Yesterday’s NYTimes featured a profile of Harvinder Anand, the new mayor of Laurel Hollow (a village on Long Island). Anand is the latest member of what the Times describes as “a small but recently growing number of Indian-American officeholders [that] has been getting elected in communities across the nation where they are the tiniest of minorities.”
Harvinder Anand, the new mayor of this Long Island village of multimillion-dollar homes, private beaches and yachtsmen, is, like many other residents, a successful business executive, a boater and a connoisseur of world travel. His Sikh turban and beard drew double takes when he moved to the community about 10 years ago, but it does not get many anymore. At least not among the locals…Nonetheless, Mr. Anand’s way of standing out in the crowd of Bermuda-shorts-and-loafer-wearing people who elected him in June — he ran unopposed — attracted television crews from American and Indian networks to his inauguration on July 2… Link]
<
p>Other examples of Indian-American officeholders mentioned in the article include a host of people we have covered in past posts on SM: Upendra J. Chivukula, Jay Goyal, Nikki Randhawa Haley, and Kumar P. Barve. All of them (comprised of both Reps and Dems) actually called to congratulate Anand. How is that for identity politics?
Some are Democrats and some Republicans, but they all share a high level of education and a crossover election appeal. It is a testament, perhaps, to the fact that, compared with other immigrant groups, Indians tend to speak English when they arrive and are ready to assume a place in the middle class. [Link]
<
p>And of course there is also the Governor Elect (for all practical purposes) of Louisiana (he didn’t call Anand):
United States Representative Bobby Jindal, Republican of Louisiana, a second-generation Indian-American who was elected from a district whose population is 1.5 percent Asian, narrowly lost his bid for governor in 2003 and recently began a campaign for this year’s election for governor — in a state where Indian-Americans account for about 1 percent of the population. [Link]
<
p>Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians:
In contrast, Chinese, Japanese and Korean immigrants have largely settled in cities on the East and West Coasts and in Hawaii, which is mostly where they have been elected to public office. [Link]
<
p>It seems like Anand, like many other recent candidates, is adopting the Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger political philosophy:
“At the end of the day, I am a businessman,” said Mr. Anand, who ran without party affiliation in the village election but calls himself a Reagan Republican. “I believe in efficiency and cost-effectiveness…” [Link]
You can bet that there will be more Indian Americans running in 2008 and that we shall cover them all.
Camille. I campainged for Col North when I lived in Northern VA.
He lost because John Warner R. the seventh husband of Elizabeth Taylor :-)came out against him.
Rajesh, it’s good to have your point of view, but at least LISTEN to what others are saying…and try to consider all angles…don’t have knee-jerk reactions. After all that, if you still honestly think your views are the only correct ones, then by all means stick to them. Even then, keep an open mind…you never know what new things you might learn in the future that will challenge your beliefs. For that matter, as you get older you may mellow and realise that others had legitimate points of view as well. And by the way I disagree with some things Camille has said (but I still read EVERYTHING you write Camille) and certainly with much of what PS has said, but they’ve made excellent, thoughtful, and informative points as well.
Amitabh,
I see a pattern developing: RH says something, someone else advises a more deliberate, reasoned approach, RH says something else in the same vein.
He’s not a troll by any means but I think there is a serious language gap–how many times can people say essentially the same thing, and the target of such cautions continue on the same track?
Thanks, Amitabh, the feeling is mutual 🙂
I haven’t read his stuff, so I can’t really recommend either way unfortunately.
I’d start with the classics (Sun Tzu, Book of Five Rings, Von Clausewitz) if you’re looking at strategy/conflict theory. Robert Greene’s 33 Strategies of War is pretty readable. Another good book, though not directly about strategy, is about one of the best modern strategists. Col John Boyd. The book is called Boyd: The Fighter Pilot who Changed the Art of Warfare by Robert Coram. The biography is a good place to get interested about how one lives strategy. There are better books on his OODA loop theories out there.
History of the Peloponnesian wars, The Prince, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius are all neat, too.
