The Obama's recent announcement that he now supports a "gay marriage" deserves a few comments.
1. Why Obama does it?
First and foremost, it is not a secret why such a sudden change of his position came now - in order to be re-elected in November Obama has to make maximum effort to distract voters from the economic issues. Recently he tried to tout his assassination of Bin Laden, but the attempt backfired - both due to the absurdity of the assumption that another president would not make a similar decision, as well as because of the strangeness of a Democratic president playing a tough guy, G.W.Bush-style.
2. How Romney should respond?
It would be really interesting to see how Romney responds to this announcement. He will lose a lot, if he picks this culture war fight. In my opinion, acknowledging publicly that the issue is important, but pointing out that the President is merely trying to distract the Americans from the economic problems would be the strongest answer.
3. Should there be "Gay marriage" or... equal rights?
"Gay marriage" is really an absurd combination of words, since it necessarily involves a collision between the civil rights and the religious idea of marriage. The right thing to do would be to separate completely the civil rights granted to long-term couples (homosexual and heterosexual alike) and the religious "marriage", as performed by a priest, rabbi or an imam. This is the way how it is done in many civilized countries. French couples, for example, are quite content saying "We are not married - we are PACSés" - meaning that they prefer not to deal with religious issues. One step further would be to simply acknowledge the rights of the de-facto long-term couples - married or not.
Obama himself is perfectly aware of this, since up till recently he supported the civil unions, but not the marriage. I dare say however, that the President is now more interested in picking a fight with conservative Christians, then he is interested in the human rights.
Update:
It is now unclear what the buzz is about, since Obama has not promised to actually do anything, but only expressed his personal views. A quick internet search will convince you that Obama
i) supported the gay marriage in 1996, when running for the Illinois senate: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
ii) opposed it when running for the US senate in 2004: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but I detest the bashing and vilifying of gays and lesbians."
iii) and again supports it now, in 2012: “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go
ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get
married.”
Showing posts with label 2012 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 election. Show all posts
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Romney's litmus test for intellectuals
The paradox
One of the striking paradoxes of modern democracies is that most people do not choose a candidate/party that would most closely represent their political views! Indeed, more often one simply adopts the positions of the candidate that the one supports.
I could support this thesis with many examples,but none of them would match the absurdity of the presidential campaign that has been unreveling in the US: it so happened that the Republican party is about to nominate a centrist, or perhaps even center-left, candidate (Mitt Romney) to compete with Barack Obama who, despite his class war rhethorics, has borrowed most of his successes from the book of his conservative predecessor (drone war in Pakistan, targeted assassinations, economic stimulus, auto-industry bail-out.)
Etch-a-sketch
For example, here is the criticism of Romney's "etch-a-sketch" changeable political views, aimed at rather educated audience (those with the knowledge of at least quantum mechanics.) Yet, one would think that the intellectual readers who are able to appreciate such an analogy would have worried that their views on Romney match those of some hardcore conservatives. But do they?
Of course, there is nothing new about "etch-a-sketch" (flip-flopping) attitude in politics. In particular, in the US it is a common practice for the candidates to "run to the right/left" during the Republican/Democratic primaries, and then "run towards the center" during the general election. The candidate competing against a sitting president is naturally at disadvantage, since the president usually does not have to compete in his party primaries. This, for example, allowed George Bush campaign to successfully brand his 2004 challenger John Kerry as a "flip-flopper".
Obama himself recently gave an example of this tendency of politicians to put their election campaign above the ideological integrity in his overheard comments to the Russian President.
Ironically, the most memorable example of "etch-a-sketch" comes also from Obama: the statement that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided" has generated a great applouse among the Jewish audience in the 2008 AIPAC conference, but was retracted by Obama immediately after the speech was over.
Comparison
A few points for comparing Mitt Romney and Barack Obama:
1. Obama's signature achievement in domestic policy is his healthcare legislation. This legislation was however modeled after a similar law introduced earlier in Massachusets by Romney. In fact, the two laws were even designed by the same people!
2. As a governor of Massachusets Romney was supportive of pro-choice groups and sexual minority rights. Despite formally abandoning these positions in the primary, he has enjoyed ovewhelming support among the female voters, and has continued to be attacked for his liberal views by other Republican candidates.
3. During the primaries Romney has adopted unusually harsh stance on illegal immigration. However, Obama has a record of merely paying lip-service to immigration reform, while significantly ramping up the number of deportations.
4. Romney's views support for exerting US military power around the world will be matched by the Obama's pride of the "smart" drone war in Packistan, the targeted assassinations of Bin Laden and US citizen Anwar al-Aqlaki, and keeping open the detention camp in Guantanamo - all morally questionably undertakings of the kind which the Democrats has been outraged about since George Bush years.
