Political Orientation, circa 2009

Did this quiz on political orientation on this website, PoliticalCompass.org. Turns out I'm pretty much as far left as one can get without being a commie, and quite a libertarian to boot.

Basically, the X-axis represents the economic spectrum (from pure communism on the left to pure neo-liberalism on the right) while the Y-axis represents the social spectrum (from totalitarianism/facism on the top to revolutionary anarchism at the bottom). What this quiz does well is that it clarifies the sometimes vague labels of "Left" or "Right" that we associate with people. For example, as the website explains, Stalin and Hitler were both all about totalitarian police states, putting them at the top of the Y-axis, but the former, obviously, was a Communist whereas the latter did believe in markets. So dictators both were, but on opposite ends of the economic ideological spectrum.

As of August 2009 then, I'm your typical bleeding heart liberal. But that's probably because I haven't entered the working world yet. Perhaps when I have to start dealing with taxes and money issues in general, I'll start moving towards the right. We'll see!

You can find out where you stand by taking a test here -->http://www.politicalcompass.org/. It's a bit US-centric, but still very relevant, I think. If you've never really given much thought as to what you think about certain issues and where you stand ideologically, take the test (won't take long) and who knows, you might be surprised with the result!

On democracy and the emergent state

While reading the chapters on the Vietnam War in Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy for my history class earlier, I was struck by these 2 sections:

"Unlike democratic theory, which views truth as emerging from a clash of ideas, Confucianism maintains that truth is objective and can only be discerned by assiduous study and education of which only a rare few are thought to be capable. Its quest for truth does not treat conflicting ideas as having equal merit, the way democratic theory does. Since there is only one truth, that which is not true can have no standing or be enhanced through competition. Confucianism is essentially hierarchical and elitist, emphasizing loyalty to family, institutions, and authority."

"In the West, political pluralism had thrived among cohesive societies where a strong social consensus had been in place long enough to permit tolerance for the opposition without threatening the survival of the state. But where a nation has yet to be created, opposition may appear as a threat to national existence, especially when there is no civil society to provide a safety net. In these conditions, the temptation is strong, often overwhelming, to equate opposition with treason."

Now, Kissinger was talking about Vietnam or Indochina in the 1950s in these sections. But, which other Southeast Asian state could he have be referring to just as well? Gee...I wonder...

Singapore's political situation in the 60s was hardly as precarious as that of Vietnam, but still, as a newly-independent state, wary of both Malaysia and Communist influences, and with Confucian values as its foundation, one can see how and why the PAP government was able to successfully engineer a siege mentality in the populace which gave it legitimacy to crush opposition under the name of national security. The problem perhaps is that the trope of the nation under siege has been used time and time again such that we have been conditioned to dismiss the merits of having a strong opposition. Obviously though, this is just a breakwater that will not stand the waves of time. Civil society is developing in Singapore. The number of local political blogs and the alternative viewpoints they offer are testaments to that. So, then, it all comes down to a clash between democratic theory and Confucianism? Maybe there is legitimacy to both forms of government-running. Singapore's economic success is prove that the latter works, I suppose. The question is: Which one serves the state, and which one serves the people?

Say cheese(y)...

This looks.... awkward.

Singaporean leaders' amazing foresight!

Looks like our political leaders really deserve their sky-high wages, because they are amazingly prescient! Remember this bit of humour?

Members of Parliament from the post-65 generation will be performing hip hop dance moves at the Chingay Parade next year.

The parade will be held along Orchard Road on February 23 and 24.

The 12 post-65 MPs will perform for 1 minute with 300 hip hop dancers at the Chingay Parade.

"The whole process was very enjoyable because the Post-65 MPs, the P-65 team, are very close, so we had a lot of fun doing it. It's more because of the closeness that we have and learning a new dance skills that we're coming forward to also participate in the Chingay," said Teo Ser Luck, Parliamentary Secretary, Community Development, Youth and Sports Ministry.

A few of them are not embarrassed to admit that hip hop is not their cup of tea.

"I have two left feet, I can't dance but I enjoyed myself. I showed my kids what I did, then they went "mum, loosen up a bit!" My kids can dance but I can't," said Jessica Tan, MP, East Coast GRC.

"That's part of the fun - to laugh at yourself, to have a sense of humour about everything and that's what we're trying to do as P-65 MPs, trying to connect with the youth and having fun with them, that's the main thing," said Chris de souza, MP, Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.

