Pages

Friday, November 23, 2012

Ceasefire in Gaza and 2 deaths in India

It is Thanksgiving weekend in the US and a time to reflect upon the good things in life. One positive news towards the TG start was the ceasefire in Gaza. The timing of the new conflict though is puzzling and reports from all around are conflicting too. One strong reason seems to be the fact that Bibi (Netanyahu) lost some of his strength at home after Obama’s re-election as he had betted on  a Romney win. It caused internal rumblings in Israel where the prime minister was perceived to have created a wedge in relations with the most important ally of his country. So what do you do when public opinion is down and you will be going into an election year soon?, stir-up nationalism is one good option (though not very rational), but that is what you’d expect of Bibi.

Now what can one say of the attacks itself, clearly it was not a fair fight amongst equals. Imagine a giant kicking a powerless street guy, that too hands tied (with trade blockade and no good weapons), you get the picture. On top of this imbalance, Bibi does not need to worry about the costs of the war, because it is sponsored by the American tax payers. If you are Bibi, life is good (for a while atleast) J. The US must help with the security of Israel (for a variety of reasons), but it is time for the US to lay down terms and have some say for the large 3B+ annual military aid to Israel, the aid cannot be used by a political leaders whims to destabilize his own countrymen and the entire region. This does not exonerate Hamas which has a history of violence, but atleast this time around, though they were powerless and no match for the Israeli army, the Palestinians (including Hamas) had the sympathy of most around the world. So in my eyes, Bibi won the battle, but lost the bigger war. Another winner was Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi who brokered the peace truce, and very soon expanded his own powers in Egypt.

It was also the week when there were 2 significant deaths in India, one celebrated by most in the country in a public way, while another by most in a silent way (or else big brother would arrest you......yes, that did happen to 2 innocent girls of the FB generation). The first one was the death of the Pakistani terrorist Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, who was the last surviving gunman of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. He was rightfully executed for the mass murder of 160 unarmed civilians and was the first capital punishment in India in more than 8 years. I saw all around the web and in FB about people celebrating his death. This is no cause for celebration as the masterminds are still at large in Pakistan, and some maybe in India itself. He deserved the punishment and that matter should be closed at that. There are many other things to feel proud and celebrate for.  

The second death was one of Bal Thackeray, the founder of the right wing Shiv Sena. He was popular (and very powerful) mainly within Mumbai city and in some parts of Maharashtra state. He formed the party to fight for the rights of people from his state as he felt Mumbai was being taken over by people from outside states, especially from Gujarat. It later became a very radical wing and was against other Indians in his state and against foreigners in the country. So maybe he could be thought of as anti-nationalist too for being against Indians from other states J. He led with an iron fist and had an army called Shiv-sainiks who would impose their rules on people. So clearly his death was received by many as a positive thing, and when Thackeray supporters called for a bandh in Mumbai, not everyone was supporting it. Most were obviously afraid of saying that out in public though. Now the current FB generation believes in free speech, and don’t think twice before clicking the blue ‘post’ button. So one hit the ‘post’ button to provide her views, while her friend duly obliged with a ‘like’. Soon enough, the two were behind the bars…, and freedom of speech went for a toss. Compare that with what happens in the US where one (and all) can slander even the President by calling him all names and yet life goes on…..

-Ramanuja Iyer

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Primer on politics in the US, and the Presidential Election

What better time to talk of politics in the country than just a couple of days before the presidential election. Have been in the country for close to a dozen years  and this is the 4th presidential election I am witnessing. During the initial years I had not paid a lot of attention to the political landscape, was more interested in international happenings (which is still the case) than politics within the US. There has to be a beginning for everything and a story behind it too, so here is the story. I had signed up as a guest speaker at my son’s school a few years back and chose the subject to be ‘Global Warming’ as it was very much in the news then. I had read about it a lot and clearly there was science involved in it and reasonable data to support it too. The talk to the kids were more on how they can help the environment based on the reduce/reuse/recycle thinking.

