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.
Dude, you’ve thrown up so many rhetorical questions I don’t even know where to start. Look, I’m telling you how he’s preceived among military folks. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it to them. I’ve worked in and around them (not one myself) for the last 4 years. Bush, at the end of the day, despite his faults is seen as one the guys. Clinton came off as a jackass to military guys. If you don’t like Bush, that’s ok, but there are valid reasons why he’s significantly more popular among military types. Also, when 9-11 happened, the attitude did change. Military guys went into ‘war’ mindset, which means loyalty to the CINC and Bush didn’t shit on them.
Clinton was never trusted after Somalia. Mil guys thought he was a snake and a guy who would sell them out. By the way, CONGRESS is the one that funds everything. Congress is the power center. PORK amounting to billions could fund all the wars AND government programs. The VA/military healthare has been an issue far longer than Bush’s tenure. Both Repubs and Dems have been negligent there. Republicans and Democrats in Congress disgust me. Both simply do charades of supporting the military, war, or troops. I don’t think any give diddly squat – it’s about out to get re-elected.
As long as war has existed, so has civilian death. It’s blunt, but that is the truth. Honestly, if you want to avoid civilian death, you don’t fight. There isn’t a way around that in any fight, anywhere in the world. Despite all the negative publicity heaped on the United States, who else has invested SO MUCH money and technology into precision devices? But the more precise you get, people become sensitized to it as the standard, not expection to the case.
Do I like it? No. Would I like continual investment in better tech. and tactics? Absolutely. Is it unavoidable? unfortunately not in war. The day we have sharks with lazers mounted killing people is the day civilian death goes to zero.
big props to my moneyed homie…..loyal to the turban till the end……all sikhs, here, there, long hair, not, ride with you son…..when i get my phantom next year i will always rock my turban, especially where it will draw notice………just gearing up for india day; didn’t even know it existed till two weeks ago…..i hope the ladies come out in force…..oh yeah, what happened to my homie vikram’s turban? saw him at the airport, was going to ask him, but the a-hole departure low-life wouldn’t let me bud the line.
that is what i said in the first line of my comment as well. the reason for the comment was because of the unease i have when people call up “scholarly” work to explain their world-view.
no, i didn’t ask you not to make sweeping opinions. what is ask is not to think that there is much other than opinions—sweeping or not—in sociology and history.
this we will probably disagree on for a long time. i will listen if you care to convince me otherwise. people usually say that i am to blame for holding this opinion, so far no one has any argument to the contrary—either in the form of something i can read to change my mind, or in the form of a non trivial example where an opinion held by sociology has an empirical and rigorous (scientific, not volume) basis.
Sigh. How does that imply Afghanistan wasn’t good strategy in the first two years? Actually, it was to the miliary benefit that top leadership didn’t micromanage too much.
Bush/Cheney didn’t sit in the white house and place troops on a map at their whim – it’s planned out by generals. Letting Afghans seal off the mountain passes preventing Taliban to escape was a tactical error. It had nothing to do with availability of troops. US Marines (a friend of my was a Recon Marine who’s served in both Iraq and Afghanistan) were in the area on standby, READY. Generals made a call, it didn’t work.
I really have difficulty understanding how everyone expects perfect, bloodless, and mathematically predictable wars. It’s dynamic, an ebb/flow, sometimes two steps back, on forward, etc. One can lose a few fights/battles, wars are a cumalitive results of them. Had Lincoln buckled to pressures of making peace with the South (before a few battles were won around re-election time, boosting his popularity), you’d never seen the United States of today.
w.
