Ms. Vanderslice is part of a new wave of younger activists willing to reach across party lines for the causes they advocate. She has, for example, pushed legislation sponsored by a pro-life Democrat and a pro-choice Republican designed to reduce abortions by increasing support for family-planning programs (something Democrats like), and by increasing assistance for women who choose to keep their babies (something Republicans like). That puts her in the vanguard of like-minded activists who are starting to reshape the values debate…
In The Conservative Revival David Brooks explores the lessons the GOP could learn from their conservative colleagues in the UK.
“The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”
That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first. As Oliver Letwin, one of the leading Tory strategists put it: “Politics, once econo-centric, must now become socio-centric.” David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes it clear that his primary focus is sociological. Last year he declared: “The great challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival.” In another speech, he argued: “We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for society.”
This could be as significant as the replacement of communism with capitalism and their realization that “If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em”. What this means to me is that one model of the conservative movement may be evolving from “survival of the fittest” to accepting the aims of liberalism and focusing on the wellbeing of the unfortunate. Party distinctions may become more about tactics: big government solutions or small government solutions rather than about the class war of haves and have nots.
This would be stunningly important political progress to add to abolition of slavery, suffrage, the GI bill, Marshall Plan, Social Security, Medicare…
As the Bush era draws to a close, Europeans are anxious to know what about American policy will change when he’s gone - particularly if a Democratic victory occurs as planned.
“In view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? … All three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force.”
“Clearly, a Democratic victory in November would undoubtedly open the door to a more left-wing America. But it would be a kind of American left, certainly not modeled on Europe. Both candidates have rejected a “single payer” system for health insurance, like the Canadian and European models. The change ahead will not mean the end of the American exception, but the end of American triumphalism.”
LEADING ARTICLE
Translated By Kate Davis
May 8, 2008
France - Challenges - Original Article (French)
All countries are exceptional. But the United States gladly considers itself exceptionally exceptional, different from all other developed countries in its social organization and its fundamental values. The State is less extensive and the distribution of wealth more unequal. The United States is also more strongly committed to what Margaret Thatcher called the “Victorian values:” individualism, voluntarism, patriotism.
Thus the Bush government, which supports conservative values domestically and demonstrates an unlimited self confidence externally, is the most “exceptional” known in recent years. But at the end of Bush’s mandate, isn’t the United States entering a new cycle, characterized by the rejection of conservatism and a convergence with Europe’s standards?
In reality, three quarters of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and for example, vigorously support a system of universal health care. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have promised to address that. They also want to improve their image in the world. The next government will certainly initiate significant reforms, such as closing Guantanamo or adopting a more rigorous environmental policy in order to address some of the country’s more aberrant characteristics.
Yet in view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? John McCain won the nomination of his party despite strong internal opposition. Barack Obama is the leader of an uprising against the Democratic old guard.
All three preach a patriotism specific to the United States. John McCain boasts of his service in Vietnam. Barack Obama claims that there is no red or blue, but only one America united by common values. The three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force. John McCain sings, “Bomb, bomb [bomb, bomb bomb] Iran.”
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.
In his book, Schecter makes the case for why, although he supported McCain in his run in 2000, McCain no longer deserves support and in fact, his candidacy should be fought actively, without hesitation and on all fronts. Schecter outlines his reasons for these sentiments and fills in those reasons with more details than you may be able to absorb. Schecter draws a portrait of both McCain’s political trajectory and the parallel trajectory of how his political choices since 2001 are a thumbing of his nose at the very people who got him to the presidential precipice in the first place.
A couple of disclosures before I offer you my phone interview with Cliff: I’ve never been a McCain supporter. And I haven’t known of Schecter that long either - here’s the first post I ever wrote about Schecter. However, it was fascinating talking to someone with a seemingly vast knowledge base about someone whom I’ve never really studied.
JMZ: You argue on behalf of former McCain supporters who should be able to realize that McCain isn’t what he once was. Who, then, is the alternative and why?
