing its key interest rate, the Fed helped to calm international markets. The purpose of easing liquidity is to head off panic and a global capital crunch.
The markets demand much more. Investors want transparency in financial institutions so that the system can find its own level.
Skepticism of the independence of market forces has not receded in the aftermath of the Enron, WorldCom and all the other scandals left in their wake. The inflation of the US real estate markets was originally played down as limited. The way experts and analysts kept the subject alive suggested a dangerous nationwide spread.
The subprime mortgages held throughout international financial markets thus became intrinsically combustible. They are estimated to have lost more than $6 trillion in value this month alone.
US consumers, who have long used rising real estate values to finance their spending, have had a nasty shock. That is bad news for the world. The US remains the market of final demand for much of the world’s production. The bipartisanship exhibited in crafting a stimulus package is laudable.
The Fed’s intervention must be seen for what it is: an initiative to restore confidence and provide a baseline to the markets. With enough spur, the economy may be able to stem its hemorrhage.
Much more will depend on how far financial institutions – banks, investment houses and bond insurers – go in playing their part. They must come clean on the scale of their losses and become aggressive in cleaning up their books. The long-term perils of avoiding transparency today are too high.
The markets demand much more. Investors want transparency in financial institutions so that the system can find its own level.
Skepticism of the independence of market forces has not receded in the aftermath of the Enron, WorldCom and all the other scandals left in their wake. The inflation of the US real estate markets was originally played down as limited. The way experts and analysts kept the subject alive suggested a dangerous nationwide spread.
The subprime mortgages held throughout international financial markets thus became intrinsically combustible. They are estimated to have lost more than $6 trillion in value this month alone.
US consumers, who have long used rising real estate values to finance their spending, have had a nasty shock. That is bad news for the world. The US remains the market of final demand for much of the world’s production. The bipartisanship exhibited in crafting a stimulus package is laudable.
The Fed’s intervention must be seen for what it is: an initiative to restore confidence and provide a baseline to the markets. With enough spur, the economy may be able to stem its hemorrhage.
Much more will depend on how far financial institutions – banks, investment houses and bond insurers – go in playing their part. They must come clean on the scale of their losses and become aggressive in cleaning up their books. The long-term perils of avoiding transparency today are too high.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Cuban Enigma Deepens
We have it on the good authority of Brazil’s leftist president that Cuban leader Fidel Castro is healthy enough to return to politics. A day after Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made that revelation, following a two-hour meeting with Castro, the grand old man himself spoke. Er… make that wrote.
In an essay published by Cuban state media Wednesday, the 81-year-old ailing leader said he is not yet healthy enough to speak to Cuba’s masses in person. Therefore, he can’t campaign for Sunday’s parliamentary elections.
There is a nagging question here. Why the discrepancy? Although a Castro confidant, da Silva is nowhere near his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez when it come to breathing the kind of fire the Cuban leader is known for. Does this explain the urgency on the part of Castro to contradict da Silva.
Admittedly, there may be a benign explanation here. Castro’s essay was probably in the final stages of publication when the Brazilian president spoke. Moreover, da Silva probably implied a future far beyond the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Castro, moreover, may have sounded lucid and fit in a one-on-one setting. The Brazilian visitor was in no position to speak on extrapolating Castro’s abilities to a public setting.
Castro has not been seen in public for a year and a half. Emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006 forced him to cede power to a government headed by his younger brother Raul. Ordinarily, this should have been a perfect time for Castro to retire. Raul, five years his junior, wouldn’t have raised too many eyebrows by officially succeeding his brother.
Evidently, the succession doesn’t seem to have been completed. Has it even started? Why? Do other influential elements in Cuba’s communist hierarchy view Raul as an unworthy successor? Is there a power struggle going on which Castro feels he has to camouflage by his incessant allusions to returning to work?
In an essay published by Cuban state media Wednesday, the 81-year-old ailing leader said he is not yet healthy enough to speak to Cuba’s masses in person. Therefore, he can’t campaign for Sunday’s parliamentary elections.
There is a nagging question here. Why the discrepancy? Although a Castro confidant, da Silva is nowhere near his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez when it come to breathing the kind of fire the Cuban leader is known for. Does this explain the urgency on the part of Castro to contradict da Silva.
Admittedly, there may be a benign explanation here. Castro’s essay was probably in the final stages of publication when the Brazilian president spoke. Moreover, da Silva probably implied a future far beyond the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Castro, moreover, may have sounded lucid and fit in a one-on-one setting. The Brazilian visitor was in no position to speak on extrapolating Castro’s abilities to a public setting.