Actually all communist movements start when a few privileged exploit the working class. The idea sounds good on paper. What happens after its implemented is where the concern is. There are no checks and balances. The power is in hands of a few and its absolute. Productivity goes down and the states look to USSR for bailout and trade. Further lets not pooh pooh the possibility of threat of nuclear missiles aimed at the US from the American continent.
no point in being sarcastic when you could do nothing about it as well. if you are doing something, all power to you. if you are just holding up save darfur signs, you are no better than me.
there is some sense in being “world-weary” as you put it. we were arguing about whether saddam has wmd or not. maybe if you were world weary as me, you could have picked the right fight with your administration.
and something constructive from puny peons: the us will not lift a finger to stop anything in darfur unless (i) the mid east problem is resolved or (ii) the oil in sudan/china’s interest in the oil/the pr fallout of censuring china becomes important.
for your save darfur sign, you might want to focus on china arming the conflict. people don’t care if there is a genocide elsewhere, they just want to feel superior.
A lot of people consider that term offensive, as they should.
I just can’t get behind this fatalism. We’re powerless as individuals, perhaps, but what about mass movements? They’ve happened in this country before and they’ll happen again, and as a citizen of the country that inflicts such horror on other populations, I do everything I can to try to build the antiwar movement. If we all sit around posting on the internet about how nothing can be done, that’s exactly what will happen.
And some Iraq war veterans and active-duty soldiers share that opinion…
.
assume a bit much, bytewords? I pick no fight with anyone, until and unless they get in the way of my family’s, friend’s or my own ambitions/projects. I also heap scorn on symbolic actions, like protests, as they USUALLY accomplish nothing but providing conservative blogs with “unhinged moonbat” imagery for propaganda.
If your jaded perspective is so superior, and causes you to pick all the ‘right’ fights with the current administration, maybe you’d be kind enough to stop voicing your admittedly useless opinions on this blog?
And remember as you type your aggrieved response to a perceived “ad hominem” attack that it was you who stated, “no point in being sarcastic when you could do nothing about it as well. if you are doing something, all power to you. if you are just holding up save darfur signs, you are no better than me.“
The point of the fatalism is to pick the correct arguments to garner support.
it does determine my vote in india. i have voted in every local election since 18 as long as i was there, and every national one. the US administration doesn’t have to listen to my useless opinions, but the ones back home do. and in local elections, it is probably going to make a difference as well. no wonder india is so far behind, eh?
Not that there aren’t veterans against the war, but the organization you’ve linked to is heavily represented by Rear Echelon types, or guys who were punished for disciplinary actions, or many who had other gripes.
Jesse Macbeth was a Army Ranger Poser, who IVAW didn’t even pick up on, despite his flagrant tall tales. To their credit, he was tossed from membership, but due dilligence of whether the guy was for real would have been easy for those who were well versed in Army protocol, particularly Army Rangers.
Much of the anti-war veteran crowd is made up of support, National Guard, Reservist population. Front line infantry tend to have less morale issues and higher staffing levels. The shortfalls in recruiting show infantry isn’t where they’re hurting, its the support type folks (transport, logistics).
gujudude,
the Beuchamp episode will trump Jessie M’s. It’s going to mushroom.
muralimannered, my fellow Lemurian atheist, for you, I will gladly buy dinners for many dates, defrizz my hair, eat a protein-rich diet, and highlight my black-as-midnight-on-a-moonless-night complexion, without a moment’s hesitation.
But there is one thing I will not stand for. Do not beat up my main man.
Oh God, that one seriously stinks. To the media’s credit, once he came out and couldn’t back the information up, he’s been taken to task, even by the more liberal types.
People tend to forget that every organization has its 10% shitbirds.
GujuDude and Vic, Again you answer the dimwitted masses for me. You guys are the most informed and enlighted, not just about military matters, but geopolitics and American political history on this blog.
Yes Jimmy Carter the worse president in my lifetime wrecked the economy and weakened our military. Under Jimmy the Soviets read the signals and saw weakness. They (Soviets) expanded to the island of Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Surinam, Angola, Mozambiqe and Afghanistan. Reagan sent them into retreat and ended the Cold War. His first term was spent the wreckage left by Jimmy Carter.