CS: Well. There’s always, “What we have versus what we’d like to have.” I’m an Obama supporter and he has a lot of appeal to Independents. But he hasn’t done it the way McCain did it – by attacking his own party in big speeches. Obama has done it by standing up, not by splitting. Obama talks about rising above partisanship and reaching out to all people on all sides and getting past the muck where politics has gotten so nasty. Obama says, I’m going to talk to you like an adult. And that’s what McCain had called “straight talk” – but he hasn’t given us much of that [this election cycle.] Read the rest of this entry »
While donations to Democrats in general are at record levels, the Democratic National Committee finds itself bringing in less than specific focus entities such as the charismatic presidential candidates, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
I suspect that the average political donor is trying to get their funds as close as possible to the front lines of the political campaigns of individual candidates. If we are not giving to a specific candidate whom we think has a reasonable shot at winning, we are giving to the House and Senator Campaign Committees that may have better information on the optimal use of funds from minute to minute during the hectic campaign season. Personally I give disproportionately to the Senate Campaign committee since to a large extent the Senate is the gatekeeper for the rate of change in Congress and thus government. The fate of all the good intentions of each Presidential candidates is dependent on the relative margin of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. A 60 seat advantage of the Democrats can change our world a lot faster than a 59 seat advantage.
The DNC may be taking in less at this time because a majority of voters have already decided that it is time for the Democrats to manage the levers of government. Donors may not think that more money is needed to convince the public of the obvious.
One must hand it to the Beijing authorities. It takes tremendous gall for a regime that outlaws press freedom or open criticism of any kind, to liken the failure of Western reporters to parrot the Communist Party line to a lapse of journalistic ethics.
Blogs are a convenient outlet for venting outrage. Reading so many I find it hard to spread my passion in so many directions and I often become numb to the steady flow of crisis. Then mainly for my mental health I try to shift focus to ponder constructive responses to our challenges.
I often wonder if the two party system is irretrievably broken and that special interests are so entrenched that pragmatic, open minded, reasonable deliberation and action is no longer possible. I consider the need for a new party with a platform made up of all the policies that are currently mired and diverted.
Then I consider if the members of this new party can actually agree on this new platform. And if they were to miraculously agree could they avoid the seduction of special interests to derail even this new noble attempt at progress? And if they avoided the seduction of money could they also avoid the traps of becoming fragmented, hyper partisan or inflexible?
I am dubious that a new party would be an improvement; and that if it failed it could cause another generation of jaded potential activists, (such was my concern with Unity 08).
And I find myself pondering what seems like a better use of our time and resources: To liberate the integrity, compassion and pragmatism of our politicians, both conservative and liberal, by freeing them from the influence of selfish interests and hyper partisan, inflexible, constituents and donors.
So while I empathize with the urge for a new Party, I believe that it would be far more efficient to focus on the few essential adjustments necessary to make the current system work. And we can do this by focusing on leveling the playing field by reforming Campaign Finance, Redistricting, and Elections. For far less money than it takes to organize and operate a new party we could refine that system we already have.
All it takes would be a few high profile champions like Mayor Bloomberg, the consolidation of most of the existing reform groups into a single focused force, and the creation of a Reform PAC to give us an outlet to turn our outrage into productive change.
What makes America tick? It’s a question that Europeans have been grappling with for centuries.
How does the deep religiosity of Americans exist side by side with the strength of its democratic institutions and such strong adherence to the separation of church and state?
While a strong presence of religiosity is a distinctive feature of American society, the separation of church and state, since the founding of the United States, has been a pillar of progress for democratic institutions as well as an affirmation of religious belief. It was this separation that allowed for the full expression of both, and which, although it may seem paradoxical, was a catalyst for both. As such, it continues to inspire curiosity Read the rest of this entry »
“No one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.”
Etschmayer goes on to say, “As Benedict XVI is a Pope of restoration, when he visits the United States during an election year it symbolizes a policy that is anti-liberal and is a sign of support for the only conservative candidate: John McCain. McCain’s talk of remaining in Iraq for even 10,000 years if need be changes nothing. In the end, the fact is that this Pope by far prefers a Christian theocracy that fights bloody wars over a liberal, non-Christian democracy that avoids conflict.”
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Patrik Etschmayer
April 17, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Original Article (German)
The headlines looked to be rather promising for opponents of Bush: The Pope would give Bush a few verbal slaps in the face, unambiguously criticize him and perhaps the Pontiff would even administer a real beating. But one should not be deluded: Standing on the same foundation, these are two men that think reason and reality should take a back seat to belief in a world as one wishes it to be.
