Tag Archives: elections
Why The Establishment Is Attacking Ron Paul
“If the guy is such a sure loser in 2012, why all the attacks? In his quiet way, Paul must have tapped into something. And you can get an idea of that something from what Pat Buchanan wrote the other day about the CPAC poll.
After asking “how do conservatives justify borrowing hundreds of billions yearly from Europe, Japan and the Gulf states — to defend Europe, Japan and the Arab Gulf states?” Buchanan answered his own question by making the case that such policies are not conservative at all.
“Ron Paul’s victory at CPAC may be a sign the prodigal sons of the right are casting off the heresy of neoconservatism and coming home to first principles,” Buchanan concluded.
Buchanan has put his finger on why the unemotional Texas congressman produces such an emotional reaction. The party establishment has to dread the prospect of a candidate who can unite the youthful libertarian conservatives with the Buchananite America-first types. Such a character might win a plurality running against Romney, Huckabee and neocon Barbie doll Sarah Palin.
And Paul might have the most money of them all, thanks to the support of those young voters who actually understand how the internet works. I suspect this is what all the shouting is about, even though the subject of it all never raises his voice.”
Money Dominates India’s Ruling Class
From Sainath at Counterpunch, an analysis of MPs (Members of Parliament) in the Lok Sabha (the lower house, or House of Commons, as opposed to the Rajya Sabha or House of Lords) in India:
“NEW is a coalition of over 1200 civil society groups working across the country. Their “Analysis of MPs of the 15th Lok Sabha (2009)” makes great reading and is the product of fine research and much hard work.
There were 3,437 candidates in the polls with assets of less than Rs. 1 million, says the report. Of these, just 15 (0.44 per cent) made it past the post. But your chances soar with your assets. Of 1,785 candidates in the Rs. 1 million to Rs. 5 million group, 116 (6 per cent) won. This win-ratio goes up to 19 per cent of candidates for the Rs.5 million to Rs.50 million segment. And of 322 candidates in the Rs.50 million plus or platinum tier, 106 (33 per cent) romped home.
The higher you climb the ladder of lucre, the better your chances. That’s obvious. But what’s striking is how bleak things are for non-millionaires. Even a modest improvement in your wealth helps. Say, you move from the below Rs. 1 million group to the Rs. 1-5 million group — your chances immediately improve at a higher rate than your wealth. (Of course that works only if you are already close to the Rs. 1 million mark.) So it’s not just that wealth has some impact on election outcomes — it influences them heavily and disproportionately as you go up the scale.
All of a piece with a society that only last year had 53 dollar billionaires (pre-meltdown), one that still has 836 million human beings who “get by” on less than Rs. 20 a day and which ranks 66th amongst 88 nations on the Global Hunger Index (just one notch above Zimbabwe). India has plummeted to rank 132 in the United Nations Human Development Index (one slot below Bhutan) as our billionaire count has risen. That wallows below Bolivia, Botswana, the Republic of the Congo and the Occupied Territories of Palestine in the HDI rankings. And never mind being worth billions – 60 per cent of adult rural Indians simply do not have bank accounts….”
Ruling Congress Party Wins Big in India
The ruling Congress party swept to a resounding victory Saturday in India’s mammoth national elections, defying expectations as it brushed aside the Hindu nationalist opposition and a legion of ambitious smaller parties.
The strong showing by the party, which is dominated by the powerful Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty, laid to rest fears of an unstable, shaky coalition heading the South Asian giant at a time when many of it neighbors are plagued by instability, civil war and rising extremism.
My Comment
I quoted this news item not so much for its newsworthiness (since that’s not our business here) but because of the language it uses. A coalition or federation of assorted smaller parties representing more interests (and more diverse interests) is assumed to be less reliable than a single strong incumbent party. Why? Because it’s a time of instability and extremism in neighboring states (Pakistan, especially).
I am not going to argue one way or other about the case at hand, India arnd Pakistan. The situation and the players are too complex for that. But the language merits thinking over, since language is at the root of our problems. The reasoning is that looser federations deliberate more, act less cohesively and less effectively and that they can be manipulated or split apart and made ineffective. The inference from this is that a more centralized, more monolithic, more decisive central government is always a better leader in difficult times. From there it’s only a step to arguing for a despotic executive and emergency authority to clamp down.