25 posts tagged “politics”
Barack Obama gave an excellent speech today on the race issue in the fight for the Presidential nomination. I started reading the transcript, and although it ran to seven pages felt compelled to read it all. It was a thoughtful, honest, and -- yes -- inspiring speech that addressed in very frank terms the racial divide that still permeates this country. What is most impressive is that he did so without condescension, without flinching from difficult subject matter, and without attempting to simplify what is a very complex issue.
The speech reminded me a lot of Kevin Rudd's address to Parliament earlier this year apologising to the Stolen Generation, in the sense that it tried to be bigger than the pettiness and cynicism that typifies the current state of the debate, in order to bring the country forward with solutions rather than go through an exercise of apportioning blame and recriminations. Unfortunately, there are still those who can only see the fact that Obama has refused demands to leave his church (for those who haven't kept up with the latest mini-scandal, Obama's former pastor is all over YouTube with footage of him damning America and calling it for example the USKKKA).
Visit Barack Obama's website yourself to check out the speech.
I'm a bit late to the party, but I've just watched on YouTube Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generations. I think it's the first time I've been inspired by our politicians for a long time, that someone has shown true leadership for the nation and moved us forward in indigenous relations, an area that Australia has really been lacking. It corrects the contradiction that we promote as very Australian the notion of a "fair go", but we weren't big enough as a nation to acknowledge that Aborigines receive anything but, and that such a simple symbolic gesture as saying "sorry" seemed too difficult... until now :).
Kudos to Kevin Rudd, under whose Prime Ministership it seems like we've become a lot more forward-looking and optimistic (in spite of our economic woes). Let's hope that there will be substance to the symbolism in the coming three years!
Wow it's been awhile since I've posted so the ten-second summary of what's been going on:
- Saw Tim Finn live at the Triple Door with Milly and her boyfriend Sean; great gig even though we were probably the youngest people there by at least 10 years! Triple Door seems like a great venue though -- it's a dinner theatre but aimed more at music shows. And the food (think pan-Asian with a Thai emphasis) was actually pretty good.
- Welcomed Lost back to the small screen at Phil's place, even though ABC misleadingly advertised it as a 2-hour episode when the first hour was just recap!
- Been busy at work getting to code complete this week (even though much of the code had been done, and now it was just a matter of sorting out deployment issues).
- And just now came back from a fantastic late late lunch with Hyejin at Tamarind, a Vietnamese restaurant in the International District that you would never know existed because it's set back from the street. The decor was very upscale, but the prices characteristically were not. We had huge bun cha on a platter, some of their special Tamarind Salad Rolls (think rice paper rolls with walnut and thin sticks of rolled-up deep-fried rice paper sheets as well as the usual assortment of lettuce and rice noodle) and another platter of eggy cake thingy whose name I've forgotten but was also delicious. Did I mention this all cost $15/per person after tax and tip???
I guess the Democratic race is now down to two, Hillary vs. Barack, and so either way we're going to have some history being made there. The media has decided on the narrative already -- black vs. white, or black vs. female. In some ways I feel sorry for Clinton, who is eminently qualified and has been patient earning her stripes in the Senate, and was always the assumed nominee. Now Obama has fired up the base as a symbol rather than a candidate which may be enough to get him through.
As for the Republicans, it looks like it is now McCain's to lose -- a very John Howard-esque Lazarus with a triple bypass. America is not ready for a CEO as President of USA Inc. They would rather stick with the war hero even if his policies may not align with a significant proportion of the Republican base -- something the base reconciles by acknowledging that it is only McCain who could beat Clinton or Obama when the real election comes and wider America gets to vote.
Now it's onto Super Tuesday (or Woozy Tuesday as I've also seen it referred to as). The results should tell us with a high degree of certainty who the nominees will be... then the real mud-slinging can begin! Hooray for politics American-style!
Well I mgiht as well return to one of my favourite topics: politics. And given that the first primary of the election year finally took place today I might as well blog about that.
So it seems that Huckabee and Obama got up today for the Republicans and Democrats, respectively, and by decisive margins. I think I'll reserve for another day my observations of the Democrat candidates, seeing as how I've blogged about them here and there before, except to say that the Hopemonger proved the cynics (including myself) wrong and romped home to victory. I did think that Edwards would perform slightly better than he did, but that's a blog post for another day.