Castro has not been seen in public for a year and a half. Emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006 forced him to cede power to a government headed by his younger brother Raul. Ordinarily, this should have been a perfect time for Castro to retire. Raul, five years his junior, wouldn’t have raised too many eyebrows by officially succeeding his brother.
Evidently, the succession doesn’t seem to have been completed. Has it even started? Why? Do other influential elements in Cuba’s communist hierarchy view Raul as an unworthy successor? Is there a power struggle going on which Castro feels he has to camouflage by his incessant allusions to returning to work?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sri Lanka’s Larger Tragedy
A resumption of fighting between Sri Lankan government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rebels since the beginning of the new year has claimed over a hundred lives. Most of those killed are Tamil insurgents, according to government officials in Colombo. There is little doubt that innocent civilians on both sides of Sinhala-Tamil divide are paying a heavy price.
The ceasefire the Norwegians had brokered in 2002 raised much hope in the country and the wider South Asian region. The Sri Lankan conflict was one of the most brutal in the region, driven by the fault lines of geography, ethnicity and religion.
A quarter century of relentless fighting claimed some 70,000 lives. Hundreds of thousands lose their homes and livelihoods. Those fortunate enough to have a home lack essential infrastructure such as clean water, electricity, and roads.
The human rights situation across the island nation has worsened. Unlawful killings by government agents and unknown perpetrators continue. Paramilitary forces with ties to the government as well as the rebels continue politically motivated killings. The Tamil Tigers carry out political murders and suicide attacks and subject Sri Lankan citizens to such abuses as torture and the forcible recruitment of child soldiers. This has hardened sentiments on both sides. These realities do not always make international headlines because the narrative does not lend itself to an easy nut graph.
The truce was all but dead a couple of years ago, as both sides traded accusations and questioned the neutrality of the Norwegians. Thousands, mostly civilians, continued to die as the fiction of the peace process persisted.
Frustrated, the Sri Lankan government announced earlier this month that it was pulling out of the ceasefire. In such a scenario, it would be futile to single out to blame one party. All parties to the conflict have the onus of protecting the rights of all of Sri Lanka’s people. They must work toward the goal of a just political solution that ensures the rights of minority communities and benefits all Sri Lankans.
But they must be allowed to determine their future without outside interference. Decades of unwarranted interference from India has nudged influential sections in Colombo closer to China. With regional heavyweights vying for influence, the conflict is likely to grow worse in the near term.
The ceasefire the Norwegians had brokered in 2002 raised much hope in the country and the wider South Asian region. The Sri Lankan conflict was one of the most brutal in the region, driven by the fault lines of geography, ethnicity and religion.
A quarter century of relentless fighting claimed some 70,000 lives. Hundreds of thousands lose their homes and livelihoods. Those fortunate enough to have a home lack essential infrastructure such as clean water, electricity, and roads.
The human rights situation across the island nation has worsened. Unlawful killings by government agents and unknown perpetrators continue. Paramilitary forces with ties to the government as well as the rebels continue politically motivated killings. The Tamil Tigers carry out political murders and suicide attacks and subject Sri Lankan citizens to such abuses as torture and the forcible recruitment of child soldiers. This has hardened sentiments on both sides. These realities do not always make international headlines because the narrative does not lend itself to an easy nut graph.
The truce was all but dead a couple of years ago, as both sides traded accusations and questioned the neutrality of the Norwegians. Thousands, mostly civilians, continued to die as the fiction of the peace process persisted.
Frustrated, the Sri Lankan government announced earlier this month that it was pulling out of the ceasefire. In such a scenario, it would be futile to single out to blame one party. All parties to the conflict have the onus of protecting the rights of all of Sri Lanka’s people. They must work toward the goal of a just political solution that ensures the rights of minority communities and benefits all Sri Lankans.
But they must be allowed to determine their future without outside interference. Decades of unwarranted interference from India has nudged influential sections in Colombo closer to China. With regional heavyweights vying for influence, the conflict is likely to grow worse in the near term.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
A Victory That Could Haunt Hucksters
Mike Huckabee’s victory in Iowa’s Republican caucus may end up disappointing all those supporters who have been robotically comparing the candidate with Ronald Reagan.
Huckabee’s success can be largely attributed to his overwhelming support among evangelical voters and women. Evangelicals constituted the majority of Republican caucus goers, some 60 percent. CNN’s entrance polling showed Huckabee won 45 percent of that group. Mitt Romney, who has feverishly wooed social conservatives, only drew 19 percent of those voters.