Aaah, why didn’t you say so. Could have saved us a lot of time. Isn’t she the person who loves to deride various Democrats as wusses by the one of their voices or picks on their demeanor but has no problem associating herself with a dork like DSouza or Ramesh Ponnuru whose voice makes Michael Jackson’s seem manly by comparison.
Rajesh: Most dedicated Republicans I know want nothing to do with Ann Coulter…conservatives, at least the Natl Review reading mainstream, consider her a liability.
You may want to check out this post and the comments.
Because PS, you seem capable of seeing great nuance in one of the world most bloodiest ideologies (which is fine, after all, how so many idealists and intellectuals could descend into a madness only comparable to Nazism is one of the great questions of our time); but cannot seem to grasp the other side of the coin in regards to reagan, kennedy, kennen, & kissenger…leaders of one of the world’s most freest nations. that the US could have supported dictators while moving the world toward democracy and capitalism seems beyond your grasp. You ar right to point out that some of the world most brutal dictatorships were supported, but to de-contextualize it out of the specter of the brutality of communism would be like saying the US supported the USSR in WWII w/o any reference to nazism.
What I am saying is containment (and reagan’s ratching up of it to defeat communism) was a complex mix of old-fashion otto vosn bismarck realpolitik, corporate self interest (or property rights depending on your pt of view), human rights concerns, and advancement of classic liberalism. in regards to latin america, i think the above mentined men were haunted by the brutal suppresion of the people of cuba by castro, who was hailed as a liberator by the left and eventually ended up enslaving his people and not even allowing them to even leave the island. so better with the bastards we know (batista, pinichet) than the bastards who would make alliance with the evil empire.
i thought since you were lecturing rajesh on being more nuanced, you might appreciate the contradictory and complex politics of containment.
what’s with all these liz taylor men eventually coming out?
Camille:
Actually I have. I used to work for Amnesty International in ’82. My job was to put together testimonials from prisoners of conscience so AA could use them for fundraising purposes. Since the leftist regimes of that time (cuba, USSR) were much more totalitarian than the right (even S. Africa), AA had a much harder time documenting human rights violations from the left.
so i was very familiar with the brutality of the right. but i would much rather live in aparthied s.africa than cuba…since i could alway get out.
i think the sentiment behind my last statement drove many cold-warriors. they may have benn wrong about the nature of some leftist regimes, but i’d take ollie north’s record over jp sartre’s any day.
PS in #146 – Well, I can surely talk about some stuff I attended if you are interested. I was at this GLBT session at the conference and I must say the energy in that big hall was quite captivating and high. But I felt there was more of patting each others backs than anything else in that one. Feel free to drop me a note if you have any Qs per se.
On a random note and learning – the more I get into the social sector, the more I realize that lot of times no one knows much, For eg, last few days I have been trying to find out economic distribution in India across castes in modern in India society. Turns out there is hardly any data – the census board banned collection of such data and thus there isn’t much available since Indian independence. I did find some books related to the same but now I cannot find those books.
I suppose at this point, since neither of us have actually lived in aforementioned conditions, we’re at a draw. 🙂 My overarching point was not that one brutality is better/worse than the other, but that we don’t know what would have happened, but we do know what did happen, and it was horrific.
Ardy, come join the dark side as an economist/researcher. 🙂 But seriously, I think this is one of the biggest failings of social programs — failure to enumerate and track data in a methodologically sound way. We know that governments haven’t been doing it, but as research globalizes (with interest), it’s a great time to start institutionalizing tracking.
Are you speaking for black South Africans too?
Yay, more jobs in program evaluation/evaluation research! Clinical/health research folks have only recently begun to go down this analytical path with respect to tracking the reach of research funding.
malathi, this is my favorite part about my job. 🙂
louiecypher, I guess this means I am not really a commited Republican.
Amitabah, You are right about me being a knee jerk reactionary.
I like to think of myself as an independant conservative. The term means little because individuals are complex and you realy can’t put them in neat ideological boxes or compartment.
