The first Democratic debate was held the evening of October 13. The obvious winners, namely the candidates that prevailed and gained the impressions were Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders.
As has been shown and it would be almost impossible to be reversed as an impression, these two politicians will prevail in the battle for the nomination of the Democratic Party.
The importance of this evening is that new axes, on which the policy of the new era for Democrats will be structured, has raised. The legacy left by Obama, particularly on issues of rights, minorities and social policy is important and decisive for the next steps of the party. Society over the last 8 years has been trained in a different quality in policy. During this period taboos of previous years, on issues of equality and social rights were eliminated. If anyone watched the Republican debate, will understand that it has reduced greatly the range of issues of social axis, on which they can be juxtaposed with the Democrats.
However, we should not overlook that, though inactive is still visible a conservative wing of the Democrats, which seems merely on issues like gun legislation, the national stance towards terrorism and now against Syria, on gender issues of same-sex couples and on extending or not the government spending.
Mutatis mutandis within the Democrats, Barack Obama is a charismatic leader, formidable orator, able to communicate through technology and he managed to support his politics by a large percentage through building an extremely attractive public image. It will be very difficult to find a similar candidate inside the Democrats. Indeed, except for Hillary and Sanders, the other three candidates for the nomination, not only are not charismatic politicians, but also they remain inconsistent with the requirements of a modern standard leader.
Beyond communication, there is also the politics. Obama was a paternalistic political leader, who in front of an enormous economic crisis storm, with uncertain economic subsequences, set the market in motion, giving the state the role of the main lever of economic movement. This practice was inconsistent with US economic policy of previous years.
However, he, seeking to keep up with the inherent skepticism towards Wall Street, that the very large part of the Democrats feels, placed the state at the heart of economic policy. He fought the consequences of Lehman using the state as a shield.
In conjunction with the temporal demands of Democrats on extending government spending on the issues of healthcare and education, Obama had to some extent the image of the politician who permanently spends money. However, the emergence of social issues as of capital importance, together with the tragic consequences of the economic crisis in the US, largely legitimized the intervention policy of Barack Obama.
A major supporter of this policy is the socialist candidate Bernie Sanders, who stresses the need for more public support. Hillary Clinton represents the complex effort to reconcile opposing views within the party of Democrats. She thinks with less aversion Wall Street demands, seeking an economic orthodoxy for state economic policy, a redistributive taxation system, but, at the same time, she wants to protect the healthy capitalism and the profitable US economic capital.
The difficult synthesis of the views, that Clinton is characterized by, is stated in foreign policy as well. Hillary Clinton may occur, as it did in the past, more active in the field of foreign policy and towards the need to bring peace to the troubled Syria.
The debate seemed to pare already the predicted political data for the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is an undisputed favorite and Bernie Sanders, the political expressing a mid Democrats of the government of Obama. Pragmatism against idealism.
Back to an Authoritarian Past? Elections in Baja California
On the 2nd of June2019 Mexico held local elections that proved to be a successful referendum on the incumbent president’s popularity. These elections were the first ones after his inauguration on December 1st, 2018. Despite a declining economy and increasing levels of violence, his ruling party, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), gained major wins and further extended his influence across 6 states: The governorships in Baja California and Puebla; Tijuana’s Mayor’s seat; and legislative majorities in the local congresses of Baja California and Quintana Roo.
Baja California has become key in recent weeks in the process of democratisation in the country. After 30 years of being the ruling party in the state, the National Action Party (PAN), was defeated by MORENA. Conditions are set in Baja California are set for an intense post electoral process with serious consequences for the incumbent administration, and for the prospects of democracy in Mexico: On Monday 8th of July, the local Congress approved an extension to the current term of the governor from 2 to 5 years.
The choice of Jaime Bonilla as MORENA’s candidate was a troublesome one. Bonilla was resident of the American state of California until very recently, and a militant of the American Republican Party. The problem lies on the way he was chosen as candidate and his Republican militancy in the United States. Bonilla’s candidacy was propped up when Andrés Manuel López Obrador travelled to Baja California and agreed to publicly share a photo with the candidate, in a style that mirrored the very old authoritarian practices of the former hegemonic party Institutional Revolutionary Party, (PRI). MORENA’s obstinacy materialised to ensure the extension of the term once he was elected.
A 2014 constitutional reform mandated that the governor of the state of Baja California elected in 2019 would serve a 2-year term. This was done to align the state’s gubernatorial elections with the federal mid-term elections of 2021. MORENA argued that a 2-year term administration would prove to be more expensive and create higher political and economic uncertainty in the state. If such argument is allowed to be used this time, this could set a dangerous precedent to disappear institutions and extend terms of future administrations in order to make public administration more cost-effective. This is not a plausible justification and represents a serious setback.
