Following on the heels of last week's Democratic entree, last night the 10 (currently announced) Republican candidates for president debated in a similar format. While having that many candidates on one stage at the same time resulted in limited opportunities to hear any one candidate's views, some initial insights can be drawn.
Like the Democrats, the Republican candidates probably fall into three tiers - front runner, second tier possibles, and pipe dreamers. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are a little more difficult to pigeon-hole into groups. In part this is because there is less diversity among the candidates, both in the traditional "diversity" sense and in their views. Republicans have raised to an art form the ability to stay "on message," in contrast to the Democrats who often have a variety of messages (I'll leave it to you to decide whether having one single focused message that defines a party is a good or a bad thing).
The front runners did distinguish themselves from each other somewhat. One was uncomfortably passionate (I couldn't tell if it was because he was trying to show strength or if he was trying to restrain the passion). One was incredibly well spoken and clear in his presentation, while decidedly conservative (at least currently conservative). And one was somewhere in between in both delivery and message. It will be interesting to see whether style or substance becomes more important in the election.
One thing that was crystal clear is that whatever Republican candidate wins the nomination, the contrast from the Democrats will likely be striking. Granted, there is one combination of candidates in which it would be harder to discern differences on some issues, but in the one key issue likely to drive out the vote the Republicans are almost universally in support of the war surge (and will fight the "surrender date") and the Democrats just as universally want to bring the troops home ASAP (most at whatever cost).
Certainly things can change dramatically in the many (many) months before the first primaries. On the Democratic side it is unlikely that any new faces will emerge, so we're pretty much stuck with the current cast. On the Republican side it is quite possible that one or two "true conservatives" will join the fray, though my personal feeling is that this is unlikely.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Democratic Debate
I returned from a trip that took me through Europe and Texas just in time to catch the first Democratic presidential debate. Now, the value of a "debate" nearly a year before the first presidential primaries is, well, debatable. Having said that it did provide a bit of insight that should inform voters as the spectacle unfolds over the coming months. First, it was clear that there are three tiers of candidates: 1) those with a solid chance of getting the nomination, barring any foot-in-mouth incidents, 2) those that perhaps would be good candidates if the public takes the time to listen to their views, and 3) the nuts. I'll not bias readers with whom I would put into each category.
Second, some of the candidates are more linguistically adept than others. Whether this stems from natural eloquence versus practiced political experience perhaps is less important than the fact that the current president has virtually guaranteed that voters will select someone better able to communicate their thoughts. Or even have coherent thoughts.
Third, that there were a few suprises. Media analysis of the debate seemed to settle on the conclusion that no one really locked themselves out of the running. I disagree. One candidate that I had rested high hopes on came off (in my opinion, at least) much less capable than I would have expected, both in terms of ideas and the ability to communicate them. Conversely, another candidate that I hadn't put much stock in came off as being more thoughtful and capable than expected.
Certainly there were some hints as to who would likely be able to perform their presidential duties well. And while the idea of having 2+ years of running for president seems painful (all by candidates that should be busy doing the real jobs we pay them for, like being a senator), perhaps given our current circumstances it is a good thing to have sufficient time to really get to know the candidates' views. Assuming, of course, that we, the voters, take the time to do so.
The Republican debate, with its own cast of characters, is set for next week. I look forward to seeing which of them can be a viable future president.
Second, some of the candidates are more linguistically adept than others. Whether this stems from natural eloquence versus practiced political experience perhaps is less important than the fact that the current president has virtually guaranteed that voters will select someone better able to communicate their thoughts. Or even have coherent thoughts.
Third, that there were a few suprises. Media analysis of the debate seemed to settle on the conclusion that no one really locked themselves out of the running. I disagree. One candidate that I had rested high hopes on came off (in my opinion, at least) much less capable than I would have expected, both in terms of ideas and the ability to communicate them. Conversely, another candidate that I hadn't put much stock in came off as being more thoughtful and capable than expected.