5. Obama hardly can be blamed for the current economic troubles - he happened to be president at the low of the economic cycle, whsoe downward swing dates back not only to teh Bush presidency, but also to the economic growth bubble of teh Clinton years. Yet, the intellectuals will have hard time explaining why they would rather entrust the US economy to the law professor (Obama) than to the career businessmen (Romney).
One of the striking paradoxes of modern democracies is that most people do not choose a candidate/party that would most closely represent their political views! Indeed, more often one simply adopts the positions of the candidate that the one supports.
I could support this thesis with many examples,but none of them would match the absurdity of the presidential campaign that has been unreveling in the US: it so happened that the Republican party is about to nominate a centrist, or perhaps even center-left, candidate (Mitt Romney) to compete with Barack Obama who, despite his class war rhethorics, has borrowed most of his successes from the book of his conservative predecessor (drone war in Pakistan, targeted assassinations, economic stimulus, auto-industry bail-out.)
Etch-a-sketch
For example, here is the criticism of Romney's "etch-a-sketch" changeable political views, aimed at rather educated audience (those with the knowledge of at least quantum mechanics.) Yet, one would think that the intellectual readers who are able to appreciate such an analogy would have worried that their views on Romney match those of some hardcore conservatives. But do they?
Of course, there is nothing new about "etch-a-sketch" (flip-flopping) attitude in politics. In particular, in the US it is a common practice for the candidates to "run to the right/left" during the Republican/Democratic primaries, and then "run towards the center" during the general election. The candidate competing against a sitting president is naturally at disadvantage, since the president usually does not have to compete in his party primaries. This, for example, allowed George Bush campaign to successfully brand his 2004 challenger John Kerry as a "flip-flopper".
Obama himself recently gave an example of this tendency of politicians to put their election campaign above the ideological integrity in his overheard comments to the Russian President.
Ironically, the most memorable example of "etch-a-sketch" comes also from Obama: the statement that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided" has generated a great applouse among the Jewish audience in the 2008 AIPAC conference, but was retracted by Obama immediately after the speech was over.
Comparison
A few points for comparing Mitt Romney and Barack Obama:
1. Obama's signature achievement in domestic policy is his healthcare legislation. This legislation was however modeled after a similar law introduced earlier in Massachusets by Romney. In fact, the two laws were even designed by the same people!
2. As a governor of Massachusets Romney was supportive of pro-choice groups and sexual minority rights. Despite formally abandoning these positions in the primary, he has enjoyed ovewhelming support among the female voters, and has continued to be attacked for his liberal views by other Republican candidates.
3. During the primaries Romney has adopted unusually harsh stance on illegal immigration. However, Obama has a record of merely paying lip-service to immigration reform, while significantly ramping up the number of deportations.
4. Romney's views support for exerting US military power around the world will be matched by the Obama's pride of the "smart" drone war in Packistan, the targeted assassinations of Bin Laden and US citizen Anwar al-Aqlaki, and keeping open the detention camp in Guantanamo - all morally questionably undertakings of the kind which the Democrats has been outraged about since George Bush years.
5. Obama hardly can be blamed for the current economic troubles - he happened to be president at the low of the economic cycle, whsoe downward swing dates back not only to teh Bush presidency, but also to the economic growth bubble of teh Clinton years. Yet, the intellectuals will have hard time explaining why they would rather entrust the US economy to the law professor (Obama) than to the career businessmen (Romney).
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Why some social movements succeed?
A behind-the-scenes alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
My comments:
1. This is a smart policy on Romney's side, since, as the article correctly notes, Ron Paul's supporters are a significant and loyal group within the Republican electorate.
2. Let's give some credit to Ron Paul - he is willing to engage with those who are more likely to win the presidency, for the sake of achieving his goals. This puts him apart from the typical fringe parties which put their ideological purity above any compromise needed to implement their ideas in practice. This is how democracy works - by compromising interests of different groups.
3. Ron Paul also shows a way for social movements to actually achieve some of their goals. Recently, there have been too much excitement about the spontaneous shows of unity, such as the Arab revolutions, as well as the social movements such as the Tent City and the Occupy Wall St. In the aftermath one recognizes that the failure of these movements to achieve substantial results stems precisely from their lack of leadership and their reluctance to engage in politics. The successful examples are the Tea Party, which influences politics via many low-rank elected representatives in the US Congress, as well as the Libertarian movement, represented by a charismatic high-profile politician, such as Ron Paul.