The extension of the term from 2 to 5 years is a constitutional violation and electorally speaking it represents a throwback to the old monopolistic practices of the PRI. It also represents a violation to what election means in a democracy. Elections make a fundamental contribution to democratic governance. Because direct democracy. Elections enable voters to select leaders and to hold them accountable for their performance in office. Accountability can be undermined when elected leaders do not care whether they are re-elected or when, for historical or other reasons, one party is so dominant that there is effectively no choice for voters among alternative candidates, parties, or policies. Elections also reinforce the stability and legitimacy of the political community.
More importantly, a country cannot be truly democratic until its citizens have the opportunity to choose their representatives through elections that are free and fair. Elections also need to ensure the respect of essential criteria to be considered fair that include impartial electoral frameworks; credible electoral administration; and respect of electoral results. In the particular case of Baja California, such a reform to extend the term of the governor, should have been discussed, negotiated and ratified in 2017, before the elections of 2018 and 2019 for it to be considered as a legitimate measure. From a constitutional perspective, electoral processes are considered conclusive and each stage is final.
The president has decided to distant himself from the matter and leave this issue in the hand of the judiciary. The president has the attribution to promote an action of unconstitutionality in the Supreme Court of Justice, should he wish to condemn a clear anti-democratic action. Legislators of opposition parties have presented such recourse, and the incumbent Baja California governor has refused to ratify the results. López Obrador’s attempt to distance himself from the decision in Baja California is not an expression of respect and autonomy, it is rather one of consent and complicit that would leave doors open to further unconstitutional actions.
It is worrying bathat López Obrador washes his hands in a clear trampling of the popular will and the constitutional framework. By not defending effective suffrage, the president is validating the right to extend the term of any administration, by simple legislative whim, in any other governmental administration. All this could mean a setback to Mexico’s democracy. Like the PRI, MORENA is a pragmatic umbrella organisation including all sorts of political actors: there is room for everyone: the left, the right, those with a history of corruption, those who are not corrupt. It is back to the future. MORENA could also take over much of the PRI’s old patronage networks. While the PRI has curbed the power of top unions, MORENA has courted them, and part of MORENA’s ascent is based on the territorial grassroots work that the PRI dominated decades ago, let us hope that MORENA does not decide to also start mirroring the old authoritarian, undemocratic practices that allowed the PRI to remain in power for 71 years.
Trump: Rebukes and Worries
It’s one for the history books, as they say. On July 16, 2019, Donald Trump was formally rebuked by the House (in a 240 to 187 vote) for his ‘racist’ tweets on four Congresswomen. The last time the House rebuked a president was William Howard Taft over a 100 years ago.
So what did Trump do? He told the four members of Congress to ‘go-back’ to the ‘the crime infested places from which they came’ instead of ‘viciously telling’ us ‘how our government is to be run.
Three of the women were born in the U.S. and Ilhan Omar was a refugee from Somalia. Not difficult to guess which country was largely responsible for a proxy war in Somalia that overthrew a regime agreed to by warring parties for a rare interlude of peace. The resulting civil war now continues, and Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania are home to more than 2 million Somali refugees. Others have ventured further, to the EU and the US.
Trump’s assessment of all this is uniquely Trumpian. He thinks he has won because he has now got Speaker Nancy Pelosi exactly where he wants her for the 2020 election … in the arms of the squad of four, who he positions as radicals.
Exactly how radical are they? They want a living minimum wage, healthcare for all — something other developed countries already have — a decent shot at education, and they are strongly against Trump’s policies on the southern order. Finally, they want Palestinians to get a fair deal.
Steny Hoyer (aged 80) the Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi (aged 79), the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, both with distinguished decades’ long careers, starting together coincidentally as staffers in the office of Senator Daniel Brewster (Democrat, Maryland), have weathered difficult battles on critical issues as well as the rough and tumble of politics for many a year.
To them the squad of four appear as upstarts with a brashness and energy that have captured the attention of mainstream news, and had a heretofore unseen impact on social media. They seem unwilling to compromise, and speak as equals despite a half-century age difference and a vast power gap in the House itself.
Not for them the lure of key committee appointments or other such carrots for a successful Congressional career. They are out and out idealists with a platform publicized positively thanks to left-wing websites and social media, and which can not be ignored by the mainstream outlets. The world has changed; no, these four have turned it upside down.
Trump himself has other worries. There is the case against Roger Stone his long-time ally, friend and attorney, who was back in court for disobeying the judge’s gag order. As the case goes forward, we will be back to the 2016 election, the Russian connection, and other efforts to smear Hillary Clinton. Will the calls for impeachment finally find a receptive ear in Nancy Pelosi?