Certainly there were some hints as to who would likely be able to perform their presidential duties well. And while the idea of having 2+ years of running for president seems painful (all by candidates that should be busy doing the real jobs we pay them for, like being a senator), perhaps given our current circumstances it is a good thing to have sufficient time to really get to know the candidates' views. Assuming, of course, that we, the voters, take the time to do so.
The Republican debate, with its own cast of characters, is set for next week. I look forward to seeing which of them can be a viable future president.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Time to Compromise on Iraq
I read today (4/10/07) an opinion piece by Washington Post columnist David Broder. I recommend it to anyone interested in where we go from here in Iraq. You should be able to find it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR2007040901002.html
In it Mr. Broder states pretty much the obvious, though clearly the obvious has been ignored to date. While I have been patient (to the extent that I can) with the Democratic "fact finding" hearings about anything and everything ever done by the Bush Administration, the time for getting down to real work is upon us. Relative to Mr. Broder's column, it's time for Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) AND the President to work together to find a path forward. Mr. Broder's suggestions are thoughtful and doable (though obviously any ultimate success depends largely on what the Iraqis decide is in their own best interest; after all it is their country). Clearly, however, any serious path forward requires both political sides in the US to drop their partisan egos long enough to realize that our soldiers lives, as well as the lives of countless Iraqis and innumberable future generations of all countries, are more important than whether Bush wins or the Democrats win.
In it Mr. Broder states pretty much the obvious, though clearly the obvious has been ignored to date. While I have been patient (to the extent that I can) with the Democratic "fact finding" hearings about anything and everything ever done by the Bush Administration, the time for getting down to real work is upon us. Relative to Mr. Broder's column, it's time for Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) AND the President to work together to find a path forward. Mr. Broder's suggestions are thoughtful and doable (though obviously any ultimate success depends largely on what the Iraqis decide is in their own best interest; after all it is their country). Clearly, however, any serious path forward requires both political sides in the US to drop their partisan egos long enough to realize that our soldiers lives, as well as the lives of countless Iraqis and innumberable future generations of all countries, are more important than whether Bush wins or the Democrats win.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Thursday, April 5, 2007
of the people, by the people, for the people
I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other night, and he was making fun of some politician as usual. He had Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of "Team of Rivals" on the phone. Now "Team" is about Abraham Lincoln during the civil war, and the main theme of her book is how he gathered those rivals who most disagreed with him into his cabinet, figuring it was better to have them inside arguing their points rather than outside undermining the process. In contrast, Jon Stewart showed a clip of John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations, saying that, of course President Bush only surrounds himself with those who agree with him, after all, these are the people who elected him and why would he want to give anyone else a dissenting voice.
Frankly, this is more than a bit scary. If I recall, Bush gained the presidency in 2000 by a narrow margin of electoral votes (and a Supreme Court judgment) after losing the popular vote. Even in 2004 his victory margin was small, and despite a "don't change horses in the middle of a war" attitude, again it came down to a somewhat controversial electoral vote. My point here is not to rehash the elections - President Bush won both elections fair and square and within the legal constraints of our election system. No, my point is that in both elections the populace was fairly evenly divided, with roughly half of the voters choosing the other guy.
So to cater to the side that voted for you as if it were some sort of mandate is patently ridiculous. As Lincoln so eloquently noted (alas, eloquence is not a Bush forte), government should be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Meaning, of course, that the President is elected to govern for everyone in the country, even those who didn't vote for him. I'm not suggesting he kowtow to the "anti-anything-Bush" Democrats or radicals on the left, but perhaps a little more attention to the views of the center might be in order. Consider this - the administration has been so partisan, so "I'm right, you're wrong" in all of its actions - that Senate majority leader Harry Reid can get away with saying something inflammatory like (and I paraphrase), Bush has to remember he is President of the United States, not King of the United States. When such a statement brings nods of agreement from such a large proportion of Americans, clearly something is wrong at the top.