Any data or CNN (Clinton news network) is skewered. I got my information from a poll done by Thomas Ricks who wrote the book “Making The Corps” about the Marine corps as compared to the Army and the military’s relationship with the civillian society.
This is the sort of book that Morris Janowitz or another military sociologist would write. The book is on the recommended reading list for the Marines. Thomas Ricks is a liberal and was anti military reporter at the Pentagon untill he was ordered to go to Somalia and follow the Marines.
What he saw changed his life and his views as well as inspire him to write the book. “Making The Corps” caused quite a stir when it came out. “The Wall Street Journal” featured portions of the book in five parts. I also believe his numbers that 90% of the military described themselves as Republican because I have served in different units at different locations as well as overseas. Yes we troops do discuss politics as it affects us.
“Much of the anti-war veteran crowd is made up of support, National Guard, Reservist population.” Yes these are not the professionals and most are REMFS.
This is changing now since the War in Iraq and Afghanistan most of the Guard and Reserve have done at least one tour there and some have requested to go regular. I know a girl serving in Iraq, as a Medic. She completed her tour of Iraq and did wonderful work there with civillians, not just medical but with schools, rebuilding, kids and training and equiping Iraqi police. After she was demobilized and returned home she quit her civillian job as a California Highway Patrollman and joined the regular Army requesting to be sent back to Iraq. They sent her to Afghanistan instead. Stories like these are typical of the guys I have met who came back injured but want to go back.
So all that means they weren’t total fuckups. That is like saying a guy who hits a great hit in a baseball game, but runs badly after he rounds second base to get inexcusably out at 3rd base. I don’t know how one can say Bush has been good to the military when you look at the civilians like Feith, Wolfowitz have not been held accountable for their fuckups which have put more stress on the troops. ANd whenever a general would speak out against the war, Bush’s surrogates would badmouth them in the press. Geez, I guess Bush likes military folk only when it suits him. I am not saying CLinton was that great. But his selling point for his Presidency wasn’t that he was going to be a great war president.
I work with VA software. And my bosses were depressed when republicans lost the senate. GUess what, it made no difference after all that who really was in power. The question is not who is better for the military because both parties have not been perfect. THe only thing Republicans are better at is rhetoric and funding the big defense companies. Their whole talking point is better defense, so when they fail, they get taken to task more. As far as the common troops, I ahve not seen any trends where REpublicans make more of an effort to make troops lives better compared to Democrats.
Why should I when you endorse that sentiment with a statement like this
And elsewhere you have implied the same kind of sentiment.
Rajesh:
I appreciate the support on my points, thank you. However, I will take exception to calling people here dimwitted. We’re guests here, as such it is my belief that we can debate back and forth, however it’s a bit disrespectful when we’re calling other guests names. Plus, far more people read than comment. I’m sure you’d agree, we don’t shit on others doorsteps :), else homeowners would serve us an SOS, or Shit on a Shingle!
I am not thrilled with the DEmocrats either. In sticking with the theme of the thread, I know a few Indians in the DEmocratic Party and their lifestyle and attitude is hypocritcal. THey act like they are part of this more compassionate political group when in reality they seem more concerned with racking up that great internship so their parents can brag that their kids worked with Gore or Clinton on something. I know one person who actually put one of her older relatives in India(he was in teh freedom movement) as someone who inspired her to enter public service but in reality she was just a brat who was bratty with most people from India. And Arundhati Roy. What a joke. She demonizes the U.S. but doesn’t go after dictators and other repressive regimes from her neighborhood to the same extent. And Communist Party in India. What a joke. A lot of them profess loyalty to China over India, demonize the U.S. , but then brag about their kids going to the U.S. and making fortunes.
Yeah well, here’s what Dolph Lundgren said on his blog to an alleged post from fatboy Seagal:
My money is on Dolph beating up steatopygic Seagal. Whether you stand for it or not.