Huckabee also seems to have overwhelmingly won the female vote. He picked up close to 45 percent of women, to only 23 percent for Romney, according to CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
Coupled with the surge of that other “non-conservative” John McCain’s in New Hampshire, Huckabee’s win will keep pundits on the right busy dis-equating the ideology with Republicanism.
Rush Limbaugh grappled with several calls Thursday afternoon from Huckabee enthusiasts who compared the former Arkansas governor to The Gipper. Reagan, too, had raised taxes as governor of California and signed off on amnesty for illegal aliens as president, they claimed.
After the first call, Limbaugh struggled to maintain his composure. In the process, he launched into a brilliant tour de horizon of Reagan’s conservative credentials as both a thinker and practitioner. (Reagan’s 1964 exposition on the conservative movement remains one of most brilliant tracts.)
If anything, Huckabee’s record, Limbaugh concluded, made him another version of Slick Willie. Like Bill Clinton, Huckabee is making himself malleable enough to everyone just to be elected.
The Reagan comparison is where Hucksters, no doubt egged on by their man’s campaign, have gone terribly wrong – and may live to regret.
Huckabee’s success can be largely attributed to his overwhelming support among evangelical voters and women. Evangelicals constituted the majority of Republican caucus goers, some 60 percent. CNN’s entrance polling showed Huckabee won 45 percent of that group. Mitt Romney, who has feverishly wooed social conservatives, only drew 19 percent of those voters.
Huckabee also seems to have overwhelmingly won the female vote. He picked up close to 45 percent of women, to only 23 percent for Romney, according to CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
Coupled with the surge of that other “non-conservative” John McCain’s in New Hampshire, Huckabee’s win will keep pundits on the right busy dis-equating the ideology with Republicanism.
Rush Limbaugh grappled with several calls Thursday afternoon from Huckabee enthusiasts who compared the former Arkansas governor to The Gipper. Reagan, too, had raised taxes as governor of California and signed off on amnesty for illegal aliens as president, they claimed.
After the first call, Limbaugh struggled to maintain his composure. In the process, he launched into a brilliant tour de horizon of Reagan’s conservative credentials as both a thinker and practitioner. (Reagan’s 1964 exposition on the conservative movement remains one of most brilliant tracts.)
If anything, Huckabee’s record, Limbaugh concluded, made him another version of Slick Willie. Like Bill Clinton, Huckabee is making himself malleable enough to everyone just to be elected.
The Reagan comparison is where Hucksters, no doubt egged on by their man’s campaign, have gone terribly wrong – and may live to regret.
CIA And Cover-up: Big Deal!
After weeks of Democratic hollering, Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced Wednesday that the Justice Department is opening a criminal investigation into the destruction of CIA videotapes of the interrogations of terrorist suspects. Federal prosecutor John Durham is to conduct the investigation, which promises to surface prominently as the presidential election campaign progresses.
CIA director General Michael Hayden touched off a maelstrom last month by acknowledging that some videotapes of Al Qaida suspect interrogations, made in 2002, had been destroyed three years later. The purpose, according to Hayden, was to protect the identities of the prosecutors. As someone sent in by President Bush to fix the much-maligned agency, Hayden must have espoused candor as a cleanser.
Critics of that move – mostly political partisans – accuse the CIA of destroying evidence of torture – a line certain to resonate in the national debate. Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, who jointly headed the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 attacks, jumped onto the debate.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times this week, they said CIA officials unlawfully obstructed their investigation by failing to notify them that the videotapes existed. No complaints there. But something still doesn’t sound right. Isn’t it the CIA’s job to cover its tracks as much as it is to mount covert operations?
CIA director General Michael Hayden touched off a maelstrom last month by acknowledging that some videotapes of Al Qaida suspect interrogations, made in 2002, had been destroyed three years later. The purpose, according to Hayden, was to protect the identities of the prosecutors. As someone sent in by President Bush to fix the much-maligned agency, Hayden must have espoused candor as a cleanser.
Critics of that move – mostly political partisans – accuse the CIA of destroying evidence of torture – a line certain to resonate in the national debate. Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, who jointly headed the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 attacks, jumped onto the debate.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times this week, they said CIA officials unlawfully obstructed their investigation by failing to notify them that the videotapes existed. No complaints there. But something still doesn’t sound right. Isn’t it the CIA’s job to cover its tracks as much as it is to mount covert operations?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)