Frankly, this is more than a bit scary. If I recall, Bush gained the presidency in 2000 by a narrow margin of electoral votes (and a Supreme Court judgment) after losing the popular vote. Even in 2004 his victory margin was small, and despite a "don't change horses in the middle of a war" attitude, again it came down to a somewhat controversial electoral vote. My point here is not to rehash the elections - President Bush won both elections fair and square and within the legal constraints of our election system. No, my point is that in both elections the populace was fairly evenly divided, with roughly half of the voters choosing the other guy.
So to cater to the side that voted for you as if it were some sort of mandate is patently ridiculous. As Lincoln so eloquently noted (alas, eloquence is not a Bush forte), government should be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Meaning, of course, that the President is elected to govern for everyone in the country, even those who didn't vote for him. I'm not suggesting he kowtow to the "anti-anything-Bush" Democrats or radicals on the left, but perhaps a little more attention to the views of the center might be in order. Consider this - the administration has been so partisan, so "I'm right, you're wrong" in all of its actions - that Senate majority leader Harry Reid can get away with saying something inflammatory like (and I paraphrase), Bush has to remember he is President of the United States, not King of the United States. When such a statement brings nods of agreement from such a large proportion of Americans, clearly something is wrong at the top.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Thoughts on Media Bias
Politicians routinely speak of the inherent bias of the media. Usually this is to suggest that the media are "left wing liberals," though the Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's and Fox New's of the world certainly are accused of a severe right wing conservative bias.
I would suggest that perhaps a more useful way to view the media is in terms of "anti" and/or "ratings."
These days the media are driven largely by ratings. With competing 24 hour cable (or dish) news outlets, not to mention the seemingly limitless internet access, the stations need to actively attract viewers (and, of course, the larger the number of viewers [ratings] the larger the advertising revenues). Keep in mind that news stations must make a profit (or at least try to), unlike the "public service" loss leaders they used to be. Logically, it follows that to wean viewers from other stations or other activities, they must be noticeable, different, and yes, entertaining.
How best to do this? Controversial, in your face, anti-opinions have become the market leader. The actual news value is largely secondary. Who gets the most press? Clearly it's the ones that speak the loudest, show the greatest degree of self-importance (generally referred by themselves as self-confidence), and "entertain" us. It's actually hard to tell sometimes if some of these news entertainers actually believe most of what they say, or if they are merely playing a role to maximize ratings, profits, and (largely ghost-written) book sales. Traditionally the "anti" attacks have been against whoever currently is in power in the Congress, Administration, or any other highly visible authority figure. Add to this the obvious "incompetence" attributable to anyone that is so politically inept as to not avoid controversy. Take the media attack on the federal government after Katrina. While much of the criticism was well deserved, an unbiased report would have reached the obvious conclusion - that we all are guilty of poor planning for potential future events...that we all tend to deal with the crisis of the moment (aka the squeaky wheel)...that we all are unprepared for those events that are infrequent, unpredictable (at least in timing, if not occurrence), and yet catastrophic if they do occur. Stuff happens. Clearly we shouldn't ignore the deficiencies when things go wrong. But perhaps the media could spend a little more time dealing with the issues so we could learn from our mistakes rather than focusing solely on the sensationalism of attacking whomever is ripe for blaming. In other words, focus on objective information and analysis rather than theater.
Of course, all of this would require fundamental changes in how we view the media. Because these organizations, like all businesses, must make a profit to stay viable (and on the air), they must continue to get sufficient ratings to garner sufficient revenues. Without change it would seem we are stuck with what we have wrought - and to be clear, the "we" is "us" (the viewing public) that hath wrought this. We show preference to the sensational which begets more sensationalism, which begets more "anti" and more theater and more bias (in both directions) because this provides the greatest entertainment value. Perhaps some day we'll demand thoughtful analysis and accurate portrayal of the information by the media. Perhaps we'll care enough to demand, and reward, honesty and integrity in our public servants. Perhaps. But while we all have the video game mentality it isn't likely.