Pravin:
I’m bringing forward a point of view. Qualitatively, I don’t think much of any politician when it comes to the military. I’m saying the troops in general though trust Bush far more than Clinton. When leaders lose confidence of their troops, it’s hard to earn it back. Clinton didn’t do much to get it back (military downsizing was at its peak during his years). You are also not taking the 9-11 effect into play. It is an emotional connection one has with the CINC during war. The mindset changes.
I’ve had discussions with Special Operations folks, and they said the same thing – First two years of Afghanistan was so different, strategically new, that it scared people. Including people in the military and government. There is a big split in the conventional warfare folks. An Army General was quoted telling SF folks that they’ve had their fun, but they’ll (Army) never let them have so much fun again. Big army was embarrased by the peformance of a handful of special operations folks.
In short, Bush, Rumsfeld, Big Army folks were so slow to catch on how dynamic Afghanistan was, that they couldn’t meddle with it and let operational level folks do their jobs.
Beyond that, I don’t know how much to tell you. Afghanistan was succeeding despite Bush and company. But it could have lasted only so long. I honestly don’t see ANY presidential candidate that’s even CLOSE to understanding warfare from a Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, John Boyd type perspective. I’d be happy if these guys understood maybe a few percent of what those guys did. FDR, as documented in 33 Strategies of War, was pretty crafty. But such talent cannot be replicated. Hell, JFK was on the phone keeping Eisenhower updated during the Cuban Missle crisis.
Some solid reading on conflict theory: Art of War, Book of Five Rings, General Giaps book, Mao’s writing on insurgencies, Stephen Colls Ghost Wars, Human factor Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies, 33 Strategies of War (has a bunch of editorial typos, but the message is the same), On War, books on John Boyd and the OODA loop, Understanding Terrorist Networks, etc.
GujuDude Point taken . I over-stepped by boundaries is the heated discussion. I apologise to everyone for the name calling.
GujuDude, Vic, Have you guys ever been military ? Is it that you are just interested in military affairs, geo-politics and history ? From your postings all I see is facts from two well informed individuals. It makes me curious about your backgrounds. Do you work for a think tank or some defense agency or The Rand Corp?
Vikram (119): Yeah well, here’s what Dolph Lundgren said on his blog
Dolph Lundgren has a blog. Dolph “I’m not as good as Arnold or even Jean-Claude” Lundgren! It’s official: The Internet is shit.
While I do not share some of your viewpoints, I find your responses a lot more informative and interesting that the stuff I see on the typical conservative blog. It at least gives me a better understanding of the other POV.
Addressed to GujuDude
It’s kind of crazy to write something insignificant at midnight, half asleep, and then come back to a blog the next midnight and find all sorts of comments flying around about yourself–not just about politics but personal ones. Disagree, but why such sarcasm and personalism?
Dolph can hold his own against them quite easily and not just physically…
Arnie is barely articulate and well, Van Damme has that tumor on his forehead.. ’nuff said.
Sounds like something the Queen of England recently said
To take it way back to the questions on Muslim voter trends way back in the 20s:
Here are the latest stats from CAIR. I think with this sort of stuff it’s generally hard to get reliable data, but I think the broad trends/analysis are fairly accurate:
From: American-Muslim Voters: A Demographic Profile and Survey of Attitudes”, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), 2006). [cite]
Also: “Muslim Voters Turn Away from Bush, Survey Finds” (SFChronicle, 30 June 2004)
Rajesh: I’m a DOD civilian employee who works for the Dept of Navy and USMC. Most of my co-workers are retired/former military with service across the generations, from a recent retiree who actually fought in Hue in Vietnam, cold war era military folks, to recent Iraq veterans. They aren’t the stereotypical gun ho type as portrayed in films and media. Most are quiet, confident, and easy going. Hell, my Recon buddy is the nicest guy I know. He’s one of those dudes that’s a Sniper, yet will pick up Oprah magazine and his buddies will just laugh. Squared away PROFESSIONALS.