This unity stood out when George W. Bush integrated a core-belief of the Pope into his speech of welcome by stressing that it is important for the nation to heed “the dictatorship of relativism.” Ultimately, this means that both Bush and the Pope stand for an absolute believe in a God that accepts a diversity of faiths only in the sense that there are people left to convert.
It’s perhaps a little ironic then, that the relativism both of these men fight so passionately against exists between themselves, as Bush is a member of a Methodist Church while the Pope is the world’s top Catholic. As far as the Protestants, the Pope has already made his opinion quite clear: When he declared that the Protestant churches were in fact not real churches at all, it triggered considerable consternation among ecumenical [inter-church] organizations.
In this light, the Pope’s criticism of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy is doubly interesting and curious. It’s probably too simplistic to use oil to explain Bush’s drive to invade Iraq. This was certainly a major motivation but there might as well have been the hope of having his “Christian” army plant a flag of victory over the stylized Islamist fanaticism of Saddam Hussein, whose rhetoric certainly contained a religious component. Recall when Bush initially spoke of a crusade, it looked simply as a clumsy choice of words. But who today uses this expression in a military context? It’s quite possible that he actually meant it in a literal sense. A man that continuously stresses doing the Lord’s work will also be drawn into war for his master.
And no one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the Pope’s visit to the United States.
Why is it that Popes don’t usually visit the United States during presidential election years? Lucas Mendez writes for the BBC Brazil, “As neutral as the papal robe is, his messages can and will be used by the candidates … every time Benedict XVI opens his mouth, Democrats and Republicans will interpret and “spin it,” according to their own political ‘gospels’” Read the rest of this entry »
Tomorrow night’s debate in Philadelphia could be the turning point. If he is the masterful politician he seems to be, Barack Obama will seize the moment to rise above the squabbling and bickering to define himself for American voters.
Just as he broadened the Jeremiah Wright brouhaha into a statement about race in America in that same hall, Obama can use his “small town” misstep to address directly the doubts that exist and are being exacerbated about him and re-frame the issue of his trustworthiness.
In response, he can acknowledge understandable skepticism on the part of Americans who were told eight years ago that George W. Bush was a compassionate conservative who would not embark on nation-building, only to get a president with no empathy for their needs, a radical agenda to enrich the richest and a reckless foreign policy that would destroy another nation and squander our blood, treasure and reputation in the world trying to put it back together again.
Voters, Obama can point out, thought they were making a safe choice in selecting a familiar name and reassuring promises from a comforting source. Now they are being asked to give their trust to a dark-skinned man with an odd name and exotic roots who, they are being told, is “elitist” and “out of touch” with them.
But which is the greater gamble at this low point of Americans’ confidence in their future? More of the same or trusting someone whose judgment has thus far turned out to be sound and whose promise of change is not encumbered with a history of business-as-usual in Washington?
Playing it safe, Obama can truthfully tell Americans, is the biggest gamble of all.
April 14th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
First, a disclosure: I am a Catholic who comes from a long line of deeply ethnic old believers. I’ve had my bewilderments with the Church hierarchy, and my critiques and condemnations of some of the actions of some within the hierarchy as well…. but also hold to the deep social teachings from the heart of the Church which share their core with other philosophies and other faiths’ tenets, especially the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, to attempt, as one can, to take on the repair of the world soul.
Catholic social teachings speak against dictatorial power, do not support politics that omit the poor and needy, disapprove the slighting of the preciousness of the life force, turn from the idea that preemptive war is desirable, refuse the idea that humans are to be exploited and used instead of treated with decency, reject that people are to be put to death… and much more. Catholic social principles are hard to live by sometimes, but without them, the belief is the world would be far more vulnerable to becoming a soul-less wasteland.
My father, a tailor from the old country, used to warn that it was suicide to speak of politics and religion in the same breath, that it brought out the scorn-demons on both sides. But, in our time, it cannot be avoided apparently, for the Pope is about to land in the USA to visit only two cities; New York City and Washington D.C., the USA’s pinnacles of politics and politicos…
Too, the Pope is seemingly avoiding the Boston Archdiocese and Los Angeles and Chicago where live mountains of Catholics, but also where the Church hierarchy markedly looked the other way and literally obstructed child victims from justice as they were being sexually predated upon by certain priests in the last place on earth one would ever imagine a child would be unsafe…
Those scars will never be talked away. Not by popes nor apologists. Never.