"All of us are having fun. It's not important whether we perform well, we dance well or whether we look professional on tv or during the parade. Most importantly, we have to connect with the youths of today," said Lam Pin Min, MP, Ang Mo Kio GRC.

Oh how we laughed back then, thinking that only Singaporean leaders would think of such a lame attempt to connect with the younger generations.

Well, looks like someone perhaps was inspired by our ingenious MPs.

Steele: GOP needs 'hip-hop' makeover
Ralph Z. Hallow

NEWSMAKER INTERVIEW:

Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party's principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”

The RNC's first black chairman will “surprise everyone” when updating the party's image using the Internet and advertisements on radio, on television and in print, he told The Washington Times.

Having been elected to the job that the Bush White House and its political guru, Karl Rove, once denied him, Mr. Steele is running the show his way. To those who claimed he can't make the trains run on time, he has this message: “Stuff it.”

He stiff-armed an attempt to get him to elaborate on his public relations effort, saying he would be an idiot to give his opponents too much information, but indicated the Republican Party needs to break out of being considered a regional party.

”There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort” zones, he said, citing defeats in such states as Virginia and North Carolina. “We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section ... We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.”

But, he elaborated with a laugh, “we need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets.”

“Where we have fallen down in delivering a message is in having something to say, particularly to young people and moms of all shapes - soccer moms, hockey moms,” he said, though he insisted that party messages won't be different strokes for different folks. “We don't offer one image for 18-year-olds and another for soccer moms but one that shows who we are for the 21st century.”

Mr. Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland and former state Republican Party chairman, defeated four rivals in the sixth round of voting on Jan. 30 to become chairman of the 168-member RNC. At the end of 2006, after Republicans lost their House and Senate majorities, Mr. Rove nixed a growing movement among RNC members - state Republican Party chairmen and elected national committee members - to elect Mr. Steele as their next chairman.

Mr. Rove subsequently left the White House to work for Fox News, and with President Bush on his way out of the Oval Office, the RNC was free to choose its own chairman instead of rubber-stamping the choice of a Republican White House.

While other former top Bush White House and campaign officials sent congratulations on his election, including former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, Mr. Rove neither phoned nor wrote his congratulations, Mr. Steele told The Times.

Mr. Steele said the national Republican leadership, with its emphasis on party discipline rather than developing a strong nationwide bench of candidates, put the party in the mess it now finds itself, most acutely in the Northeast. There is not even one U.S. House member from any of the six New England states, which have 22 seats, and the Republicans hold only three of New York's 29 seats.

“We missed the mark in the past, which is why we are in the crapper now,” he said. “We had the White House, the Senate and the House and were not building a farm team over the last years. We could have been ahead of Democrats and their 50-state strategy.”

Top party officials and officeholders have suggested that Mr. Steele name as deputy chairman someone who can run the national committee's vast operations in fundraising, communications, candidate recruitment and training, and voter identification and targeting.

“I can run this organization just fine,” Mr. Steele told The Times. “There will be no deputy chairman, period.”

Still, the talk among some prominent senior Republicans was that Mr. Steele would need someone with “more experience” to provide guidance and organization. Reminded of this, Mr. Steele told The Times: “People who said I can't make the trains run on time never gave a reason. I say to them, 'Stuff it.' “

“I am not afraid of being held accountable for my leadership,” he said. “The idea I am somehow going to handicap myself before I begin is nuts. I am not going to buy into this mind-set among a few people who probably have never run anything but their mouths.”

Under Mr. Steele's helm, the “old” may seem inappropriate in the Grand Old Party's affectionate nickname. He said he is putting a new public relations team into place to update the party's image.

“It will be avant garde, technically,” he said. “It will come to table with things that will surprise everyone - off the hook.”

Does that mean cutting-edge?

“I don't do 'cutting-edge,' “ he said. “That's what Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting-edge.”

Mr. Steele has begun weekly meetings with Senate and House Republicans to coordinate strategy, message, policy and tactics but has no intention of trying to give marching orders to Republican members of Congress and their leaders.

“Part of it is being in the same room with them so they hear you, and you resonate to their thinking and strategy,” he said.

”My goal is to listen and to share, when appropriate, insights,” Mr. Steele said. “I think I can be helpful from a political grass-roots and messaging perspective. ... I don't plan to dictate policy under any circumstance. What I can do is tell them how the party base feels about the policies they will have to confront, like the stimulus bill.”