Pravin: I’m not a conservative nor a liberal and don’t vote for a particular party either. I refuse to swear allegiance to any political party simply because, IMHO, loyalty to the parties have superseded loyalty to the American republic. If anything, my views fall solidly in the libertarian camp.
I like to stick to first person accounts or well researched accounts (Like Bowden’s Black Hawk Down), primarily books, for information and use google news to read the same news story from multiple sources to filter the noise out. The right information is hard to come by (news accounts have poor reliability, you rarely see journalists go back and revise their data as is done with books, especially for war accounts).
I’ve pimped him a bunch of times, but check out Michael Yon. He is self funded, very embedded with units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fills that void of quality in-depth dispatches. You’ll see a slice, but it’s a very thorough look at it.His articles are LONG for regular news. He’s a former Army Green Beret, too. Regarding BAD organizational abilities of the administration, please check out No True Glory by Bing West is SOLID. Along with details on Fallujah and what the USMC went up against, he details how the CPA, Generals, and Administration couldn’t get their act coordinated and Marines suffered as a result. Bing West is a former Marine who wrote the book “The Village” about the CAP program in Vietnam where Marines lived side by side in villages. It was a VERY successful COIN, though poorly understood by the higher ups.
to show some military knowledge, it’s certainly not necessary to be in the defense industry.
Rajesh,
you do realize that one of the foundations of Western Civ is cherishing the prospect that you might be proven wrong? My father spent 24 years in the Navy and he doesn’t show any of the unwillingness that you do to consider contrary views on their own merit–and not retreat to the standard, “all my ideological opponents are terrorist-abbetting manbearpigs with bad breath” defense. It’s childish, myopic and the mark of the terminally incurious.
IT GOOD TO KNOW SUCH SUCESSFUL PERSON OF ASAIN KNOW TO BE ASAIN-AMERICAN WITH A SUCESSFULY BUSINESS MAN.
I THINK ITS ALL NATURAL SPRIT THAT FLOW TO SUCH PERSON.
PLS VISIT to http://www.natureglow.blogspot.com for a nature trail in maharashtra
GujuDude, Mine is more liberal libertarian, if that makes any sense. Unless one is one issue libertarian(like the no tax crowd), i am for more individual choice and free speech. I am for smaller government too.
Does anyone here even pay attention to which candidates Indian lobbies favor? A lot seem to favor Hillary among the Dems. I could care less what they think because she is the one dem I am not voting for in the general election.
And regarding Bobby Jindal. Does anyone know if he did anything great during Katrina? He seemed rather invisible for a guy who has ambitions of becoming Governor. He is lucky he is probably running against Blanco, a woman who looks like she went to special ed.
At the end of the day the party affiliations obscure the more basic questions regarding which issues are important to the observant Muslim community. Pre-9/11 CAIR had endorsed Bush for the same reasons that conservative Christian groups did: stance against abortion, public funding for faith based initiatives etc. Of course CAIR’s endorsement does not give any indication of actual voting breakdown, but my guess is that the current popularity of the Democrats is weak in that it isin spite of their social agenda. I think now it’s all about voting in a less interventionist administration.
Jindal is not a publicity hound. Here’s an article of what he did during Katrina (Katrina piece is on 2nd half of the article.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2007/bobby_jindal_saves_louisiana
Here’s an excerpt
“Bobby Jindal doesn’t tell a lot of stories about what he did during Katrina. Seeing the devastation firsthand does that to you. You have to hear it from the people around him, the people who saw what he did.
A few days after the storm, there was a meeting of the Louisiana principals. Blanco was there, FEMA’s soon-to-be-infamous Michael Brown, a handful of Congressmen, and every local political staffer worth shaking a stick at, and some not even worth that. It was supposed to start at Noon. At 12:30, it still hadn’t. People were milling around, chatting, giving quotes to reporters.
Jindal surveyed the room for a few minutes. Then he saw Blanco and the others pause to look at a television in the corner—it was footage from another press conference they’d had the previous day, broadcasting on CNN. The politicians all stood around, watching themselves on the screen.