But, in another turn, already the media’s guesses and analyses are flying about the Pope’s hidden motives and overt intents to meet with pols and those in power here, and to speak at the UN; some will worship without questions, some will demonize without facts. But, many in media will have space to speculate about what the Pope will, won’t, say, what he meant, didn’t mean, what he will support and what he will condemn, whose campaign he will lean more toward supporting–without meaning to.
Some will imagine how the Pope will interfere, admonish, try to corral the free speech and thought of Catholic Universities some of which have, amongst other structures, gay and lesbian sacral groups, and so on.
I’d suggest to look for the humanity in whatever Pope has to say or do, to rest on that wherever, whenever that might occur. Just my two cents’ worth from meeting tens of thousands of people a year when I teach… Far more than admonishments and punishments, the people of the earth are in need of love without academic précis, and fully worthy of unconditional blessing…
for the rhizome, the living life force underground, ever glows and thrives on warmth and light and water, rather than on opprobrium, exile, and scorn.
Although presidential opinion on gambling is unlikely to make or break the industry since it’s primarily a state and local issue, I often hold anomalous positions. So, discovering that Barack Obama, as a liberal candidate for the Democratic nominee does too makes me feel better.
I don’t know how I came across this today and I can’t find the original Los Angeles Times article referenced in numerous other places, but I did find this American Prospect piece that compares Barack Obama’s comments/stance on gambling to Hillary Clinton’s.
According to the Prospect, she’s received nearly three times more money from the gaming industry than Obama but, the Prospect concludes, either candidate will have little impact on gambling.
What is clear is that state and local governments play a much more significant role than Congress and the federal government when it comes to regulating the gaming industry. Clinton and Obama have both indicated they support states’ rights in determining many internal issues. (Every state but Utah and Hawaii has legalized gambling.) The role of the president may be more about setting the tone on this issue than actually pushing legislation through.
Well, the tone of not liking expansion works for me. From the Democratic Underground quoting the LA Times article I can’t find:
When asked by the LA Times on January 18th about the social costs of gambling, Clinton replied, “Any human activity has social costs, really,” she said, adding later: “Life is filled with trade-offs, and you have to do the best you can to balance the pluses and the minuses.”
Mrs. Clinton’s big gaming industry fundraisers include the senior executives of Harrahs, Jan Jones and Philip Satre.
In contrast, Senator Obama has never been in favor of the expansion of gambling, saying that the “moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities, could be devastating.” And, with casinos, “you’ll have a whole bunch of people who can’t afford it gambling their money away, yet they’re going to do it.” As a State Senator, Obama has opposed expanding all gambling projects in Illinois, although he does not oppose all gambling, such as in Nevada.
According to this website, Obama supports Internet policing of online gambling.
What I like about all this information is vindication - you can be a liberal and still be against the expansion of gambling. Which, of course, I’ve known all along but it seems now that if you support Barack Obama, you are also going to have to accept his long-held opposition to gambling. Frankly, this makes me much more comfortable in voting for him should he be the nominee.
NB: Obama does, however, love poker. Anomalies R Us. I love it.
April 4th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Likely you’ve noticed too the vitriol spill that began small, then burgeoned, and now continues its escalations on many fronts. It’s not just based on “How dare you call my candidate names??!! &^*#, There, take that. And that, you creep.”
There’s far more to it than that I think.
Regarding the psyche, we know that if a human being cannot gain positive stimulus, he or she will go after negative stimulus, for being ‘stimulated’ is a way of feeling and knowing one is alive and relevant. Thus, where there is lack of meaningful engagement, e.g. trivial engagement, many will turn, without quite realizing it right away, to fractious engagement.
I noticed, as I think you must also, that as election campaign season (Geez, if only it were for a single season, it feels like a Triathlon cum Iditarod would be easier and over quicker) continues, that serious, devastating, deleterious, death-dealing issues of the most critical natures are still consistently being left out of the electoral discussion, or are dealt with by saying just a dollop of something here and a dit of saying something there, but without any continual strong stream of thought.
