Let’s meet the Indian delegates to next week’s Republican National Convention shall we? Who are they? Can we learn anything about their motivations and beliefs from some recent articles?First, the party line as reported by DesiTalk News India-Times:
“Under the steady and optimistic leadership of President George W. Bush, the Republican Party is celebrating a milestone achievement in our party’s connection with America’s minorities. Since the 2000 convention, there has been an estimated 70 percent increase among minority delegates,” says the GOP, noting that Asian American representation is up nearly 40 percent from what it was in 2000.
That 40 percent includes 10 Indian Americans who are going to New York come September 30 for four days of celebrations to endorse President Bush’s rerun.
“Unlike the Democrat’s quota system, the Republican Party’s open process has garnered a percentage increase four times greater than the percentage increase of minorities at the Democrat Convention since 2000. In comparison, the well documented Democrat Party quota system and slight increase in minority representation at the 2004 Democrat National Convention (compared to 2000) also illustrates that minorities are connecting with the Republican Party,” says the GOP.
So what do the delegates think of this party line and the Republican Party?:
These words are particularly important for elected Republican delegate Dr. Shambu Banik, a practicing psychiatrist in the Greater Washington area and the first ever Indian American White House appointee during President George Bush’s father’s administration, who has worked in the Republican trenches as it were. Being an elected delegate or a delegate-at-large, means the person has a vote. But alternate delegates do not get to sit on the floor level at the convention and can only become “delegates” if one from the state delegation takes ill or has to leave for some reason.
Banik also represents the views of much of the mainstream support for President Bush. “President Bush’s strong point is he has the guts and the vision. Saddam Hussein was a menace to humanity. President Bush went there (Iraq) even if he had to go alone with a few coalition members and based on the intelligence information he was given by experts. It shows he is a decisive leader. Whether he was right or wrong, only time will tell. The whole world knew that Saddam Hussein is manufacturing WMD but unfortunately we did not find any,” he says.
Ahhh. I see the GOPs mis-information campaign about WMDs is enjoying continued success. Banik’s whole assessment took me a bit by surprise. I NEVER hear first generation Indian-American’s bring up foreign policy as a discriminating factor in voting, unless it is in regards to immigration. In my experience their main issues are business and economy related. I was not at all surprised to see the relatively high number of medical doctors among the delegates. My inner cynic say: “Who are they trying to fool?” I’d bet one of my kidney’s that their main issue is medical insurance. That is perfectly fine and acceptable to me, but I was just left with the impression that it was being neglected in their professed motivations.
For other Republican activists like Dr. Zach Zachariah, delegate-at-large, active for more than 20 years, and more recently Dr. Raghavendra Vijayanagar and Dr. Akshay Desai, both alternate-delegates, it has been the fundraising prowess that brings them to New York. Dr. Zachariah, classified as a “Ranger” among Bush supporters and who has over the last two decades raised more than $2 million for the Party, believes Indian Americans are gaining some influence within the GOP but that the community remains unable to unify.
“There are certainly more Indian Americans involved now than before. The Republican Party is very aware of the contributions the Indian community has made and continues to make. We should have been more organized but I have tried over the last 20 years. We cannot join together ideologically but as a community, like the Jewish community that sticks together in the fund-raisers, even if they have divisions within,” he told News India-Times. However, he adds, “I think things have improved. There’s more participation. My main concern is how to unify. Many people want to do their own thing.”
He’s right you know. I want to do my own thing.
Also, what the hell is a “Ranger?” SuperRangers, Rangers, and Pioneers, are among the classifications that the Bush Campaign gives to their top contributers. What do they get except a cool-name? According to Public Citizen:
…nearly one of every five of Bush’s elite fundraisers in the 2004 or 2000 elections has received a presidential appointment. At least 173 Rangers and Pioneers (or their spouses) received appointments ranging from jobs in the executive branch to positions on federal advisory boards to spots on the Bush-Cheney transition team. This tally includes four Cabinet secretaries and 29 ambassadors.
Damn! Being a Ranger just started sounding a lot cooler to me. If I get a mask, that will seal the deal. I WILL raise the money for a mask. So who are the biggest Indian donors on both sides? This time around Bush has four Indian Rangers in his Posse. According to the Wall Street Journal, here are some of the deep pockets on each side:
With that brief introduction to the delegates, let’s wait and see what comes out of the convention next week. Also, lets keep an eye on where those Rangers end up.
