Posts tagged elections
comment of the day: elections and governing
May 10th
I saw this comment in The Guardian:
The French elections lasted for what? A month and a half, now they have a new President. Our elections begin 2 years in advance and don’t end until super tuesday which sounds like a sporting event. Our leaders cannot function because they are always fighting for their jobs from every special interest group in the world. – The Guardian: commenter commenting on The US election
I agree.
the appeal of ron paul
Jan 6th
So.
I typically don’t write about politics because, well, I typically believe if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all. In addition politics-speak makes my head hurt. Its kind of like listening to a new business guy called the ‘king of Babble-on” (Babylon so you get the full reference).
It all makes my head hurt.
But last night, as I skipped away from another college bowl game where I wasn’t sure there was a defense anywhere on the field, I went to Piers Morgan on CNN (by the way … CNN may have 2 of the best news commentator shows on tv today … Fareed Zakaria and Piers Morgan … balanced by one of the worst .. Anderson Cooper … but that is a different article).
Piers was interviewing Ron Paul.
Now.
Because I don’t pay attention to all the deep politics stuff my perception is Ron Paul is a quasi-out of touch old guy. In sound bite form some of his opinions have made me sure America would be better off without him leading.
But I stayed tuned to Piers and listened.
Ok.
And when you hear something like this … well … how can you not find him appealing as a leader of America?
“There is only one kind of freedom and that’s individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it.” – Ron Paul
And soundbites aside.
yeah. He is an old guy …. but he talks “young” and he talks in a common sense way (although some of the things he says stretch reality sense).
He talks like you and I.
And at his foundation in thinking he thinks stuff we think.
Directionally he uses plain words I can understand, he clearly has a vision and, maybe best of all, he tends to not linger in the ‘gray.’ And maybe that is another thing I found appealing. That lack of gray. He takes black & white stances which are often quite contrarian to the traditional caveated “win me a vote” point of view. Do I agree with all he said? Nope. But for gods sake the man had a point of view.
Best of all? … well … he doesn’t act like a politician … he acts like someone who doesn’t care about being liked or disliked … he acts like someone who just wants to do what he believes is right.
The interesting thing?
The way Ron Paul has captured the attention of 20somethings (which is another thing I find appealing … because I often believe true leaders are in the Hope business).
But maybe I shouldn’t be surprised because change (and plain speak) is exactly what people that age are looking for. And probably the first thing many young people see is an anti-war candidate.
And while some (mostly older) people are wary of Ron Paul’s isolationist policies I have to assume middle America finds it appealing as they worry about our own economy and their own troubles.
At the end of the interview?
I have to be honest.
When I hear him speak, and fully explain beyond simple soundbites, any major reservations I have become less major.
He certainly has sincerity and honesty. Plus who throws in a strong dose of truly understanding the intent of the Constitution (way better than any supposed “Tea-partier”):
“Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy.” – Ron Paul
And he has a sense of real economics (although some of his economic steps seem a little unrealistic).
Oh.
Predictability. He’s very predictable and his vote record seems to always be consistent with following the Constitution.
I have no idea whether I could actually vote for him but people should seriously consider him. And the fact that I am writing this is not an endorsement.
But. I was wrong.
He isn’t a nutcase nor is he out of touch.
And he speaks English rather than political gobbdlegook.
And he is using the political system perfectly. He is certainly not a Republican and yet he is in every Republican debate. And he is certainly not a Democrat. And I have always believed that given the world and the situation we are in that the true solution to our government deadlock mentality is the rise of a 3rd party (history has shown that to happen in American politics so I am no soothsayer on this). And he is using the system to create a 3rd party without truly stating a 3rd party.
With that said … I predict he doesn’t win the Republican nomination. And then he enters the election as the third candidate (ok … I assume the Communist party has candidate but since Gus Hall died I have no clue who it is). And then? Gosh. Who knows.
In the end? It was a better use of my time then a bad bowl game.