Guys, Take note of the books that GujuDude reads in #205. This explains his insight. I have read these books also, except for two, Robert Coram and Col Boyd.
Rahul, I actually feel the same as you that lack of military service should normally not be held against a politician in such positions. Hell, Cheney probably would not have been a good soldier. So it’s probably good he stayed away. However, with this current crop, not only are they deficient in the areas they mentioned, you would think at least with all the warmongering they do, it might have come out of something habitual. But you look at their past, and a lot of them seem to indulge in a pattern of finding some excuse to avoid serving when asked or were in danger of being asked to do so. Didn’t Cheney have a few deferments? He also has said he had better things to do. It’s not like he was discovering the next scientific breaktrhough or his family situation was in such dire shape. So when these guys turn around and accuse others of anti americanism or go after Kerry when he clumsily said something along the lines of “if you don’t have any options, you too might end up in Iraq”, isn’t that pretty much the attitude of a Cheney. “He had better things to do” was his only real excuse not to serve. And when you see these guys make their fortunes off of the defense industry and pander to the military community and ridicule others on these issues, you gotta ask if they led by personal example. It’s just a combination of many things where it compels me to not give them the benefit of doubt. I do not apply this to everyone who doesn’t serve.
It also annoys me when Bush gives a speech asking people to join the military and how honorable it is. Yet he never says whether he exhorts his own kids to serve. How about Lieberman. DId his kid volunteer over here or in Israel(Let’s not get PC over this. Lieberman is practically a dual citizen). Should they serve? Not necessarily. But for being such a “military friendly” President, shouldn’t he at least have had that conversation with his kids? Couldn’t Jenna volunteer in a military hospital instead of partying in South America to “intern as a teacher”? Bush strikes me as the kind of guy who would get into a fight, but if friends are holding the two rivals back, Bush would be the one if you actually called his bluff and let go, he wouldn’t be moving forward to hit his rival. Cheney would be the type calling his enemies cowards, but will always get someone else to do his dirty work.
My thing is this, when there is no shortage of troops, it is best for everyone to do what they are best suited to do, and many are not cut out to serve in the military. I am one of them. I cannot take orders. I am not the most disciplined. However, when the country is in a war, advocated by a certain group of people, and there are not enough enlisted troops at some point during the war, and the time comes for a temporary infusion of new blood, I think the more you support such elective wars, the more you should be willing to volunteer to serve unless you are engaging in something which is of greater use to society during that period. What makes me laugh is when these people are posed such questions, is not the fact that they come up with some lame excuse not to serve. It’s the fact that you can tell that they never even considered the possiblity seriously. Otherwise, support such a war, but have the decency not to question other people’s patriotism.
Please. Can we stop with the Clinton and Obama bashing?
The military life is not for everyone. The military does not like the draft. Maybe it is good that Cheny got a deferment. He would have been discharged for health reasons anyway. I remember reading that he worked as an electrical lineman while putting himself through night school. That isn’t exactly a safe job. This was before he joined the civil service.
The only pols that I know of that have kids in Iraq are McCain and Webb. A few congressmen are reservists and were called up for duty, Lindsey Graham is one. I do not remember who the others are.
Well I guess I don’t speak for the hordes of black south african refugees who banged on the doors of cuba yearning to be free.
Rajesh, please, more knee and less jerk in the comments.
How creepily ironic is it that the online radio started playing Cops of The World as I read through this comment thread.
Rajesh, GujuDude:
some insider perspective on Beuchamp, et. al–video blogging style.
Very funny Abhi, By the way thanks for posting this story. I know we have gotten of topic a bit but it all comes full circle re: politicts, military, Sikhs.
Beuchamp’s Myspace profile. His buddy ‘baby killer’s’ profile screams raging angst to me. He’s married to a TNR reporter, too.
Among other things, the Weekly Standard is mentioning he’s recanted his story under oath.