On the Republican side, I'm not terribly surprised by the Huckabee victory. Given that it's Iowa we're talking about, a rural state with conservative sensibilities, was Mormon Romney (no matter how qualified) seriously going to romp home with the nomination? When someone like McCain who didn't even bother campaigning hard in Iowa can get equal third shows how iffy that state is about the candidates they had to choose from. I watched Huckabee on Meet the Press recently, and in spite of the fact that I oppose 90% of his policy positions (if not more), it's hard to dislike the man. He's affable, can crack a joke, speaks well and is non-threatening. He is probably the embodiment of the compassionate conservative Dubya claimed to be but fell far short of. If anyone is going to bring out the evangelical vote, Huckabee is it. Whether his actual policies are friendly enough to the Reaganista crowd to appeal to the Republicans who have silently been disappointed by Bush 43 is another story.
One thing I find funny, and I'm not the first person to comment on this, is the relative unsophistication of American election commentary. Where we have virtuoso psephologists like Antony Green and Malcolm McKerras studying marginal electorates and analysing swings and pendulums, American elections are typically just about this day's poll, or red states vs blue states, simplifications that make for easier digestion rather than any kind of serious analysis. On the other hand, the American system is simplified greatly by first-past-the-post voting, not to mention that voting is not compulsory in the first place!
The other thing that strikes me about American Presidential campaigns is the heavy emphasis on such intangibles as "character", "likeability", and "strength". I doubt America would elect a technocrat like Kevin Rudd to the Presidency, in spite of how "presidential" the most recent campaign seemed to be. Certainly, if Bush 43 is any guide, having the qualifications and intellect to run the most powerful country in the world are not prerequisites. Policies seem to run secondary, and are presented at the broadest brushstroke level without the level of detail and scrutiny we saw in the Australian election. And the differences are usually fairly stark, and fairly constant too. Where Kevin was accused of playing me-too with John Howard, here it's a few fairly simple positions that are prominent for each side:
Democrats: pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare, pro-gay rights, anti-Iraq war.
Republicans: pro-life, anti-government intervention on healthcare, anti-gay, pro-Iraq war, pro-gun.
Notice that I didn't mention anti-gun on the Democrat side of the ledger. Doubtless pretty much all the Democrat candidates actually are pro-gun control, but no one has said anything of significance for fear of putting offside the hick vote.
Another thing that hasn't gotten much of a guernsey here: the environment. Both sides haven't been rushing headlong to ratify Kyoto. No one even speaks of it, even as concern for the environment at the grassroots level here is impressively high. Nationally though, it's being presented as an economic issue, and mainly in the context of oil and energy security. Develop alternative energy sources within the US, whether it's biofuels or wind or solar or whatever else (so the story goes), and fewer American dollars end up in Middle Eastern countries who can both hold the US to ransom through higher oil prices, and state-sponsor terrorism.
I'm getting Satellite TV hooked up on Saturday, so hopefully I can get my political junkie fix soon. In the meantime, I'll simply have to enjoy wading through reams and reams of endless mindless analysis online saying the same old junk about this primary when in reality we've got 49 more states to go and a long long year ahead...
Well I mgiht as well return to one of my favourite topics: politics. And given that the first primary of the election year finally took place today I might as well blog about that.
So it seems that Huckabee and Obama got up today for the Republicans and Democrats, respectively, and by decisive margins. I think I'll reserve for another day my observations of the Democrat candidates, seeing as how I've blogged about them here and there before, except to say that the Hopemonger proved the cynics (including myself) wrong and romped home to victory. I did think that Edwards would perform slightly better than he did, but that's a blog post for another day.
On the Republican side, I'm not terribly surprised by the Huckabee victory. Given that it's Iowa we're talking about, a rural state with conservative sensibilities, was Mormon Romney (no matter how qualified) seriously going to romp home with the nomination? When someone like McCain who didn't even bother campaigning hard in Iowa can get equal third shows how iffy that state is about the candidates they had to choose from. I watched Huckabee on Meet the Press recently, and in spite of the fact that I oppose 90% of his policy positions (if not more), it's hard to dislike the man. He's affable, can crack a joke, speaks well and is non-threatening. He is probably the embodiment of the compassionate conservative Dubya claimed to be but fell far short of. If anyone is going to bring out the evangelical vote, Huckabee is it. Whether his actual policies are friendly enough to the Reaganista crowd to appeal to the Republicans who have silently been disappointed by Bush 43 is another story.