Orange Revolution Dies: Ukraine Part 2
Apr 5th
(subtitled: Democracy struggles on)
I have written several times about how difficult democracy is. Well. Democracy took an uppercut to the jaw several weeks ago and ain’t gonna be getting back up in Ukraine. And I am sad because I was there when democracy took its first step in Ukraine 5 years ago. And I have friends in Ukraine.
So. Because most of us probably weren’t paying much attention Ukrainians cast their first presidential ballots since the 2004 Orange Revolution Sunday January 17, 2010. Unfortunately this was the first step in the election that would end up steering the country from its pro Western course and strengthen ties with Russia. Yup. Last week they elected President Yanukovych who wants to move Ukraine’s foreign policy closer to Russia’s, and opposes joining NATO (as do most Ukrainians).
They are calling this the final farewell to the Orange Revolution. This election stamped the revolution’s outcome a failure by rejecting, even if by a close margin, one of the Orange Revolution’s founders, Yulia Tymoshenko with her fashion trademark, a golden braid. (International observers deemed this election to be an “impressive” display of democracy, though Ms. Tymoshenko claims fraud and I would reserve judgment until we see whether they ever have another “democratic” election ever again).
Oh. On a separate note I do worry this fraud thing may begin to become the greatest legacy of Democracy (see United States, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc. elections as examples).
Anyway. The election itself was democracy at its best. The turnout to vote was massive. In the initial election voters trudged toward the polls in light snow in the capital Kiev early in the morning and at one polling station in the eastern city of Donetsk, officials encouraged voters with vodka, sausage and salo, or lard, a traditional Ukrainian hors d’oeuvre. (who says democracy cannot be fun).
In the initial vote former prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian figure that was the target of the 2004 Orange-led mass protests, ended up having the support of about a third of voters. He was followed closely by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, an Orange leader from the 2004 election. The current President, Viktor Yushchenko, propelled to power by the 2004 protests, finished out of the running. Yuschenko sought to build bridges with the West and to reduce Russia’s influence in Ukraine, antagonizing Moscow. But. Despite his 2004 victory his performance since then has many voters holding him responsible for the country’s political gridlock and economic troubles. (basically he sucked when given the opportunity).
There were about 18 overall candidates but because none of them ended up with more than 50% there was a final run off between the top two vote getters. (Yanukovych and Tymoshenko). At that stage Ukrainians were publicly underwhelmed with their options as noted by S. Grybok “But, as Ukrainians are now saying, we must choose the least bad of the two.”
Anyway. With the election complete and a new “democracy leader” how does Russia feel? (which, as a reminder, used to love having Ukraine as part of its humble “union”).
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the results of Ukraine’s presidential election reflected the country’s desire to improve ties with Russia.
Medvedev expressed the hope that Russia-Ukraine relations would return to a partnership approach under the new president elect Viktor Yanukovych. (I have to admit that I don’t really remember any of the soviet nations as having “partnership relations” with Russia.)
Yanukovych, certainly not disappointing Russia in any way with his words, has pledged to end Ukraine’s efforts to join NATO and to elevate Russian to the status of a second official language after Ukrainian.
In addition, he has said he would postpone consideration of the future of Moscow’s lease on its naval base in Sevastopol, home to the Russian Black Sea fleet. The lease expires in 2017.
But. I would tend to believe that is simply rhetoric at this stage. (just my opinion)
So. What does this all mean.
The Ukraine presidential elections look to have brought the country in a disturbing full circle.
(another step toward the revised semi-reunited soviet union?)
Voters apparently returned to support Viktor Yanukovich, the villain in the country’s democratic “Orange Revolution” of 2004. It was after fraudulent elections just over five years ago, when Mr. Yanukovich was declared the presidential winner, that Ukrainians persistently protested the phony results and eventually saw them thrown out. Their peaceful demonstrations rattled Ukraine’s eastern neighbor, Russia. With Yanukovich now in office the link between Ukraine and Russia solidifies (and they are a lot less rattled).