A week later at a social gathering in the school I was confronted by a parent who came-up to me and said “so you are the one who is spreading the liberal left wing ideas on kids”, much to my bewilderment. Frankly speaking I was not sure of what he meant by the liberal left, so I just brushed him off telling it was just a talk to help kids save energy and thus money even at home. The first thing I did on getting back home was to read on what that term meant and I was to a certain extent ashamed at my ignorance on the politics in the country I was living in. I felt the urge to read more, one reason was to make sure I did not get into similar situations in the future and to be more aware of the ground realities, and be politically correct going forward. It acted as a start button to read more on the politics in the country, it was a fascinating ride as it was a very complex and muddled topic, to say the least. So here is my attempt to clear the picture with a short primer.

The two main parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There are many other small parties which do not play a significant role, so for all practical purposes the country is just a 2 party system. The republican party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party), is the party of the conservatives (or the right wing). The democratic party is the pat of the liberals (yes, that was the term J), who are also known as the left wing. Both parties have evolved in what they stand for over the years and I find that fascinating, will get to that later. Approximately 30% in the country are registered as democrats and 30% are registered as republicans, the rest 40% are independents and form the swing voter category. Now let us look at the voter base based on the various segments to see how the population is divided.

·         Geography:
o   Republicans: The base of the party is in the South, along with the Midwest, the Plains  and Rockies areas, and those states are known as the Red states. Usually the less populated and less literate states are republican.
o   Democrats: They are predominantly based in the east coast, especially the Northeast states, along with the populated Midwest states and the West coast. The more populated and more literate states are democratic.

·         Demographics: A rough approximation based on data, and some intuition
·         Age:
o   Republicans: Old and middle aged are typically republican
o   Democrats: The younger to the middle aged group is more aligned to the democrats
·         Ethnicity: The color of the skin is always an underlying factor in elections though people try to say it is not, to me it can be a big factor with many voters
o   Republicans: White/Caucasian, especially in the South and Mid-West regions, very little diversity
o   Democrats: More diversity with Whites, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and most other immigrants
·         Sex:
o   Republicans: Very strong amongst males (mainly whites), possibly because historically they are not in favor for women rights, and are very much for less gun control
o   Democrats: More stronger among females, possibly because of their support of social and women’s causes
·         Economic stature:
o   Republicans: The very rich, rich and middle class (based on regions). Possibly so because republican policies are for lower tax, especially for the rich.
o   Democrats: Some rich (especially entertainers), middle class and mostly low income. Possibly because they promote social causes.
·         Religion:
o   Republicans: Mostly Christians, especially very devout ones. Some differences between Protestants and Catholics earlier, but now both are predominantly republican
o   Democrats: Less devout Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other religions
·         Education
o   Republicans: non-college amongst whites, and some college too. Typically the less educated group. This is very clear with just around 10% of college professors aligned to the republicans.
o   Democrats: Majority of the post graduates, and the graduates. Also includes non-college group from African-American and Latino communities