Jindal turned to his chief of staff, and said, “Let’s go.â€
GujuDude, Thanks for the backgound in #129 Your co-workers sound like the people I associate with. They do not appear as the gun-ho types as most of the successful ones I have met are mild mannered. Just one exception the Navy Seals I have met are hard assed with a bad attitude and don’t seem to have much social graces. My friend who was a recon Marine and embassy guard is so sensitive and mild mannered that it is hard for me to imagine how he reached that level, as an elite within an elite service.
Hollywood does not portay us right. In boot camp we were told that the Rambo types will not survive because they were not wanted, as everyone was part of a team. The “Army of One” slogan makes all the Army guys I know cringe and the other services uses this to tease them.
Marines are told in basic not to under estimate those Army guys as it takes six Marines to beat up one Army guy, five just to shake him down from the tree. :-))
Rajesh:
I’ve ran into a few guys who claimed to be SEAL types, and to be honest, many turn out to be posers or dudes who flunked out of BUD/S. Some are known to be arrogant to their fellow servicemen, though most are squarely focused on their mission/job. Usually, the Special Operations community prides themselves in the ‘Quiet Professional’ motto from what I’ve read and experienced in interactions with them. The guys who generally beat their chests the loudest and walk around talking about their ‘war’ experiences tend to be posers of the worst type. Guys who served in uniform, but those that weren’t proud of simply being part of a team.
The inter service rivalry thing is pretty funny, though at the end of the day, everyone understands they’re part of the same team. Thankfully, the Army has dropped the “Army of One” slogan and replaced it with “Army Strong”. Those ads are surprisingly decent, considered how bad their previous marketing pitches were. The USMC still has the best one though.
Apologies to all for deviating off the thread focus so much.
Pravin:
I have no disagreements with you here.
May I humbly interject…
U S A! U S A! U S A!
louciecypher, I think the point CAIR made, and the larger political trend that exists, is that Muslim-American voters are not highly wedded to either party. They vote based on the issues that are most important to them (which is also mentioned/detailed in the report I linked). I don’t know if this means they vote Democratic “in spite of” the Dems themselves; the impression I’ve gotten is that the about-face on voting for Bush is very much tied up with post-9/11 profiling and the War on Terror. The folks I meet are voting very stridently against Bush. I don’t think it ends up being an “in spite of” issue because party affiliation is not the most important characteristic on the table. In addition to conservative values, it used to be the case that the Repubs were better allies on “the Palestine question” (marginally).
As an aside, I think the more interesting feature of bipartisan politics today is the growing number of “undeclared” or “independent” voters who have analyzed the flaws in the practices of both parties and who are getting tired with the gridlocked nature of a two-party system. I don’t think this means we’ll have more options, but I do think we’re seeing an interesting voice emerge from the middle and from the far left. I wonder if, in the future, we’ll have many more voters voting on broader issues than on party loyalty.
GujuDude Technicaly you are deviating of topic because this thread is about a Sikh and they have a glorious military history.
You patience at explaining to others about the military culture is astounding. I do not have that patience and was never a good teacher.
The SEALs I was referring to wern’t posers but real. I believe their bad attitude had to do with their current assignment of training instead of being out on a mission. None of them were mean to me because I observed how they treated the other guys who did not do things right or paused when given a direct order. I vowed not to make the same mistake and they were actualy nice to me.
Rahul We need you to keep up the humor when things get too heated. 🙂
GujuDude I meant you are not deviating off topic
Vic,
All communist regimes are not the same and it works differently in different cultures with different histories. The so-called “communists” were often (depending on which country) the majority of people, often working-class, who’d been exploited forever to maintain the lifestyle of a fe w.
Actually all communist movements start when a few privileged exploit the working class. The idea sounds good on paper. What happens after its implemented is where the concern is. There are no checks and balances. The power is in hands of a few and its absolute. Productivity goes down and the states look to USSR for bailout and trade. Further lets not pooh pooh the possibility of threat of nuclear missiles aimed at the US from the American continent.