One thing I find funny, and I'm not the first person to comment on this, is the relative unsophistication of American election commentary. Where we have virtuoso psephologists like Antony Green and Malcolm McKerras studying marginal electorates and analysing swings and pendulums, American elections are typically just about this day's poll, or red states vs blue states, simplifications that make for easier digestion rather than any kind of serious analysis. On the other hand, the American system is simplified greatly by first-past-the-post voting, not to mention that voting is not compulsory in the first place!
The other thing that strikes me about American Presidential campaigns is the heavy emphasis on such intangibles as "character", "likeability", and "strength". I doubt America would elect a technocrat like Kevin Rudd to the Presidency, in spite of how "presidential" the most recent campaign seemed to be. Certainly, if Bush 43 is any guide, having the qualifications and intellect to run the most powerful country in the world are not prerequisites. Policies seem to run secondary, and are presented at the broadest brushstroke level without the level of detail and scrutiny we saw in the Australian election. And the differences are usually fairly stark, and fairly constant too. Where Kevin was accused of playing me-too with John Howard, here it's a few fairly simple positions that are prominent for each side:
Democrats: pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare, pro-gay rights, anti-Iraq war.
Republicans: pro-life, anti-government intervention on healthcare, anti-gay, pro-Iraq war, pro-gun.
Notice that I didn't mention anti-gun on the Democrat side of the ledger. Doubtless pretty much all the Democrat candidates actually are pro-gun control, but no one has said anything of significance for fear of putting offside the hick vote.
Another thing that hasn't gotten much of a guernsey here: the environment. Both sides haven't been rushing headlong to ratify Kyoto. No one even speaks of it, even as concern for the environment at the grassroots level here is impressively high. Nationally though, it's being presented as an economic issue, and mainly in the context of oil and energy security. Develop alternative energy sources within the US, whether it's biofuels or wind or solar or whatever else (so the story goes), and fewer American dollars end up in Middle Eastern countries who can both hold the US to ransom through higher oil prices, and state-sponsor terrorism.
I'm getting Satellite TV hooked up on Saturday, so hopefully I can get my political junkie fix soon. In the meantime, I'll simply have to enjoy wading through reams and reams of endless mindless analysis online saying the same old junk about this primary when in reality we've got 49 more states to go and a long long year ahead...
You would have to have been under a rock not to have heard or read about the news of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who had recently returned from exile for a chance to reclaim the job. It brings into stark relief the peacefulness with which Australia and the US conduct their politics, especially in this season of madness with the Iowa primaries just around the corner. It also points to the precariousness with which some peoples of the world must conduct their daily lives. Some colleagues of mine are from Pakistan, and while it may be intellectual grist to discuss the politics of another country in the abstract, it becomes far less so when it is people you know who are directly affected by such events.
The jury is still out on who or which group was responsible, so there is plenty of news coverage still to be had. However, if you want to have a look at the somewhat more human side of it, I recommend this photo essay from the New York Times website.
Thanks to the magic of the Internet, I'm currently watching the ABC's election coverage live early Saturday morning Seattle time. My adherence to superstition by not declaring victory early has paid off. Now I feel it's safe for me to finally say that Australia has decided: welcome to a Rudd government, and welcome back to the fundamental values that I always felt Australia represented, but which were repressed and eroded over the past 11 years -- a belief in the fair go, and a progressive, forward-looking and unselfish nation.
Now that victory is sealed, one wonders what will become of the Howard legacy -- the man who stayed too long, the man whose reputation among his followers was built more on winning elections rather than any core principles or vision that one could speak of. The gravy will be if Maxine McKew can pull off a stunning upset and dislodge a sitting PM in only the second time in Australian history.
