And the race drags on...

This week's Economist.com KAL cartoon.


As you might have heard, Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania on Tuesday. I was hoping for her to lose so that this race could be over. So, that didn't happen. Instead she's still in the race, brandishing her unique brand of populism. Chris Matthews suggested that Obama be more of a "firebrand" and a "torch-bearer" speaking for the working man. It really made me think about the contrast of this race. If you know some political science, then you know that the bulk of the voters are in the center. On the extreme left and extreme right are the minority. Most of the time the one who becomes elected President is the one most successful in collecting the majority of the center (moderates). But, this isn't so in these Primaries, why not?.

It seems that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama used to be far more center than they are today. Perhaps it was their centrist appeal that made them each "inevitable," albeit it at different times. Hillary was unstoppable when she declared her candidacy in 2006. How far she has fallen. Barack Obama seemed inevitable after a decisive Wisconsin vote, remember? Then a shellacking in Ohio, Texas(popular vote) and lately, Pennsylvania. It seems they've each flown from the center to the left. It seems the longer this race goes on, the more populist it becomes.

Look at the key issues, Universal Health Care, the Economy and good ole fashioned gossip! Each of these issues offers a vision for a better tomorrow, what they fail to mention is the cost. Populist sermons tend to leave out those pesky details. But who really cares about that when we hear that someone's preacher gave a bad sermon, or that someone conjured up memories of past battle in Bosnia? This is what the race has come down to: who can appeal most to both a populist media (Thank you Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and Lou Dobbs), and a blue-collar worker who just lost his job. This is a recipe for some government intevention. That is why Hillary Clinton will be the next FDR.

Social Programs, Price Controls (she proposed them in her previous medical care plan in 1994), and so on can be relied upon if she is elected. She will have a friendly congress, she will probably have a friendly majority. Spend, Spend, Spend. Historically, this has gotten us into big trouble. We're just coming off a spending Republican Congress and President. In with a spending Democrat? I may not like either candidate right now, but I can't see Hillary as president, it's a scary proposition. I just hope the one who is the least left wins. Democrat or Republican, our economy will thank you in the end.
Read more...

Please don't politicize the Olympics

Anyone who has been following the news this week knows that the Olympic torch relay, which precedes the Olympic games is under way. You may also know that that relay has been fraught with interruptions, protests and lots of grand-standing. The subject of all this distress is China's treatment of Tibet, a small region that most Americans would have trouble finding on a map. It is true that China has been represssing Tibet for over 50 years now, and it is true that they are heavy-handed in dealing with the small Himalayan region, but my question is what does this have to do with the Olympics? I understand that the Olympic Games cast the host city into a limelight, but that doesn't mean they need to be politicized. The Olympics are supposed to be beyond politics, Hu Jintao won't be throwing the javelin, Nicholas Sarkoszy won't be running the 100m dash, and George Bush and Vladimir Putin won't be involved in synchronized swimming this summer. These world leaders have nothing to do with the Olympic Games, it should stay that way. I truly hope, for the athletes sake, that this doesn't turn into the 1980 and 1984 Summer Olympics.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter believed it to be the duty of the United States to boycott the Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan. Sixty-two other countries joined in this protest. The Soviets retaliated by boycotting the Los Angeles Games in 1984. Political posturing won the day, but it was the athletes who lost. These athletes trained their entire lives to compete against the best in the Olympics. They gave their proverbial blood, sweat and tears to get to compete, and they could not. Why? Because their home country didn't like the politics of another's.

Politics and Policy have their time and their place. Every day, there is some speech by some politician, either applauding or decrying some country's foreign or domestic policy. That opinion can change from day to day, as politicians are notorious for this activity. The summer of 2008 will come and go, and eventually the world will again forget about Tibet, as they have for the last half-century. But, if we boycott the Olympics for that purpose, what have we gained? A headline today and a Wikipedia article tomorrow, not much else. All these athletes who have worked all their life for the opportunity to compete on the world stage, they will lose. For many, this is their only chance to compete. Politics and the Olympic Games should not mix. The world leaders can say what they want, they always do, but leave the games to the athletes.
Read more...

Africa and the Lessons of the American Revolution

What was the greatest test of the American Revolution? Was it when the signers of the Declaration of Independence sealed their document and watched it sail toward England, knowing what they had started? Or was it when the Articles of Confederation were determined to be inadequate as a governing document, and a new Constitution was needed? Perhaps it was all those bloody battles during the Revolutionary War, where men suffered from malnutrition and hypothermia, ready to quit. Though each of these events are considered important to the Revolution, they were not the greatest test. The greatest test was in 1800. Long after the Constitution had been ratified and George Washington had served his two terms as this nation's first President. John Adams had just lost the Presidential Election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson. When John Adams ceded power to his political rival, I believe that to be the cementing of the greatness of the American Revolution. It would be a lesson that some current African leaders would be keen to heed; losing an election may be hard, but relinquishing control can be the greatest gift an ousted leader can give.

When George Washington died in 1799, the Federalist Party was in deep trouble. They had lost their uniter, and thus were destined to lose power. John Adams lost a hard fought election to a most bitter rival, Thomas Jefferson. It could have been so easy for Adams to turn his back on the system of government he himself had fought so hard for decades before. It most certainly would have been the end of the American Revolution if John Adams had ignored the will of the electors. It would not have been the first time a leader refused to acknowledge the will of the people. Kings and Queens had been doing it for centuries, why should the Americans be any different? John Adams, of course did not betray America, and handed the keys of power to his opponent. This changeover set the standard for this country to follow long after Adams died in 1826. It is this lesson that two recent African leaders have chosen to ignore at their own countries' peril.

This past December, Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki seemed to have lost an election to his rival, Raila Odinga. Allegations of ballot-stuffing and vote-fixing tarnished both sides of the election, and Kenya descended into chaos. Kibaki showed just how difficult it can be for a leader to heed the will of an election. He had stymied his country's growth and lost his bid for the Presidency. Instead of ceding power, he clung to it, ensuring the near-destruction of his own country. More recently, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe seems to have lost his latest bid to remain President. So far, there has not been violence on the scale of Kenya, but nothing is concluded yet. After nearly 30 years of power, Mugabe has nearly destroyed his country with 100,000%inflation, astronomical unemployment, and an administration frought with corruption. It appears that his time is at an end, but will he leave?

John Adams did more for his country by leaving than will ever be acknowledged in the history books. His presidency was marred by the Alien and Sedition Act as well as a near war with France. Power is not an easy thing to release, just ask Fidel Castro. Next January will be a lesson for the American people as President Bush will hand power over to most likely a political opponent. Change is necessary to correct the ills of the past and guide a new future. Kenya lost that opportunity in December, Zimbabwe will likely miss theirs, thankfully we will not miss ours. Good governance does not just mean just laws, and a working legal system. It can also mean leaving when your time is up. That is the unsung legacy that John Adams gave to the Revolution in 1801.
Read more...