Individuals have one psyche each; but the culture has a collective psyche as well, which also influences us. The collective has, via the candidates trivial pea-shooting at one another, been roiling, straining at the bit for meaningful dialogues instead of the equivalent of this mind-bleeding “Can you believe what they’re doing to us/ each other, now??!!
I think it would help calm a lot of the helpless irritation many are feeling if many of the critical issues that have gone sotto voce, could be discussed by the candidates daily… Following is not meant to be a short list of ‘horribles,’ rather a small list of items that I believe are surging and boiling in the collective unconscious …but without outlet. These and more are MUCH better given voice to, rather than allowed to fester in the collective unconscious…and eventually blow out the sidewall while traveling at high speed. Mood is dictated by positive stimulus. Meaninglessness augers anger.
So… if only the candidates would talk daily about meaningful specifics, I would love dearly if they would apply themselves to these, and more:
– when will the next president be closing one of the greatest exporters of torture and violence in the world? The SOA, the School of the Americas right here in the US, is where protests have been ongoing for decades now. The SOA is an institution where military and para military from other countries, specifically Central and South America, in recent decades, have come to be trained in techniques of warfare and torture (where have we heard this before) and then are exported back to their own countries to do immense harm to their own poorest people and indigenous populations. The current situations about torture and the lack of meaningful assertion of principle about “no torture” has its roots not in George Bush, but in the SOA, and I will be writing more about the SOA again very soon. That it continues to function is egregious. Our tax dollars at work. And, the candidates say?
–the burgeoning offshore manufacture of many of our medicines in China and other offshore sites with not a peep about quality control of those pharmaceuticals, cleanliness of facilities and cleaning of equipment with solvents. What will the candidates do about this situation of what amounts to a ScroogeMcDuck manufacturing philosophy, using cheap human labor without adequate oversight (I think) about an item, vital medicines, in which there is NO room for human error.
– huge dumping of cheap painted goods into the US in import stores, discount big lots stores, none of which are tested for toxic qualities, and many of these items are dishes, plates, cups and mugs and food trays, including dry foods. There has to be a new presidential plan, not just platitudes about having ‘to do something, yes.’ A real plan. What are BO, HC and JM going to do about this minutely and specifically? And what cost in potential human contamination will be paid until then?
– a war entrenchment cruelly now staggers longer than our time in WWII. As a military wife of 21 years USAF, I know for certain that it is not 4000 US soldiers who have died, it is over 36,000-plus dead, for when a soldier dies, his mother dies; his father dies, his best friend dies, his sweetheart dies, his children die, his little brother and kid sister die. An IED, a bullet, kills many, not one. Prudent warrior people demand a war have a beginning, a middle, and an end.
–The difference between a dream and a nightmare, is that a dream comes to fruition; a nightmare goes on and on and on and does not end. We’ve clearly moved from the American Dream to the American Nightmare when we have more wounded and maimed returned from this war, and they are hidden away and the press tends to treat their stories as too boring to honor on a daily basis. I was critical of Senator Gravel for saying he “visited” the VA to pick up his meddies there, and everything was “good.” Things are not good. Not by a long shot. What will the next president do for what is now a ‘50 year forward into the future’ issue? How will decades of help come to those harmed in mind, soul and body from Read the rest of this entry »
Why the West should keep Russia close, and get a backbone as it faces China: and how one global political trend will help us do it.
There was something remarkable about the statements of Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and France’s Sarkozy, who said that they would, respectively, boycott and reserve the right to boycott the Beijing Olympics.
Such a boycott exhibits the more typically Anglo (read American and British) trait of rooting foreign policy explicitly in ethical considerations.
On their own, these statements wouldn’t signify much, but they are symptomatic of a crucially important shift in global politics that has so far gone largely un-remarked upon. The shift is the potentially powerful convergence of the developed world toward the political center.
This shift was forcefully indicated by Sarkozy’s stunning speech in Britain last week, which praised Britain thus;
Your nation has succeeded in taking up so many challenges which seemed out of reach precisely because it quite simply was convinced that its cause was right, because it had faith in itself, in its values, because in all circumstances it has demonstrated an unfailing determination and courage.