Well, I’m voting based largely on foreign policy and so are the two other Asian, er, Indian Americans in my family. Two of those votes would make you sad, I presume, and one would make you happy. Of course, I am being presumptious with all this presuming.
“I want to do my own thing.” That’s the same response I had when I clicked through the Asian Americans for Kerry site 🙂
And it’s funny that you should call it the GOP’s misinformation campaign on WMD. Lots of non-GOP people thought he had them (including Jacques Chirac and the United Nations. They just thought he was containable). In my profession, when we finally figure out what happened to a patient by opening him or her up on the autopsy table, we call this the ‘perfection of hind-sight.’ Or alternatively, hind-sight is 20-20.
Good catch and good post! You sepia mutineers are doing a very interesting thing here….
MD, It would not surprise me if you voted taking Foreign Policy into account, because you are younger than ~40 (at least that is what I have been assuming :). I expect those younger than 40 to vote on a broad set of issues. I am surprised (even if I shouldn’t be) when people over 40 in the South Asian community base their vote on more than one or two issues especially if they are first gen.
As far as my comments on the GOPs misinformation campaign, I don’t think I should re-open that debate under this post. Whether or not they manipulated the public has been debated in the media for well over a year, so I think I will let them continue debating it. Of course, by my post its obvious where I stand on that issue. 🙂
Damn! Being a Ranger just started sounding a lot cooler to me.
I wonder what proportion of big Clinton donors got spots in the cabinet? Honestly, pay to play works on both sides, according to the Washington Post:
and here:
So less than 2% of the country contributes a substantial fraction of a given party’s funds. Interesting, no? If these were oil magnates or Rangers, perhaps the reaction would be different?
I wonder what proportion of big Clinton donors got spots in the cabinet? Honestly, pay to play works on both sides, …
Umm, I did post the cut-out from the WSJ showing the money on both sides and last week I wrote a pretty sarcastic post about fundraising on the left.
Just so you know though (and I don’t mean to single you out), I am under no obligation to give equal time in any post. If SepiaMutiny had existed before the DNC, I would have done a similar post on them. In fact, the inspiration for the creation of SM came out of the fact that there wasn’t a brown blogger on the floor at the DNC, telling it like it was. I am not some great defender of the Democrat Party, but I AM an Oil Magnate hating, A. Roy loving Progressive Liberal. On this site think of me as you would a Jon Stewart. I call ’em like I see them. Among the South Asian Americans I have encountered since I first went to college 10 years ago, my opinions are pretty typical (although I did go to the progressive University of Michigan). I am in the majority, and so you will note that I will rarely feel the need to defend my posts. Majorities rarely do, no? Besides, I am of the firm opinion that those who blog, just like those who usually leave comments, are pretty set in there ways and it therefore doesn’t merit the time to exchange too many comments. I like engaging the “comment virgins” who rarely leave their thoughts behind. 🙂
With regard to arguments about the Jewish population in this country giving money to the Democrats, I would argue that that particular constituent is equally powerful in both parties. Perhaps you have neglected to pay attention to our country’s foreign policy decision makers?
I think we are in violent disagreement that money=access sucks.
“With regard to arguments about the Jewish population in this country giving money to the Democrats, I would argue that that particular constituent is equally powerful in both parties. Perhaps you have neglected to pay attention to our country’s foreign policy decision makers?”
The four most prominent people in Bush’s team are Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld, and not one of them is Jewish. If we fought Gulf War II to make Israel safer, we failed miserably. Iran is redoubling its effort to develop a nuclear weapon, with their Hezbollah foot soldiers rubbing their hands in anticipation.
To return to domestic politics, although Jews contribute such a large portion of individual donations, it needs black voters to win national elections. Since LBJ, no Democrat has been elected President without a heavy black turnout. But Jews and blacks do not always see eye to eye – blacks are more likely to be opposed to gay marriage and pro-Palestinian than Jewish Dems. It’s analagous to the problems in the Republican party between the evangelical, family values wing against the free market, individualist types.
But the parties manage their discord in different ways, and it seems Reps are more tolerant of differing viewpoints than the Dems. While we can see a Republican who is pro-affirmative action (Powell, Rice), pro gay-marriage (Cheney, Schawzenegger), pro-choice (Giuliani) – where are the prominent Dems that go against their party orthodoxy?