I would suggest that perhaps a more useful way to view the media is in terms of "anti" and/or "ratings."
These days the media are driven largely by ratings. With competing 24 hour cable (or dish) news outlets, not to mention the seemingly limitless internet access, the stations need to actively attract viewers (and, of course, the larger the number of viewers [ratings] the larger the advertising revenues). Keep in mind that news stations must make a profit (or at least try to), unlike the "public service" loss leaders they used to be. Logically, it follows that to wean viewers from other stations or other activities, they must be noticeable, different, and yes, entertaining.
How best to do this? Controversial, in your face, anti-opinions have become the market leader. The actual news value is largely secondary. Who gets the most press? Clearly it's the ones that speak the loudest, show the greatest degree of self-importance (generally referred by themselves as self-confidence), and "entertain" us. It's actually hard to tell sometimes if some of these news entertainers actually believe most of what they say, or if they are merely playing a role to maximize ratings, profits, and (largely ghost-written) book sales. Traditionally the "anti" attacks have been against whoever currently is in power in the Congress, Administration, or any other highly visible authority figure. Add to this the obvious "incompetence" attributable to anyone that is so politically inept as to not avoid controversy. Take the media attack on the federal government after Katrina. While much of the criticism was well deserved, an unbiased report would have reached the obvious conclusion - that we all are guilty of poor planning for potential future events...that we all tend to deal with the crisis of the moment (aka the squeaky wheel)...that we all are unprepared for those events that are infrequent, unpredictable (at least in timing, if not occurrence), and yet catastrophic if they do occur. Stuff happens. Clearly we shouldn't ignore the deficiencies when things go wrong. But perhaps the media could spend a little more time dealing with the issues so we could learn from our mistakes rather than focusing solely on the sensationalism of attacking whomever is ripe for blaming. In other words, focus on objective information and analysis rather than theater.
Of course, all of this would require fundamental changes in how we view the media. Because these organizations, like all businesses, must make a profit to stay viable (and on the air), they must continue to get sufficient ratings to garner sufficient revenues. Without change it would seem we are stuck with what we have wrought - and to be clear, the "we" is "us" (the viewing public) that hath wrought this. We show preference to the sensational which begets more sensationalism, which begets more "anti" and more theater and more bias (in both directions) because this provides the greatest entertainment value. Perhaps some day we'll demand thoughtful analysis and accurate portrayal of the information by the media. Perhaps we'll care enough to demand, and reward, honesty and integrity in our public servants. Perhaps. But while we all have the video game mentality it isn't likely.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Recasting our framework...leadership in a changing world
I actually wrote this last August, prior to the November 2006 elections and have edited it only slightly to bring it to date. It's rather a long post, so bear with me as it begins to set a theme for the future. Let me know what you think.
Recasting our framework...leadership in a changing world
We have a severe lack of leadership in this country. We seem to lack the understanding that it's not always all about us. It's not us vs them. It's about mutual benefit...or at least mutual tolerance. Win/Win. Remember. Talk of "victory in Iraq" and "winning the war on terror" is counterproductive because it means we win and they lose. But who are they? This is not about killing all the terrorists, which of course cannot ever happen. One cliche is largely true...it's about reviving the hearts, minds, and spirit of the people...both here in the US and in all countries of the world. We cannot impose our beliefs on everyone. Democracy is by defiition not something a government can impose on its people; it's what the people impose on the government. We certainly cannot impose our democracy on other countries. To attempt to do so clearly communicates to them that we think we're better than they are...that we are the crusaders come to impose our righteousness on them (sound familiar). It just cannot be done. Instead we should be leading the way to show the people of all countries what they have to gain from using their voices, as opposed to their guns. Show them what can be accomplished when you focus on working together for mutual benefit rather than the poverty and destruction of continued armed terrorism. Terrorism is self-sustaining...terrorists lose their cause and instead become their own cause. We need to empower the people to take back their cause, their paths forward, their control of their lives so they don't rely on the terrorists to try to do it for them. This will take leadership on our part...and on the part of the governments in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and most certainly in the UN. Will it be difficult? Yes. Are governments corrupt? Yes. Must we have integrity? Yes. Will we be universally successful? No. But it must be done. Using coercion via superior weaponry has got us to the point where trust in the US is so low that Iran has actually become a leading influencer of events.