·         Other ideological differences: I have just picked the big factors only, there are many more, but remember this is just a primer and not a detailed study J
o   Role of federal government: Republicans prefer very less government in peoples life and more power to states, and proving more control to the private companies. Democrats are of the view that government has a big role in channeling the country forward. Both parties are for capitalism as the American way and there is no dispute on that fact.
o   Social benefits and entitlements: Democrats are in general for social causes while the republicans are against. The major social causes are medical care for the old and poor via the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Another big one is Social Security (like retirement pension funds for those who are wondering what social security is). Others are Food Stamps for the very poor and unemployment benefits for those who lose jobs. Democrats believe these social programs provide upward mobility to the poor.
o   Gun control: Republicans are against any gun control while democrats are for gun-control (though in the recent past they have not made this a big issue to please some voter bases). Just a note that US has the highest rate of death via guns, much more than any other country. Not surprisingly the US also has the highest ownership of guns in the hands of its citizens, a distant second and third comes Yemen and Libya (not a great company to be in J).
o   Taxes: Republicans are for very low taxes overall, including for the super rich. Democrats are for lower taxes only for the low-middle income groups.
o   Industries supported: Republicans have been heavy supporters of Wall street, Oil, Food Giants, Pharma, Insurance and Defense industries , no wonder the super rich vote republicans as they get a lot of tax loopholes added. Democrats support the technology industry and new energy companies, and of late automotive firms too, which again is not surprising with support from the govt.
o   Civil rights: Democrats are for civil rights and equal freedom for all races, while the republicans were not in strong support, especially in the southern states
o   Women’s rights and Abortion: Democrats are for women’s rights, including equal pay and abortion (so big of an issue in the US, people from outside the country would be very surprised). Republicans are not so in favor. So clearly that is reflected in why each group has the party preference too.
o   Labor and Union: Democrats are for more Labor laws (including minimum pay) and for Union rights
o   Discrimination: Democrats support equal opportunity for all irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc. Republicans support it to a certain extent, mainly from the moderate republicans.
o   Immigration: Democrats are for opening up immigration, while republicans oppose it. Again, this is reflected in the support base too.
o   Military/war: Republicans are very pro-war and pro-military while democrats prefer war only as the last option. This is also reflected why most military personnel vote republicans. This is also seen based on history that most wars are started by republican presidents and ended by democratic presidents
o   International policy: The international policy of the US does not change in a big way based on the party in power, though republicans prefer a more aggressive and interference approach while the democrats prefer a less aggressive approach. The big difference is the view on war (see above).  
o   Environment: Democrats have been strong proponents of the environment, including supporting regulations to reduce emissions and to support new innovations/technologies. Republicans are against the same and it makes sense too as they are a big supporter of the oil companies. Democrats also believe strongly in Climate Change (or Global Warming) as they think it is based on science, while the republicans do not believe in Climate Change and feel very strongly against it (now you see why I was questioned on being a liberal without me even knowing what a liberal meant here in the US).

There are no right and wrong in the ideologies, just that they are different ideologies each part believes in now (for whatever reasons that suit them) and each person will have a set of values they believe in and hence align to one or the other party. Those who do not believe in ideologies remain independent. Both parties have moderates in them, but that group has been diminishing over the past few years, this is more prominent on the republican side where a moderate leader is virtually non-existent (though moderate voters still exist). The country is more polarized than ever before, and this is because of the lack of moderates who could come across the aisle to solve issues. Moderates tend to cross over based on issues and not on ideology.


One of the things I wanted to check on was the performance of each party in passing landmark legislations, especially in the past 60 years and I was surprised by the results. Almost all legislations, including Social Security, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Women’s Rights and Medicare were passed by democrats, and almost all had strong opposition from the republican side, there was some signs of bi-partisanship from the republican moderates though (which was a difference from the recent healthcare reform act that was very polarized). The only major one from the republican side was the Federal Highway act passed under president Eisenhower in 1956. Again, one can question what the definition of Landmark act is, but to me all mentioned above qualify as landmark acts due to their impact to a large percentage of the population and the way it altered the history of the nation. Even after these facts, one can see that the nation is divided equally between the two parties. The fact is politics is always polarized to a good extent and people tend to leave rational thinking out (even if they are capable of it) when it comes to politics.


I did talk about the party’s ideology evolving over time and some aspects are very interesting, so here are a few. The republican party started in 1854 as an anti-slavery platform and their slogan was ‘free labor, free land, free men
’. This is so much far (or should I say backwards) from their current stand where they are a party of white supremacy (again, there are moderates in the party too who are not for the same) and against civil rights. Abraham Lincoln was the most famous of that old republican party. The African-Americans were strong republicans till the mid of the 20th century, and now there are very few who are republicans.  And the democrats started as a party that wanted more rights for states and less for the federal, a 180 degree turn from what they stand for now. Also, they were against a national bank way back in the 1790s. Change as they say is inevitable, but so much change?, not what I expected.
Finally, I find the terms conservative and liberal to be amusing. For starters, what does a political conservative mean, when he is not for conserving the environment (against any environmental regulation), or conserving human life (very pro-war and gun support), or conserving animal life (big meat eaters), or conserving human values (torture of humans and animals), I can add on more to this list. And what does a liberal mean?, for conserving the environment :-)?, conserving human life?.., and the list can go on here too. What I prefer is to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so where would I fall :-).

