Clinton v. Obama:
The lead story in today's New York Times addresses last night's debate between the two Democratic candidates. The upshot of the story and the debate is that it probably did neither of them little good. The truth about debates is that you can win them and still lose an election, as Nixon did in 1960, when historians generally agree the vice-president one three of four against John Kennedy, and as Carter did against Reagan in 1980, when the president clearly outmatched his Republican rival time after time, only to be swamped in the general election.
When it comes down to it, Clinton's strongest assets are 1) the loyalty of women, 2) the wishful thinking of some men that a woman ought to be given a chance after all this time, and 3) the nostalgia that American's have for the 1990s. Her greatest detractions are her husband and the general belief by many men and women that all women, like all politicians, are deceivers.
Obama's strongest asset is that he is black. His greatest detraction is that he is black.
None of this has anything to do with how well either of them might govern, which would be considerably better than the current administration—undoubtedly the worst administration in living memory.
The real consideration here is that neither of these candidates chase off voters from the fall election. In order for the Democrats to win the White House, they will need to win by a convincing margin. We've all seen what happens in close elections. And John McCain has clearly demonstrated that he is willing to sell his soul to whomever in order to gain residence to the ivory manse.
China v. Tibet (and the West):
The New York Times continues to address the issue today. Perhaps the most telling statement is that "many Chinese recall the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in Tibet during the 1950s and interpret Western sympathy for the current protests as another foreign effort to destabilize and divide China." Before the communist revolution, if you were Chinese and wanted to ride a train, you had to pay a foreign country for the right to do so; if you wanted to mail a letter, you had to pay a foreign country in order to have it delivered. It was the west who brought opium to China because there was so little that the west had that the Chinese wanted and the west was desperate to trade with China. The Boxer Rebellion of 1905 was as much about driving the west's opium trade out of China as anything else.
In addition, many in the west have forgotten that China and India have fought wars since the end of World War II. Tibet is a buffer state for China, just as eastern Europe served as buffer states for Russia during the Cold War. Couple this with the fact that the Chinese view the Tibetans as backwards and lazy people, willing to be exploited by superstition, and you have a situation that will be extremely difficult to negotiate.
Put more succinctly: On the one hand we have a culture that admonishes its people that ambition is the greatest evil versus another that places its highest value on ambition.
In Tibet, you rise to the highest level because a group of monks, through mysticism, declares that you, from birth possess the soul of some past leader. In China you rise to leadership through the expression of your ambition, your drive, your self interest.
The Tibetan way may severely inhibit progress, but we have seen what unchecked ambition leads to: unjustified wars, genocide, slavery.
Five years ago, the great man said, "You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it will take time to restore chaos and order—order out of chaos. But we will." — George W. Bush, Washington, D. C., April 2003. (We're still waiting, George. Maybe in a hundred years?)
The lead story in today's New York Times addresses last night's debate between the two Democratic candidates. The upshot of the story and the debate is that it probably did neither of them little good. The truth about debates is that you can win them and still lose an election, as Nixon did in 1960, when historians generally agree the vice-president one three of four against John Kennedy, and as Carter did against Reagan in 1980, when the president clearly outmatched his Republican rival time after time, only to be swamped in the general election.
When it comes down to it, Clinton's strongest assets are 1) the loyalty of women, 2) the wishful thinking of some men that a woman ought to be given a chance after all this time, and 3) the nostalgia that American's have for the 1990s. Her greatest detractions are her husband and the general belief by many men and women that all women, like all politicians, are deceivers.
Obama's strongest asset is that he is black. His greatest detraction is that he is black.
None of this has anything to do with how well either of them might govern, which would be considerably better than the current administration—undoubtedly the worst administration in living memory.
The real consideration here is that neither of these candidates chase off voters from the fall election. In order for the Democrats to win the White House, they will need to win by a convincing margin. We've all seen what happens in close elections. And John McCain has clearly demonstrated that he is willing to sell his soul to whomever in order to gain residence to the ivory manse.
China v. Tibet (and the West):
The New York Times continues to address the issue today. Perhaps the most telling statement is that "many Chinese recall the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in Tibet during the 1950s and interpret Western sympathy for the current protests as another foreign effort to destabilize and divide China." Before the communist revolution, if you were Chinese and wanted to ride a train, you had to pay a foreign country for the right to do so; if you wanted to mail a letter, you had to pay a foreign country in order to have it delivered. It was the west who brought opium to China because there was so little that the west had that the Chinese wanted and the west was desperate to trade with China. The Boxer Rebellion of 1905 was as much about driving the west's opium trade out of China as anything else.
In addition, many in the west have forgotten that China and India have fought wars since the end of World War II. Tibet is a buffer state for China, just as eastern Europe served as buffer states for Russia during the Cold War. Couple this with the fact that the Chinese view the Tibetans as backwards and lazy people, willing to be exploited by superstition, and you have a situation that will be extremely difficult to negotiate.
Put more succinctly: On the one hand we have a culture that admonishes its people that ambition is the greatest evil versus another that places its highest value on ambition.
In Tibet, you rise to the highest level because a group of monks, through mysticism, declares that you, from birth possess the soul of some past leader. In China you rise to leadership through the expression of your ambition, your drive, your self interest.
The Tibetan way may severely inhibit progress, but we have seen what unchecked ambition leads to: unjustified wars, genocide, slavery.
Five years ago, the great man said, "You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it will take time to restore chaos and order—order out of chaos. But we will." — George W. Bush, Washington, D. C., April 2003. (We're still waiting, George. Maybe in a hundred years?)
Labels: Politics
posted by Jim | 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home