Apparently and Indian American Leadership Council (IALC) was one of the groups that got formed during the Democratic National Convention. What is the IALC? As reported by the IACPA and by the Pacific News Service:
Unlike the Indian American Republican Council (IARC) formed last year by Republican sympathizers in the community, the IALC is not an independent body, but a wing of the [Democratic National Committee] working within the party structure. Besides the IALC, there are five other DNC leadership Councils: the WomenÂ’s Leadership Council, the Hispanic American Leadership Council, the Asian Pacific Leadership Council, the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council and the African American Leadership Council. The goal of each Council is to raise $2.5 million until November 2, 2004.
The use of the word sympathizers really stood out to me in the above paragraph.
I am no novice to politics. I know how the game is played and that cash rules everything, but reading this article it was so apparent that raising money for a cause seems to be more important than defining or debating the cause. I am not blaming the IALC for the impression this story left on me. It could simply be the way the article was written.
Any individual who contributes $25,000 will automatically become an official member of the Indo-American Leadership Council.
That would look really cool on my business cards.
Fundraising is going to be a critical part of this organization, the success of which will establish the community’s readiness to be involved in national politics, [Ro] Khanna said. The Council has already raised half a million dollars of its targeted $2.5 million. “If we meet this target, the DNC will make the IALC a permanent feature of the Party,” Khanna said.
Translation: Money=Membership
Typically, [Niranjan] Shah explained, even though the Indian American representation at any given fundraiser is a mere one or two percent, their contributions often amount to more than 10 percent of the money raised. “Now that’s significant, but what do we get in return?” he asks raising rhetoric. “The problem is different groups are working in different directions and there is no collective credit coming to the community.” “The positive thing (about the community) is there are a lot of wealthy people, intellectuals, and by nature, willing to write checks to be part of the mainstream. That, in itself, is a big deal,” Shah adds.
Okay, my cynic senses are starting to tingle. “willing to write checks and be part of the mainstream?”
However, the unique aspect of the IALC is every individual gets credit for any individual effort or money raised. “At the end of the day, the funds are routed through the Council, which will be aggregating them,” explains Khanna.
Please don’t get me wrong. I think that the creation of the IALC is a great thing and we will be better for it. Its well past time, and will help us gain political clout to forward our issues. Reading this article however left me with the desire to hear more about those issues which we are raising money for. I don’t want to be part of the mainstream, I want to change the mainstream. Power for powers sake leads nowhere. Excuse me while I go withdraw $25K.
but what do the democrats do for indian americans?
1) racial preferences work against indians. While I can understand the descendants of slaves angle, I’ve never heard a good explanation for why other voluntary immigrants or children of immigrants (Hispanic + African) should get preferences.
2) taxation, likewise
3) islamic terrorism is something many more pro-indian people feel strongly about. if india’s national security is a big deal to you (it isn’t to me), then the dems are certainly less willing to recognize islamic terror as a problem. That doesn’t mean Bush in particular is doing a good job, but it does mean the Dems have a larger proportion of emotional children like Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney, etc.
4) if outsourcing is an issue to you on indian grounds rather than/in addition to economic grounds, the R’s are pro-trade and the D’s are much more hesitant (viz. Kerry & his talk about Benedict Arnold CEOS).
soo….just about the only reason I can see that IAs vote for the Democrats is the imaginary wave of post 9/11 hate crimes. As Suman Palit showed some time back, the “hate crimes” bundled together insults and arson in the same category – and even then they were less frequent than one in a million.
Other than that, maybe racial profiling might be an issue to some…but that tends to work against IAs also:
So – honestly asking here – besides “hate crimes”, what does the D party offer you? Note that I’m not saying that Bush is great – he’s not a fiscal conservative, Iraq without WMDs was a bad idea, etc. – but I am saying that generally right wing policies (as promoted by Clinton, say, on economic issues) are beneficial to the IA community. So why advocate leftism?
QC, It’s not just about who favors Indians in particular, it’s about who in general favors the greater common good. Right now the republicans, in my view, are leading the country to disaster on many fronts, the most egregious of which is foreign policy. Remember, George Bush couldn’t name either Vajpayee or Musharraf when campaigning in 2000. Don’t you think we could do better?
I would question whether the dems are really softer on Islamic terrorism, as you put it. The Bush team let Pakistan slide until 9/11 — Abdul Qadeer Khan ring a bell? They knew about the whole thing, and let it go (and they’re still letting it go). I have to think that a less cloistered, less ideological foreign policy team put together by a Kerry administration would do a better job.
And this is to say nothing about the war in Iraq, which is, at best, doing nothing to aid the goals of the “war on terrorism.”
Finally, many Indians who are U.S. citizens have family members who are dealing with immigration. If nothing else, the abysmal job Ashcroft and Ridge have done in bloating INS/USCIS/DHS bureaucracy in the past three years is a reason to vote for a change. Apathy over immigration services makes Republicans often seem as if they are positively hostile to immigrants — and this is bad for us, even if many of us only look like immigrants.
I don’t think there’s much of a practical difference–rhetoric aside–between the R’s and the D’s on issues such as outsourcing, aff. action, etc.
Which is to say, while both parties ‘talk the talk’ when pandering to their core supporters, they don’t ‘walk the walk’. The status quo on these issues isn’t likely to change, given the deep differences in American society on these issues. So they aren’t as decisive as GC seems to think.
The key difference, however, is foreign policy.
Briefly, I would prefer a chastened Bush to a Kerry. Will Bush focus on terrorism, Iran, N.Korea and not Iraq-like sideshows? A Bush presidency focused on a manageable combination of idealism and realism seems like a better bet than Kerry’s brand of realism.
American policy in South Asia is key to the war on Islamist terrorists. While Bush is far too enamored of Musharraf, Kerry’s fondness for realism in foreign policy will likely result in Musharraf’s deification in a Kerry White House.
So, I’m not all that taken with either candidate’s foreign policy. I hope Bush will detail how his 2nd term will be different, at the RNC.
Btw, given the centrality of S. Asia to American security, enlightened American self-interest means that India’s security should be a “..big deal..” to American citizens.
Kumar P.S., Come to think of it, the Repubs. are echoing the Dems. rhetoric on free trade. I’m thinking of Zoellick’s (the U.S. Trade Rep.) remark that he is trying to inject a Hamiltonian note into American trade policy. As M. Yglesias notes in his blog, Hamilton was an arch-mercantilist.
Wow! All those DNC leadership councils. I’m hurt, though. Where is my council, hmmmmm? Where is the council that will nourish my delicate point of view that is being SYSTEMATICALLY suppressed by the white patriarchy? Where is the Indian American Midwesterner transplanted to New England Female Physician leadership council? Eh?
MD,
I’ll for’d your plea to the DNC. Hell, I’ll throw in the RNC too. Hey, maybe u can ask ‘Anji’ to join your request 🙂
Kumar