Ukraine needs to move forward instead of chasing its tail. Yet since the revolution, its democratic leaders have been running in circles, fighting each other while doing little to advance needed political and economic reforms. Last year, Ukraine’s economy contracted by a breathtaking 15 percent. Ukraine, the size of France, is simply too important to fail from anyone’s point of view and in particular Russia now.
And I don’t believe now that it has a Russia friendly government it will.
Sandwiched between Russia and Western Europe, Ukraine has the potential to act as a stabilizing economic and political bridge between Moscow and the West.
But. I would guess that it will be Russia that will bring Ukraine back and the gap that needs to be bridged (between Russia and West) will be larger.
But. That’s just my opinion.
Oh. And there is more to think about (remembering the whole Soviet Union thing).
Ukraine gets added to Belarus and Kazakhstan and Abkhazia who are committed to relationships with Russia. (the Customs Union it is called without Ukraine to date)
Abkhazia states the direction others could choose as Democracy struggles.
“Abkhazia is set to have a dialogue with all countries in the region. But the main and only strategic ally of ours is Russia. Our feelings in relations with Russia have not changed after the recognition of our independence” said the leader of Abkhazia Sergei Bagapsh when speaking in Moscow before the students of MGIMO (Moscow State Institute of International Relations). He further states, “We are anxiously watching the situation in Ukraine, are having a dialogue with Belarus in the expectation that it recognizes our statehood, and in the end, it will be easier for us to join the Union State.”
So. Do I believe there will be a new Soviet Union? Well. Certainly not the way it was before.
I do believe there is a strong possibility of what I would call a “Democunist” bloc of countries.
Huh? Democunists?
Countries that have populations that love the idea of Democracy but retain the comfort of Communism.
When democracy struggles like it just did in Ukraine something will step in to fill the void. I have said many times before. Democracy is tough.
A thought for the House and Senate members
Feb 16th
I have been slamming on our government in some of my posts lately. It is probably more a sign of frustration than anything to do with democracy (because I am a huge democracy fan). So. I will try and back off by offering them a couple of thoughts (should any of them deign to read my little post) and an idea to discuss.
1. Please remember our forefathers:
“I am not a Virginian, but an American.”
Said in speech in the first Continental Congress, 1774, by Patrick Henry.
You will see my idea (a proposed solution) below but at minimum if they could remember that while representing local constituents they are Americans. And making choices for the good of America not just locally (and sometimes what is not good for local may be good for “the whole”). We need to remember Henry is known for his “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech. He is remembered as one of the most influential, radical advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials and his defense of historic rights.
2. Take a field trip to the Lincoln Memorial:
While they all probably walk by the memorial every day, maybe there should be an organized field trip so they can all take a moment and reflect. They can use the time to reflect on a time when the country was divided and Americans were killing Americans. And what it took to lead at that time and reconnect a divided nation.
We aren’t killing each other (at least only figuratively at the moment) but divisiveness is running rampant. And they are feeding the divisiveness. We elect them to lead us not just to follow us (or what we say). They should stand in the shadow of the memorial to one of our greatest leaders and remind themselves of that.
When in DC I have to admit that when standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial I feel the enormity of leadership responsibility as well as the greatness of America. The House Representatives and Senate members could use a good dose of that feeling.
So. Here is the idea.
I don’t really like politics or pay much attention to it. Because I tend to be straightforward and logical and politics is anything but straightforward and logical.
Ok. I have a random, completely non-doable solution (which reminds us that unreasonable ideas are often reasonable solutions to problems):
I am willing to let everyone currently in office serve an additional term with no election.
Just once.
They can act and vote as “Americans” without fear of “oh. I won’t get reelected if I do what I believe is the right thing to do”. This idea has 2 obvious benefits:
- Their decisions have some time to actually come to fruition to show some valid proof versus getting slammed solely for a voting record.
- The country gets to save all that money and time that gets invested in trying to prove why you should vote for “X” politician.
Hey. I wrote a post about “fearlessness in organizations” so that an organization can be as good as it can be. So, let’s remove the “fear of losing a job” for one term and let them see what they can do. Yeah. I know it’s undoable but it sure would be something to try.