But the same is happening here in domestic policy. After 40 years of Democratic control of congress, and constant complaints by Republicans that the Democrats were abusing their power...the Republicans took that abuse to new heights (lows?) once they got control and the Democrats complain. The current administration and the now ousted Republican Congress seems to think that they have the "moral authority" to impose their holier than thou views on the country (lest they forget the closeness of the last two presidential elections). Republicans in power felt that they could dictate what we all must think and do...because they know what's right. But what happened to governing for all of the people...not just the ones that agree with you or that you favor? So what of the Democrats? As the minority party in congress they by definition had less power to decide things than the majority. But that doesn't mean they couldn't stand up for the others (defined as those not favored by the majority). Now that the Democrat have back control of both houses of congress, will they revert to the us vs them approaches that both parties succumbed to whenever in power, or will they finally learn the lessons of history. Again, congress is elected to govern for its constituents, which is us. Which brings me to the next level of lack of leadership - us! We, the people, as our founders so elequently put it. Why have so many of us become so partisan? Why is it an us vs them mentality? Why do so many of us vote based on one narrow issue that we don't even bother to fully understand rather than insist that our representatives tell us the truth and give us the information we need to make informed decisions. We have the responsibility to elect representatives that will address the important issues of our time. Yet, we reelect the same people year after year in large part because we know their names and don't even care what they do. Witness the amount of pandering that has been going on the last few months (and years) by congress trying to get reelected. It's embarrassing, but then so is the fact that we let it work on us. Votes are transparently designed to appease/inflame one special interest or another, rather than working through the difficult issues that will have long-term impact on our economy, our national security, and our leadership role in the world.
One note of warning. Look at Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, others and their activities regarding nuclear weapons. Look at the massive economic expansion (and impact on natural resources) of China. Look at the resurgence of the "Soviet" mindset of Vladimir Putin. Look at the complete ineffectiveness of the UN. Look at US. The US has completely lost any leadership, influence, credibility in the world. We may be the only superpower (for now at least, as China will be soon), but instead of leading the world we decided to try to impose our will on it...and forgot that while Gulliver was much bigger than the Lilliputians, there were far more of them and when banded together they were able to overpower giants. The world sees the morass of Iraq, the lack of ability to do anything substantive with such obvious world threats as Iran and North Korea, the continued freedom of Zawahiri and bin Laden, and the look the other way attitude toward "friendly" dictators...and they treat us like the buffoons that our president appears to be (don't worry, both members of both parties fit into this category with their partisan gamesmanship). Perhaps we, the people, need to be smarter in selecting our representatives. Pick them on their intellect and, most importantly, their ability to carve decisions out of different viewpoints, rather than on whether they think they are more "moral" than the other guys.