He went on to praise Britain’s contractual freedoms, the dynamism of its metropolises, its valuing of effort, encouragement of innovation, its spirit of enterprise and sense of personal responsibility
In other words, he praised all of the qualities of a healthy free-market economy – without a shade of the European socialism that has historically crippled elements of French society. Many Americans, also “Anglo”, would recognize these positive qualities in their own nation.
In one remarkable sentence, Sarkozy repositioned the politics of France - one fifth of the permanent members of the UN security council! – when he said,
“No one will ever forget that the name of Europe’s first father was Winston Churchill” –a half-American Briton, as Anglo as they come.
From a Frenchman, that’s a stunner.
The other important formerly left-ish European power is Germany. Yet, not only will Merkel be boycotting the Olympics: she is also heading up overdue free-market reforms in her country.” Both France and Germany, then, have moved from the left at least to the “free-market” center, and find themselves as politically close to the U.K. as ever.
And then there is the U.S.: with the departure of Bush, it will move leftward, which is also toward the political center. (Bear in mind that the political center in Europe could be considered somewhat center-left in the U.S.)
In other words, at of the end of ’08, the U.S., the U.K., France and Germany will be closer politically and philosophically than they perhaps have ever been. Along with Japan, a political and economic ally, this group comprises five of the seven largest economies in the world. This political closeness represents a great strength and great opportunity.
The greatest long-term geo-strategic challenges to this group of five and its allies, are China and secondarily Russia.
Right now, NATO is troubled over whether to admit Georgia and the Ukraine, two former Soviet Republics. Russia would regard their membership as a broadly hostile act. And that’s something of which we need to be very careful, because we must not create or strengthen a Sino-Russian axis.
The Chinese are coming. But although they are strong, a “centrist” developed world will have the strength to stand up to them for good if the Russians are facing West.
Right now, the developed world fails to stick to its principles if doing so would offend China. We seem so scared of China – or rather, of losing what it gives us - that only for China do we compromise ourselves so much. Our stance on Taiwan remains perhaps our hemisphere’s greatest hypocrisy, as we fail to support its right of self-determination. Moreover, we’ve failed to have an impact on freedom of speech and worship in China. And now that Tibet is raging, we cannot to act, even if (though?) we want to. China is our shame.
But like a planetary convergence, the aforementioned centrist convergence of the developed world could portend great things – if we so choose.
We make that choice by pursuing a grand vision in which Russia is our ally. Unlike China, Russia is a nation with whom NATO closely shares its modern history. Making an ally of Russia will not only eliminate one of the two greatest strategic challenges (or even threats) to the West (Russia), but will also help us in dealing with the other (China).
In other words, the West must plan to invite Russia into NATO.
With Russia as one of us and a political convergence of the developed powers toward the center, we will finally be able to stand up for ourselves, our allies and our principles - against the Chinese where necessary.
(Robin Koerner runs Watching America, which translates foreign news about the U.S. from around the world)
The Righteous Republican cosmeticians have started to work their magic and, as in the women’s magazines, a natural-looking person may end up resembling an aging tart. To borrow from Gloria Steinem, McCain would do better to brush them off and say, “This is what seventy and self-possessed looks like, get used to it.”
The first ad is a tipoff, harking back to those days at the Hanoi Hilton over a quarter of a century ago, echoing his advice to fellow prisoners: “Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Stand up. We’re Americans. And we’ll never surrender.”
We’re all prisoners of George W. Bush in Iraq now, and it may not be in McCain’s best interests to remind us that he wants to keep us there, if not for a hundred years, until some of the troops there are his age now.
William Kristol is advising the candidate who admits he doesn’t know much about the economy to offer “a broad reform agenda–education reform, health insurance reform, tax reform, government reform, Wall Street reform. He could start by outlining an up-to-date, capitalism-friendly and transparency-requiring approach to regulating the credit markets.”
Biography isn’t enough, Kristol reminds McCain. You have to start doing a George Bush impersonation, throwing out all kinds of voter bait that you can sweep aside when you get into the White House.
By the time Conservatives finish remaking McCain, his nonagenarian mother won’t recognize him and, if he looks in the mirror, neither will he.