Vic, IMO I think your comment is very, very naive and part of the brainwashing of the Reagan’s era. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “communist regime”, perhaps I should have said, what US foreign policy, particularly in the ’80s, deemed the evil communist movements, were actually grassroots movements by oppressed groups – whether they called themselves communisits or socialists or workers parties, or leftists – the fact is, the US foreign policy was so dogmatic, so black and white, so naive, and so motivated by the fact that US corporate interests that say in Latin America, would be threatened by leftists movements who wanted to end the torture and exploitation of the majority of people, that they couldn’t just let these countries alone and ended up supporting corrupt dictators. It was pick up the lesser evil…it was about the US foreign policy being blind to the development of civil rights in the neighboring countries.
Isabelle Allende’s writing so much portrays the sadness of the situation; I still am left wondering how the US foreign policy could be so blind at the time…Did they not learn anything from Vietnam?
The fact is Vic, these leftist movements had no interest in pointing (let me borrow wording from today’s ignorant President) Weapons of Mass Destruction on the US; their interest was in getting food in the mouths of majority of people, civil rights, end of expoitation by the dictator and his family who were supportive of course of US investment (hence what I believe is one of the main reasons US foreign policy was so blind).
What a world this would have been if these grassroots movements had been allowed to grow and develop, without the US interfering. US interfering, I’m afraid, led to the more violence and a more violent reaction from Leftist groups; IN the end, movements that supported the ideals that the US stood for were crushed, millions of people tortured by the dictators that were supported by the US, US guns were killing people that wanted to uphold the very principles that US citizens were enjoying.
And many in the US, even the ’80s saw Reagan’s foreign policy for what it was…afterall Congress didn’t want to fund money to the US propped up dictator in that Central American nation, and that led to Reagan lying and using ignorant, ethnocentric idiots like North, as the fall guy – to send weapons to this dictators, depite the fact that Congress explicitly voted against this.
How that part of Reagan’s administration is forgotten and how he got away with it, still amazes me!
Abhi, I know that we have veered away from the very specific issue of an Indian-Amer elected to an office…but I hope you don’t cut me off, b/c I don’t want Vic’s, Gujudude, and Haresh to just have their say on US politics. I really hope you don’t cut me off for going off topic, b/c there were other things I wanted to say.
PS – did you attend the USSF by any chance? I went to it quite skeptical and expecting a lot of Red talk and little substance and little practicalities of implementation. I was pleasantly surprised to see a lot of participants have a good understanding of the issues and more importantly had a clear vision not bordering of idealism on how to change things (though there were plenty of folks whose ideas could never work). I do feel grassroot organizations need to do better at marketing since there is this whole negativity associated with these movements unfortunately. Plus it’s refreshing to read stuff like this.
Vic, I urge you not to look at all socialist or leftist or communist movements as leading to a totalitarianism. communism encompases many different types of movements.
I’m from Kerala, and right now the communist govt is control – and there many different types of communist kerala political parties. Kerala (obviously) obviously is not a dictatorship. communists or leftists or whatever you want to call them were voted as state reps and have helped restructure kerala’s socioeconomically. Whether you want to look at whether economic policies in Kerala are good or bad, that’s not the issue; the issue is that some Keralites, who identify themselves as communists or leftists or socialists argue it out in “congress” (dont’ know what they call the “state representatives” in Kerala); There are corrupt people in the every party. There are people who will take their position of power and distort the ideals of communism; there are people who will distort ideas of civil rights from the right or the left. To me Reagan, distorted everything that was in my mind “american” – he somehow twisted the idea of grassroots movements seeking civil rights as evil.
I think the left’s economic and social policies has done a lot of good in Kerala. I feel that is has helped end a very castist society, helped with education, helped with a women’s position. Roy, in her book, “god of small things” exposes corrupt communists.