As for me, I prefer to be independent as I look at issues on hand and not on a specific ideology. I believe in a set of values too. I do value the environment, prefer peace on earth and believe everyone should be given an even chance to compete, and must contribute a fair share also. I believe a nation’s success is in the upward mobility it can provide for citizens to come out of poverty and explore their dreams, along with the ability to have the framework to create innovations  and innovative companies in an open market environment. I believe the government has a very constructive role if used in the right way and we need to have sensible regulation and laws in place so corporations don’t take people for a ride. As for the role of government, it is clear from the Hurricane Sandy that these are times when we feel there is a real need for govt in our lives, it acts like an insurance cover.

The elections are close and people should look at what have in front of them, and don’t get fooled by the barrage of negative ads from both sides (I am tired of seeing them, even though I have seen very little as I always record the little bit of TV I watch and hence can fast forward the ads). Whichever party wins will most likely win the 2016 elections as well because the US economy is predicated to grow between 3%-4% over the next 5 years (faster than any other major economy in the world), and hence the party in power will have a big momentum going. Also, if democrats win this time, it will be very difficult for republicans to win in 2020 and forward, unless they change their ideology and try to accommodate other minorities as the % of non-Caucasians will grow at a faster pace by that time, so it would be interesting to see how they evolve.

This election provides a very clear choice for people on what they feel is best for the nation, based on what values they believe in. The choice of the US president will have big ramifications all over the world. For e.g. If Al Gore was the president instead of George W Bush, we would not have had the Iraq war, and the colossal amount spent in the war could have been invested inside the US itself and also helped to reduce the deficit by a big percentage.  The world would have been a lot different based on just that one action. So vote based on issues and not on ideologies, that will help one make the right choice. I hope people make the correct choice...

-Ramanuja Iyer

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Issues over Ideology, and a week where Sandy blew over the top....

This week turned out to be a very happening week, so here are a few thoughts from the week…

While not the main news of the week, this definitely took my attention as it was like a breath of fresh air in the age of extremely partisan politics, with a highly regarded republican leader endorsing a democratic candidate for presidency purely based on issues
What we need is more politicians who have the guts to cross over the aisle on issues and not get tied down by ideologies.  

Sandy wreaked havoc across the northeast, blew over in a non-partisan manner. It also showed that no country, irrespective of how powerful it is, have to bow down to mother nature. On the positive side, it also showed that the country has the resilience with stories of human survival and the sense of community all across. Along with it, it did bring out gaping holes in the basic infrastructure that is badly in need of improvement (and more investment, now that is a bad word in some quarters).

Oh, and BTW, for all those who are for reducing Government, it took a Sandy from the Caribbean (some would say from Africa)  to show it is more than just for Medicare and Social Security……, and also highlighted how short we are in terms of the first responders who are over worked these days with more frequent, yet larger magnitude natural disasters…, and yet we continue to say there is no climate change happening…

Whether you call it Global Warming or Climate Change, there is something happening, changes that are much more rapid over the past 5 years that is very unlike the past 50-100 years. You can call it hallucination and ignore it, but that would be plain stupid, but if that is what the populace is…. there is only so much that can be done…., Maybe not if we make the correct choices…

With the most important election in the world coming up early next week, I have to pen a few words on my initiation to understand politics in US, and why being an independent puts you in a good place to judge…., so check back in a couple of days…

-Ramanuja Iyer