Recasting our framework...leadership in a changing world
We have a severe lack of leadership in this country. We seem to lack the understanding that it's not always all about us. It's not us vs them. It's about mutual benefit...or at least mutual tolerance. Win/Win. Remember. Talk of "victory in Iraq" and "winning the war on terror" is counterproductive because it means we win and they lose. But who are they? This is not about killing all the terrorists, which of course cannot ever happen. One cliche is largely true...it's about reviving the hearts, minds, and spirit of the people...both here in the US and in all countries of the world. We cannot impose our beliefs on everyone. Democracy is by defiition not something a government can impose on its people; it's what the people impose on the government. We certainly cannot impose our democracy on other countries. To attempt to do so clearly communicates to them that we think we're better than they are...that we are the crusaders come to impose our righteousness on them (sound familiar). It just cannot be done. Instead we should be leading the way to show the people of all countries what they have to gain from using their voices, as opposed to their guns. Show them what can be accomplished when you focus on working together for mutual benefit rather than the poverty and destruction of continued armed terrorism. Terrorism is self-sustaining...terrorists lose their cause and instead become their own cause. We need to empower the people to take back their cause, their paths forward, their control of their lives so they don't rely on the terrorists to try to do it for them. This will take leadership on our part...and on the part of the governments in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and most certainly in the UN. Will it be difficult? Yes. Are governments corrupt? Yes. Must we have integrity? Yes. Will we be universally successful? No. But it must be done. Using coercion via superior weaponry has got us to the point where trust in the US is so low that Iran has actually become a leading influencer of events.
But the same is happening here in domestic policy. After 40 years of Democratic control of congress, and constant complaints by Republicans that the Democrats were abusing their power...the Republicans took that abuse to new heights (lows?) once they got control and the Democrats complain. The current administration and the now ousted Republican Congress seems to think that they have the "moral authority" to impose their holier than thou views on the country (lest they forget the closeness of the last two presidential elections). Republicans in power felt that they could dictate what we all must think and do...because they know what's right. But what happened to governing for all of the people...not just the ones that agree with you or that you favor? So what of the Democrats? As the minority party in congress they by definition had less power to decide things than the majority. But that doesn't mean they couldn't stand up for the others (defined as those not favored by the majority). Now that the Democrat have back control of both houses of congress, will they revert to the us vs them approaches that both parties succumbed to whenever in power, or will they finally learn the lessons of history. Again, congress is elected to govern for its constituents, which is us. Which brings me to the next level of lack of leadership - us! We, the people, as our founders so elequently put it. Why have so many of us become so partisan? Why is it an us vs them mentality? Why do so many of us vote based on one narrow issue that we don't even bother to fully understand rather than insist that our representatives tell us the truth and give us the information we need to make informed decisions. We have the responsibility to elect representatives that will address the important issues of our time. Yet, we reelect the same people year after year in large part because we know their names and don't even care what they do. Witness the amount of pandering that has been going on the last few months (and years) by congress trying to get reelected. It's embarrassing, but then so is the fact that we let it work on us. Votes are transparently designed to appease/inflame one special interest or another, rather than working through the difficult issues that will have long-term impact on our economy, our national security, and our leadership role in the world.
One note of warning. Look at Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, others and their activities regarding nuclear weapons. Look at the massive economic expansion (and impact on natural resources) of China. Look at the resurgence of the "Soviet" mindset of Vladimir Putin. Look at the complete ineffectiveness of the UN. Look at US. The US has completely lost any leadership, influence, credibility in the world. We may be the only superpower (for now at least, as China will be soon), but instead of leading the world we decided to try to impose our will on it...and forgot that while Gulliver was much bigger than the Lilliputians, there were far more of them and when banded together they were able to overpower giants. The world sees the morass of Iraq, the lack of ability to do anything substantive with such obvious world threats as Iran and North Korea, the continued freedom of Zawahiri and bin Laden, and the look the other way attitude toward "friendly" dictators...and they treat us like the buffoons that our president appears to be (don't worry, both members of both parties fit into this category with their partisan gamesmanship). Perhaps we, the people, need to be smarter in selecting our representatives. Pick them on their intellect and, most importantly, their ability to carve decisions out of different viewpoints, rather than on whether they think they are more "moral" than the other guys.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Beginning
Dake starts Blogging...what a concept
An experiment in creativity, opinion, photography, and general thoughts on the key issues of the day (and some not so key).
Let the blogging begin.
An experiment in creativity, opinion, photography, and general thoughts on the key issues of the day (and some not so key).
Let the blogging begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)