But in Kerala, we have the freedom of speech to argue these things out, and criticize politicians from the left and right if we feel they are corrupt.
someone mentioned something about Swedish people running away from their very social govt into other european countries. I don’t know about this…I’m sure there are people who disagree with the very socialist form of govt in Sweden and want to get away, and I’m sure there are many people who wish the US govt could be more “socialist” and want to get away from the US to a european country.
But the fact Sweden has one of the highest quality of life indicators. There’s a lot to learn by movements/politics that are more socialist, and to improve the US quality of life, I’m sure the US govt will have to become more like many European counterparts…anyways that’s my opinion.
And as someone pointed out, the Republicans are in no way against smaller govt – their govt is sticking their nose into everyting and spending money like there’s no tomorrow. The difference is what these parties stick their nose into – The republicans stuck their nose into Iraq (through lies and deceiving Americans) and they stick their govt regulation noses into rich corporations that want to make more money and they stick their noses into how i raise my family.
Ardy, thanks for the link and no, i didn’t attend the conference – I can learn so much from you though!. I have an anthropology background and just looking at history and also probably coming from Kerala, influences how I view things. Thanks by the way for your vote :).
Yes, you are right – marketing of these more socialist ideas should be better. I think the Dems are struggleing with that now – the Republicans have done such a good job with people like Rove, in creating a black/white world without nuances.
Spending went up because Reagan had to work with a Democrat congress. The prsesident does not spend money Congress does. When Reagan asked for a war-ship or a carrier. the Congress authorised it with tons of pork attached. If Reagan wanted the ship he had no choice but to sign the bill.
You have got to be kidding me…spending went up b/c Reagan’s foreign policy was paranoid and wanted to support any govt (despite the atrocities that were so well-documented that these govts committed against their own people)that supported US corporations in these countries – so everything was funding the military for useless things – like Star Wars.
Too bad Reagan couldn’t have learned from Vietnam — look at this “communist country” now; internally the country decided to open their markets — why did so many people have to die when these things are none of the US business and a country’s grassroots movements should be allowed to develop naturally? The whole thing about Vietnam out to get the US – pleeeze…the domino theory has been proved false — during Reagan’s time social and domestic agendas were neglected…Congress wanted funding for schools, infrastructure building, much needed social services —- all these things were woefully neglected during Reagan’s time and our society is still paying the price for neglected schools — money that could have gone to schools went to fund Star Wars and Central American dictators; despite Congress not wanting to support these “pork” endeavors, Reagan illegally thru such things as the Irean-Contra affair went right ahead and did this.
PS, I really appreciated your post on this. I think folks like to collapse Reagan’s policies into “realpolitik” when they were really anything but. I think the same holds for this President in a lot of ways.
I
Really, Ardy? I was more disillusioned with USSF, although not disappointed (I went in with very low expectations and was happy when they were not “that bad”). While I do think movements could benefit from some media training and better information on messaging/framing, etc., at the end of the day I really don’t think they’re to blame with the negativity the mainstream heaps on them. At the end of the day, who controls media outlets and visioning? It’s not grassroots visionaries. I think The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was one of the best, and most stark, examples of this.
This is Mcgovern’s response to Cheney’s criticism of today’s Dems b/c they don’t support the Iraq war – love what he says:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mcgovern24apr24,0,4084076.story
PS: It’s interesting that you say “has been” proved false. I agree, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it has been proven false in the case of Vietnam and many of the Latin American conflicts. They were local struggles with local aspirations. But in the context of those times, how exactly was the U.S. to interpret democratically elected communists like Allende who took every opportunity to have their photo taken with despots like Castro? Actions like that did contribute to the impression, which we can now say was false, that there was a larger expansionist motive behind these conflicts. Which is why I urge some charity when it comes to evaluating the foreign actions of Cold War presidents. People talk about nuance, why can’t they accept both that Pinochet was a monster and Allende precipitated the coup through his pro-Castro posturing (which was infantile and did not have any utility for the Chileans)?