I wonder what is "beyond cutting-edge"... Michael Steele is just made of win. His appointment in the first place was already transparently an "oh look a black guy was popular for the dems, we need to have one of our own!" attempt. And now he's trying to connect to the urban demographic with hop-hop? From the party which does not have a single black official on the national level, a party that is basically an old white men only club? It really shows the level of thought ,or rather, the lack of it, they have put into this. Instead of evaluating their policies and ideology to see how or why they might be alienating to increasingly growing minority populations, they think: oh, young kids like hip hop, so if we brand ourselves as the hip hop party, they'll vote for us!

It's kinda eerie how this echos almost exactly the type of thinking of the PAP.

But unlike the PAP, the Republicans are not in power. Far from it, in fact. They have fallen out of favour with American voters. They are the languishing party. And with policies and leaders like that, long may that continue.

Screw bipartisanship

From the Huffington Post

An Open Letter to President Obama About the Republicans (From a Former Republican)

Dear President Obama:

I know that from time to time you read Huffington Post because you've written for it. As a Huffington Post reader you'll know that no one on this web site has more faithfully supported your candidacy and now your presidency than me. As a former lifelong Republican, son of a co-founder of the Religious Right; my late evangelical leader father, Francis Schaeffer, I'm in a unique position to tell you a few things about the Republicans from inside perspective. (As you know I left that movement in the mid 1980s.)

The lack of cooperation you're getting from the Republican Party will continue. You were right to indulge in a little bit of tokenism when you had to Pastor Rick Warren pray at your inauguration. But if you think that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are going to do more than their utmost to obstruct everything you are and what you stand for you're dreaming.

As someone who appeared numerous times on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson, as someone for whom Jerry Falwell used to send his private jet to bring me to speak at his college, as an author who had James Dobson giveaway 150,000 copies of my one of my fundamentalist "books" allow me to explain something: the Republican Party is controlled by two ideological groups. First, is the Religious Right. Second, are the neoconservatives. Both groups share one thing in common: they are driven by fear and paranoia. Between them there is no Republican "center" for you to appeal to, just two versions of hate-filled extremes.

The Religious Right supply the kind of people who at McCain and Palin rallies were yelling things such as "kill him" about you. That's the constituency to which your hand was extended when looking for compromise on your financial bailout bill.

There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing by winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you to "sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they can declare you a traitor.

The problem is that when you deal with the Republican Party you're talking to the polished characters in Washington. I wish you could see the hate e-mail's that I have received over the last two years because I supported you, letters calling for God to kill me, telling me that I hate God because I supported you and that I am "an abortionist" and worse a "fag lover" because I've written that I believe that you will be a great president.

What those senators and congressmen are telling you is not what their rabid core constituents are telling them. Their loyalty is to a fundamentalist Christian ideology on the one hand and American exceptionalism of perpetual warfare and hatred and fear of the "other" on the other hand. Between the neoconservatives and evangelical Religious Right Republicans you have no friends.

The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just get in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be surprised how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.

The Democratic Party won for a reason: the Republicans failed and have taken us all down with them! You're doing your presidency and America no favor by extending an open hand to the perpetually knotted fist of what has become the embittered lunatic fringe of our country. They would rather go down in flames than "compromise" their ideology.

As you showed us again at your press conference of Feb 9, you are a brilliant, articulate and decent man. Your Republican opponents are not decent people but ideologues bent on destroying you. To quote the biblical adage sir, don't cast your pearls before swine.

Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback.

A-freakin'-men. It's admirable (and frustrating) that Obama insists on his post-partisan, third-way, bi-partisan, however you wanna call it way of governing, but it is clearly not working! The stimulus bill, which a majority of Americans support, and which most economists agree is crucial, was rejected by all House Republicans, and only three miserable Senate Republicans voted yes on it. This, despite the fact that Obama sought Republican opinions in authoring the bill, courting them at the White House, etc., right from the start, and tossing in those huge tax cuts (which Macroecons 101 tell you are much less stimulating compared to direct govt. spending)! Bipartisanship for the Republicans equals my way or the highway. Well, fuck that!

Good thing Obama seems to have woken up from that and taken the offensive with his campaign-style tour of the country to sell the bill. Hope you've learnt your lesson, Mr. President. You have the majority, you have the political capital, you won. Do what you think is best, and if the Republicans disagree, so be it. Let's get the ball rolling before all political will is lost as midterm elections arrive in 2010!