Then there is Iran. Trump’s idea of a better deal is always to walk away from the present one. No matter if its a treaty or an international agreement. Ayatollah Ali Khamanei is not having any of it. People in this country are unaware that most such clerics, in addition to Islamic studies, are experts in jurisprudence and philosophy, are well-read, well-informed, and above all have to be highly intelligent to have been selected for this career path. The Ayatollah wants relief from sanctions first.
Trump’s new envoy to Iran, Senator Rand Paul is a libertarian like his father, and both are anti-war with a particular aversion for America’s misadventures abroad. So there is hope.
Just What Is An American?
The greatest mistake any leader, or moneyed powerful individual, or even masses of people (all 3 of which tend to have the loudest voices) is to culturally appropriate unto themselves, just exactly what it means to be an American, based on their own selfish notion of what it means.
The fact remains that the ideal of Americanism is a concept – a truly growing, organic, ever changing, and ever expanding idea that is enshrined within its founding documents and laws.
For example, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, US Constitution, Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Rights Amendment, among scores of other acts of legislation, point to an ever growing ongoing journey to forge a new nation, just like ancient Rome did, united by a common destiny, and drawn from different experiences, cultures, cuisines, religions, ethnicities, races, nationalities, and world views.
So when President Trump on July 15, 2019 told four minority female congresswomen in sum and substance to “go back to there they came from” if they “didn’t like America,” he trampled over their own views, ideals, and experiences as Americans.
Quite simply his statement was an appropriation of what it means to be an American, from the point of view of a German/ Irish American senior citizen male, to a group of Latin/ Somali/ Palestinian/ African-American younger females.
Perhaps President Trump should re-visit his own people’s racial history, wherein the Irish were systematically excluded by the previously arrived and established Anglican Protestants, or even with the Germans in America who were actually interred in camps during the periods of World War I & World War II.
The German-American Experience
During World War II, the legal basis for this detention was under Presidential Proclamation 2526, made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt under the authority of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
With the U.S. entry into World War I, German nationals were automatically classified as “enemy aliens.”
Two of the four main World War I-era internment camps were located in Hot Springs, N.C. and Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.
Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer wrote that “All aliens interned by the government are regarded as enemies, and their property is treated accordingly.”
The Irish-American Experience
In 1836, young Benjamin Disraeli wrote: “The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.”
Nineteenth-century Protestant American “Nativist” discrimination against Irish Catholics reached a peak in the mid-1850s when the Know-Nothing Movement tried to oust Catholics from public office.
Much of the opposition came from Irish Protestants, as in the 1831 riots in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
After 1860, many Irish sang songs about “NINA signs” reading Help wanted – no Irish need apply.
The 1862 song “No Irish Need Apply” was inspired by NINA signs in London.
Alongside “No Irish Need Apply” signs, in the post-World War II years, signs saying “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” or similar anti-Irish sentiment began to appear as well.
Back to an Authoritarian Past? Elections in Baja California
On the 2nd of June2019 Mexico held local elections that proved to be a successful referendum on the incumbent president’s...
Why Infrastructure Doesn’t Have to Cost the Earth
Here’s a statistic: 75 percent of the infrastructure that will be required globally in 2050 has yet to be built....
Prime Minister Imran Khan & President Trump
Pakistan is under an amazing political leadership of Prime Minister Imran Khan and his PTI Party working hard on a...
A review on govt. plan to barter oil for dues to private sector
The regulatory body of the government has been recently preparing the draft for a bartering system which is set to...
Afghanistan Facing Strong Headwinds to Growth
Afghanistan’s economy grew by around two percent in 2018 despite progress in economic policies, likely leading to further increases in...
Climate change: UAE and Russia eye geopolitical and commercial mileage
Climate change, much like war, could prove to be a geopolitical and commercial gold mine. At least, that is the...
The case of the INF Treaty
On February 1, 2019, President Trump suspended US compliance with the obligations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The...
Travel & Leisure3 days ago
23 Things to Do in Anguilla
Americas3 days ago
Trump: Rebukes and Worries
Green Planet3 days ago
Coastal resilience in Seychelles: Charting a path forward
Hotels & Resorts2 days ago
Protea Hotel Fire & Ice! by Marriott opens in Durban
East Asia2 days ago
Sanctions as a double-edged weapon: Chinese response to U.S arms supplies to Taiwan
Intelligence2 days ago
Effective measures to control Afghan border
Economy2 days ago
The Social-Strategic Revolution: Success for the Reluctant New Executive
Environment2 days ago
The growth we want is sustainable: Harnessing innovation for a circular economy for all