I take anything from the TNR or Weekly Standard with a whole shaker worth of salt, but the following logic does hold true:
So, as the post suggests, he’s either lying under oath or he’s been lying to the TNR. Either way, the dude is a shitbird for having lied about the story (lame) or been part of a group doing those dishonorable acts (very lame). His NCO’s and Officer’s asses will be smoked regardless for not enforcing discipline if there is an ounce of truth to his stories.
If those guys are scared of any alleged activities that the Army regs and orders state they shouldn’t partake in, well, I hope they’re shitting their pants. The UCMJ should be thrown at them. If not, well, he got his 15 minutes of fame as a liar (wouldn’t be the first).
Muralimannered Read what these two anti war liberal reporters wrote after returning from Iraq. It realy upset Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha The reporters are :Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack. Sorry I do not have the link but you Can find it in The New York Times or The New York Post.
Beuchamp is a fraud but even if it were true It is a non-issue, (except for running over a dog) the equivalent of putting panties on the heads of prisoners and stripping them naked. A lot worse goes on in college Fraternities across this country.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070807/COMMENTARY/108070009 This is a link to a commentary on the the article by O’Hanlon and Pollack
Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack aren’t exactly “anti war liberal” reporters.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/
“In March, 2003, Michael O’Hanlon was one of the signatories to a letter on Iraq policy issued by Project for New American Century.”
I second Nil.
And Rajesh, I had a good friend who was sucked into the Moonie cult, actually was married in one of the mass-events held at the old RFK in DC and for many years was lost in that incredibly loony, mindf8ck of an organization.
I think Sun Myung Moon is a criminal, should be prosecuted further and wouldn’t even think of trusting stories from one of his publications (let alone contribute to ad revenue generated by hits on the wash-times site.)
My dad does cross over in wash-times territory occasionally and I never fail to remind him that their HR dept. is okay with Confederacy-sympathizers and white supremacists.
but then again, the NYTimes and DemoCrats all hate america and the liberal values that have brought us this far.
muralmannered
Sun Myung Moon Is no longer associated with the Washington Times. You will not find any pro Moonie stuff in that paper. Moon spent many years in jail in South Korea for tax evasion. He has disappeared from the public light. I do not agree with his religion or his methods. Many couples from his mass weddings have gotten divorced.
The Washington times is a good paper that bears no resemblance to his touch. The Washing Times continue to out-sell the Washington Post in Northern Virginia. The Washington Post even tried giving away a less biased, condensed version, at Metro stations, called the Express. Some people took it but still purchaced the Washington Times.
This strategy by the Post was if they could give away a smaller version of their paper then less people would buy The Washington Times. It did not work. The Post is far less leftist than it used to be because of competition from The Washington Times.
Prior to 1982 The Washington Post was the only daily in the metropolitan area for three years. During ‘The Cold War’ they (The Washington Post) was mockingly reffered to by conservatives as “Pravda” on The Potomac”
I think the Washingtonian Times reference came up to support the characterization of “these two anti war liberal reporters wrote after returning from Iraq” – Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack.
here is what O’Halon has had to admit to a reporter recently recently, these are his words:
“As you rightly reported — I was not a critic of this war. In the final analysis, I was a supporter.”
“if I’m being held up as a “critic of the war”, for example by Vice President Cheney, it’s certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself,”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html
A lot of buzz phrases are thrown around and a lot of straw men are built up but when it comes down to being factually incorrect (by characterizing people who are for the war as against it) it doesn’t look good.
8 · Pravin on August 2, 2007 09:31 PM · Direct link
Harry is such a cliched Americanization of his name. Why not HARVEY, if he must bastardize his name?
10 · Abhi on August 2, 2007 09:36 PM · Direct link
Why not “Hairy?” 🙂
-really guys? first of all he did not bastardize his name, his fully name is Harvinder Anand and Harry is the most accurate derivative of it. secondly, its his choice, he chose Harry as a matter of convenience – making jokes about names such as Harvey and Hairy are really immature and disrespectful, and you never know who they might upset