As some commentators have pointed out, people in my age range have never known a federal government that didn't have John Howard at the helm. I regret I couldn't be in Australia for this moment, it's always an exciting thing to be a part of change -- not quite the Berlin Wall coming down, but certainly a turning point for my country that will hopefully result in a return to balance after lurching too far to the right.
What an incredible state of affairs: a PM and a treasurer from Queensland, my home state; for the first time a woman deputy PM in Julia Gillard; the prospect of the sitting PM losing his seat; and not a single Liberal government in power anywhere in Australia. Now for a perverse bit of schadenfreude: is Costello going to be elected Opposition leader unopposed once the dust has settled?
Tim Dunlop gives a nice summary (albeit a lengthy one) of why the Coalition needs to be kicked out:
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/voting_for_change1/
Exactly what I wish I could say, but have neither the time nor the talent to express quite so well :).
Well it's hard to believe it's the final week of this interminable campaign (which admittedly has not been as long and protracted as the current American Presidential one). Jason Koutsoukis of The Age gives a nice summary of the disasters that have befallen the Liberal Party (oops sorry the Coalition) in their losing battle to cling onto power. This is not to say that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, but you'd be a brave man to bet on the incumbents right now.
While I'm basing my vibes on what I read in the online versions of the print papers and the excellent vidcasts courtesy of the ABC, my impressions of Howard have been of a hectoring old man whose main appeal to the Australian people is "don't trust the other mob", which directly plays into the hands of Rudd's lines about Howard not having any fresh ideas for the future. Instead, he resorts to negativity and scaremongering.
What's worse is, what policies they have released add further vindication to the "no new ideas" and "stale government" line -- more tax cuts and more (non-means-tested) handouts. It must seem like a gross injustice to the Coalition in that "more of the same" ought to be a good thing, since that means we should be expecting continued economic prosperity and rising wealth. And yet Australians on the whole (based on the polls) don't seem to be buying it anymore, and certainly not on the back of consecutive interest rate rises.
Perhaps voters can finally see through the fact that tax cuts and handouts are byproducts of prosperity, but the more this largess gets distributed back to them, the more it's likely to simply push up prices for non-productive assets like real estate and essentials like education fees thus cancelling out any benefit they might have seen in the first place.
The greatest irony of the campaign has been the one-two sucker punch the Government delivered to themselves in relation to containing inflation and therefore interest rates. Howard likes to claim that the industrial relations reform no one except big business wanted, WorkChoices, has contained wages growth, thereby placing downward pressure on inflation and hence interest rates. But try explaining to punters how receiving _less_ money in your pay packet only to _still_ be paying a rising monthly mortgage bill is a good thing... How's that for out of touch?
...before the pork-barrelling gets any more blatant?
I haven't posted in awhile lately, and much longer again on the Federal election. I have been keeping up though, although I must say the majority of the column inches in the press has been about the polls and who tricked who into saying what rather than focusing on any substantive policy differences (indeed probably because there are few). Here is my summary of the campaign thus far, which should be all you need to know (probably until ballot day if the parties are as predictable as I think they are):
- The only major policy differences are in the areas of industrial relations and WorkChoices, and climate change. The Coalition will keep WorkChoices, the ALP will scrap it. The ALP will sign Kyoto, the Coalition will not, while still claiming that Australia leads the world on climate change action anyway.
- The Democrats are as good as gone, and the Greens have been marginalised.
- John Howard claims Kevin Rudd is without substance and cannot be trusted.
- Kevin Rudd claims John Howard is out of ideas and cannot be trusted.
- John Howard has attempted to claim credit for good economic management (seemingly manifested by low interest rates), but denies responsibility for interest rate rises (apparently it's everyone else's fault).
- Peter Garrett has been copping it as a sell out.
- Malcolm Turnbull has been copping it as a sell out.
- The left-wig press is salivating at the prospect of John Howard losing his seat.
- Both sides are offering big tax cuts.
- The Coalition is again offering middle-class welfare and handouts to pensioners.
- No one thinks Costello should be leader -- not his party nor the electorate.
- On the other hand the Coalition seems to think offering up Howard+Costello as "old+new" but equally "more of the same" is a winning strategy.
- The ALP seems to think me-tooism and refusing to be wedged is a winning strategy.
- The gallery seems to think the ALP is right.