With cries for change sweeping the United States and even the ‘hermetically-sealed totalitarian regime’ of the Castro brothers, some in Venezuela are sounding downright envious. Fernando Luis Egaña writes for Venezuela’s Correo del Caroni, “Both in the United States and its hemispheric polar opposite Cuba, there are growing expectations of political, economic and social change. … The oldest democracy and the longest dictatorship on the Continent are preparing for change. May long-suffering Venezuela not be left behind.”
By Fernando Luis Egaña
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
March 25, 2008
Venezuela - Correo del Caroni - Home Page (Spanish)
Both in the United States and its hemispheric polar opposite Cuba, there are growing expectations of political, economic and social change. Domestic and global reasons have resulted in this push for new directions.
No one knows if Barack Obama will in the end obtain the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, and even if he does - whether he’ll manage to defeat Republican John McCain. But much of this feat has already been accomplished. Read the rest of this entry »
Is there any hope at all that the West will do more than pay lip service to the plight of the downtrodden Tibetan people? Le Figaro’s Beijing correspondent Mével writes, “China has erred on Tibet. The West deluded itself about China - and the Tibetans are likely to pay dearly if their illusions lead them to expect more than dust in the eyes [a show of support] from the democracies.”
Analysis by Mével
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
March 26, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
The powerful Communist Party machine certainly didn’t foresee this. Beijing wants to make the Games a showcase for its brilliant success. But at the start of this Olympic season, propaganda needs have forced a drawing of the curtain. Chinese television cut off a live broadcast of ceremonies in Olympia, Greece [the lighting of the Olympic torch WATCH ], depriving the images to hundreds of millions of spectators and signaling that support for the Games is far from unanimous. Read the rest of this entry »
We now know that many Americans have been moved and impressed by Barack Obama’s recent speech on race in America - although the electoral consequences remain unclear. But how do people in other nations view his high-risk verbal gambit? Patrik Etschmayer writes for Switzerland’s Nachrichten, ‘To even approach the subject was already extraordinarily courageous. But Obama went farther and did something politicians almost never do: He called his unfolding difficulties by name … it was an extraordinary speech for a politician anywhere in the world - and not only American voters should listen attentively. Because he spoke directly to what disgusts many people about politics in Europe: cynicism, filth and out-in-out dishonesty.’
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Patrik Etschmayer
March 25, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Home Page (German)
It was a speech that could make history, and in fact it may already have. It’s a speech that sent shivers up the backs of listeners and has been downloaded by millions over the Internet.
It was a speech that stands head and shoulders above the speeches of other politicians. Not only because of its subject matter, but because of the honesty with which Barack Obama tackled the subjects of race and political cynicism in the United States.
The reason for Obama’s speech was something that really could have - indeed was likely to have - put the nail in the coffin of his campaign. The pastor of his congregational church in Chicago, the man that had wed Obama to his wife and had christened his daughters, a man with whom Obama was very close indeed, had delivered a sermon about war, poverty and racism that culminated with the impassioned plea of “God damned America.” In the aftermath, Obama distanced himself from Pastor Wright and his angry homily, but had refused to disown him, just as he couldn’t disown his White grandmother who had uttered racist stereotypes to him that made him cringe. Because his Pastor - just like his Grandmother - is an expression of America’s contradictions, wherein fate is an amalgam of horror and triumph, and where hardship and success are inextricably intertwined.
To even approach the subject was already extraordinarily courageous. But Obama went farther and did something politicians almost never do: He called his unfolding difficulties by name - in this case, the latent racism on all sides and the stereotypes that are so easily resorted to on these occasions.
He reminded his listeners of the all-to-easily forgotten fact that only fifty years ago, racial segregation and discrimination were the rule in the United States and that many African Americans are still burdened by the legacy of this oppression. He spoke about how the dialog between the races still continues to avoid this toxic legacy and how the anger continues to simmer, emerging only when a person is among their own kind.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.
Regardless of your partisan leanings, if you support a more transparent government consider checking this out and even encouraging your representative to do the right thing.
![[Het Parool, The Netherlands]](http://www.parool.nl/columnisten/joep_bertrams/beeld/041608-doodstraf.jpg)