Rudy (and Bloomberg) are both Democrats who became Republicans fairly late in the game. Rudy became one when Reagan made him a DA, bloomberg became one, basically, so he could run for office.
Other Republicans who I hope are bucking their party include Republican congressional candidate and eugenics supporter James Hart, who recently explained his campaign strategy to reporters: “Every person who opens the door — as long as they’re white — I’ll say, ‘I’m James Hart. I’m running for Congress.”
There’s also Pete Coors, whose campaign spokesman quipped that it would be worse to be mistaken for John Kerry than for a member of the Klan.
MD, not to turn this into a long digression on WMD, but others who stated that Iraq did not have serious WMD included Powell in 2001:
You’re also being disengenous here. The issue isn’t 20/20 hindsight as much as it is the way in which evidence available at the time was selectively presented as well as being presented as far more certain than it was. So when one guy, a defector who was related to key figures within the Iraqi opposition, starts talking about mobile WMD trucks (and it was only that one guy), it gets presented like it was multiply sourced gospel fact from a neutral source.
The question isn’t, what would we have done if we knew then what we knew now. The debate is about what would we have done then if we knew exactly what we knew then. Even republicans have said that the evidence available at the time was too shaky to support the conclusions drawn.
OK, I’m out of this thread. Just wanted to soapbox since MD had brought it up. If people think this comment is out of line, I can always delete it.
Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Ari Fleischer, David Frum.
Zell Miller, Joseph Lieberman, Howard Dean (a fiscal conservative, and bucked the party on Iraq)…
where are the prominent Dems that go against their party orthodoxy?
The New Democrats used to be a voice for reason re: fiscal policy post-1994. (nowadays they’re pretty silent as the left-liberals have taken over).
And at least during Afghanistan, most in the Democratic party repudiated their dovish SF/NYC leftist base to support the initial response to 9/11. Only freaks like Barbara Lee & Kucinich continued their obstructionism.
Umm, I did post the cut-out from the WSJ showing the money on both sides and last week I wrote a pretty sarcastic post about fundraising on the left. Just so you know though (and I don’t mean to single you out), I am under no obligation to give equal time in any post.
Sure, Abhi – sorry if I came off as too confrontational. You know I don’t mean anything personal by it. No hard feelings, I hope? 🙂
Among the South Asian Americans I have encountered since I first went to college 10 years ago, my opinions are pretty typical (although I did go to the progressive University of Michigan). I am in the majority, and so you will note that I will rarely feel the need to defend my posts. Majorities rarely do, no?
Btw, I am interested in what the breakdown for party affiliation is for SAs. I agree with you that collegiate SAs tend to be leftist (due to relentless multicult indoctrination, overwhelmingly leftist professoriate, etc.).
But I wonder how left-wing those doctors and engineers and MBAs tend to be by age 30? Something tells me they’re going to be less high on the idea of soaking the rich when it means signing over their hard earned bling to the fedgov…to spend on “the poor” of course, not politician’s salaries or pork barrel projects…
I’d agree with you on the last paragraph in your last point. That is the nature of the word “conservatism” is it not? At it’s heart the conservative policy is to maintain the status quo which is beneficial to the wealthy or the establishment (although the same could be said of Communism on the far left). That is why you always hear the cliche that when you are young you are liberal, but once you are old and sucessful and want to hold on to what you have, you are conservative. Its not that people get smarter when they get older. Its that materialism is part of human society. Staying at the top of the heap is an evolutionary imperative.
At it’s heart the conservative policy is to maintain the status quo which is beneficial to the wealthy or the establishment (although the same could be said of Communism on the far left).
I think our main point of disagreement is over whether the ‘status quo’ system is better for everyone than the alternative.
For example, the income of even the poorest segments of US society is higher than that of the median European in the big-four Euro economies (UK, Italy, Germany, France). The Euros are more equal, but the poorest Americans are wealthier because of the $10k GDP gap.
I know I’m going to regret dipping my toe into this long assed debate but… These kinds of statements are the heart of what’s wrong w/ political discourse today –
Conservative is such a friggin bad word but it’s damn convenient for folks who paint themselves as “liberal” to define it this way. Where’s the Libertarian? The Classical Liberal? The person who believes in minimal government & the dynamism / creative destruction / embrace of risk that’s inherent in markets? That sort of creature, is far more likely to be labeled a “Conservative” these days rather than a “Liberal” and yet he’s the antithesis of Abhi’s definition…