My comments:
1. This is a smart policy on Romney's side, since, as the article correctly notes, Ron Paul's supporters are a significant and loyal group within the Republican electorate.
2. Let's give some credit to Ron Paul - he is willing to engage with those who are more likely to win the presidency, for the sake of achieving his goals. This puts him apart from the typical fringe parties which put their ideological purity above any compromise needed to implement their ideas in practice. This is how democracy works - by compromising interests of different groups.
3. Ron Paul also shows a way for social movements to actually achieve some of their goals. Recently, there have been too much excitement about the spontaneous shows of unity, such as the Arab revolutions, as well as the social movements such as the Tent City and the Occupy Wall St. In the aftermath one recognizes that the failure of these movements to achieve substantial results stems precisely from their lack of leadership and their reluctance to engage in politics. The successful examples are the Tea Party, which influences politics via many low-rank elected representatives in the US Congress, as well as the Libertarian movement, represented by a charismatic high-profile politician, such as Ron Paul.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Ron Paul under a microscope
A well-respected Washington Post columnist attacks Ron Paul. While Paul is unlikely to win the Republican presidential nomination, the attack is probably motivated by the candidate's high chances of winning the primary in Iowa, which will make him the subject of the media discussions for the next few weeks and may be potentially dangerous for the other candidates (What matters is not only the possibility that Paul wins the nomination, but also reshuffling of the other candidates, depending on how close their numbers in Iowa will be in respect to his.)
I do not support Ron Paul. I do think that many of his positions on foreign policy and economics are extreme, and that the accusations of racism against him are not completely ungrounded. In my opinion, the real problem is not the views of the particular person, but the huge gaps in the Republican political spectrum, which are seriously damaging the political discourse in the United States: the gaps between the ridiculous positions of Paul, those of "social conservatives", represented by Bachman, Perry, Palin, and Santorum, and the moderate-and-therefore-unpopular figures, such as Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman (all three have the records of supporting openly Democratic positions on healthcare, abortion etc.)
I do not support Ron Paul. I do think that many of his positions on foreign policy and economics are extreme, and that the accusations of racism against him are not completely ungrounded. In my opinion, the real problem is not the views of the particular person, but the huge gaps in the Republican political spectrum, which are seriously damaging the political discourse in the United States: the gaps between the ridiculous positions of Paul, those of "social conservatives", represented by Bachman, Perry, Palin, and Santorum, and the moderate-and-therefore-unpopular figures, such as Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman (all three have the records of supporting openly Democratic positions on healthcare, abortion etc.)
Friday, December 30, 2011
The cost of Obama's friendship... ($3)
By making a $3 contribution to the Obama's campaign Americans can enter the lottery, which will choose three of them to dine with the President and his family. There are a couple of paragraphs in this article that I found interesting:
1. The President's letter apparently says:
"We don’t take a dime from D.C. lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- never have and never will. Instead, we believe in the kind of politics that gives everyone a seat at the table -- so we’re literally offering these seats at dinner to folks who are willing to step forward and be a part of it."
A report by the Washington Post however provides a different picture of the reality:
"Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data."
2. Here is an interesting accounting trick:
"Now click the line that reads, “Chip in $3 or whatever you can today -- and you’ll automatically be entered to be one of our dinner guests.” You’ll immediately be entered into the real dynamics of campaign contributions. They’re no longer talking $3 contributions. They are now talking $5,000 contributions. Yes, I know, you thought that $2,500 was the maximum you could give. But, you see, there are two stages to the Obama campaign: the primary elections and the general elections. What primary elections? you ask. Well, that’s the neatness of the trick. Obama won’t spend a dime on the primaries anywhere. Still, you can give $2,500 twice."
1. The President's letter apparently says:
"We don’t take a dime from D.C. lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- never have and never will. Instead, we believe in the kind of politics that gives everyone a seat at the table -- so we’re literally offering these seats at dinner to folks who are willing to step forward and be a part of it."
A report by the Washington Post however provides a different picture of the reality:
"Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data."
2. Here is an interesting accounting trick:
"Now click the line that reads, “Chip in $3 or whatever you can today -- and you’ll automatically be entered to be one of our dinner guests.” You’ll immediately be entered into the real dynamics of campaign contributions. They’re no longer talking $3 contributions. They are now talking $5,000 contributions. Yes, I know, you thought that $2,500 was the maximum you could give. But, you see, there are two stages to the Obama campaign: the primary elections and the general elections. What primary elections? you ask. Well, that’s the neatness of the trick. Obama won’t spend a dime on the primaries anywhere. Still, you can give $2,500 twice."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)