While I have yet to visit the verdant but highly troubled nation of Kenya, which appears, fitfully, to be trying to drag itself from the precipice of a lengthy and horrific civil war, my mother and stepfather have visited the country and commented on the friendliness of the people and the beauty of the land. No doubt many of the people they met in that land have been dealing with the threat of violence after a notoriously rigged election between one incumbent kleptocrat and a would be kleptocrat (for those who don't know, a kleptocrat is one who uses democratic office to rob the wealth of the people and stash it away, usually in Swiss bank accounts).
It would be easy to pass judgment on the collapse of Kenya, all the more easy because Kenya is far away and in a continent known for its abominable standards of governance (Africa, a continent almost without any hope or success whatsoever). Nonetheless, Kenya (along with Ghana and perhaps a couple of other countries) was considered a rare "success" story (at least in relative terms), with high amounts of tourism and a fragile but existing democracy, despite long-held concerns about extreme government corruption and nepotism/ethnic favoritism.
However, while it may be tempting to label the problems of Kenya as being irrelevant, I think they provide a particular relevance that we in more "mature" democracies may be unaware of. There are several elements of the Kenyan problem that are of importance in comparison with other countries (like the United States for example, though other countries would certainly apply too). This list is not exhaustive, especially since it is currently early in the morning and I am only writing this because I am an insomniac and because a longtime and close friend of mine (who has been both a church friend and fellow musician as well as fellow classmate of mine in high school and beyond) asked that I write about it.
The most applicable comparison between the Kenyan election debacle and the situation in the United States (and perhaps other areas as well) is the poor choice between major candidates. After all, both of the major politicians seeking the Kenyan presidency were quite wealthy and had gained that wealth through corruption despite the fact that most Kenyans, by any standard of well-being, struggle to make ends meet (on less than $2 a day, for the most part). Like candidates for the office of presidency in other nations, it can be assumed that neither of them have the interests of the entire nation at heart, but both of them have ulterior motives for wishing office and will reward their supporters with a disproportionate share of the spoils of office.
In nations such as Kenya political parties are often based on regions (Red States vs. Blue States, Quebec vs. Ontario vs. Western Canada, Asante area vs. the rest of Ghana, Walloon vs. Flemish, and so on ad nauseum) or ethno-linguistic groups. This sort of division lends itself towards balkanization and the breakdown of unified cultures. It is not a bad thing to have stark choices about the future of a nation before the populace, but it is a bad thing when no communication based on mutual respect can cross hardened partisan boundaries. Politics can only deal with subjects that can be solved through compromise and partial victories that are based on shared fundamental beliefs and "values." This assumes a common identity that transcends politics and allows for the existence of a loyal opposition that opposes the policies of the dominant group without being labeled or treated as treacherous to the nation or organization as a whole. Where this unity and mutual respect is lacking, politics is only war by ballots rather than bullets, and the bullets are not often long in coming when ballots have failed to prevail.
A fundamental quality of genuine democracy, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is that the government is government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." This has three components. The first is "of the people," which means that the government is composed of those who represent those they govern. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 gives a list of qualities for would-be kings of Israel, and among those is the requirement that they come from among the people and not view themselves as being above those they govern. They must, in other words, never lose sight of the common equality of mankind before God and before others, as we are all children of God created in His image, no matter what we look like, how wealthy, intelligent, strong, healthy, or popular we are. The second quality is that the government is by the people, meaning it has the majoritarian support of the people. Those governments that rule by force or fraud, either through a manipulation of ballots or through the threat or use of violence are not legitimate. Those leaders who rule without the informed consent of the people can claim no divine sanction for their rule, nor claim popular mandate for their decisions in office. Their rule is illegitimate. Finally, government must be for the people in order to be legitimate and democratic. This means that government must have the best interests of the people, the entire populace, at heart, whether that populace voted for or against the leadership or even voted (or was able to vote) at all. Edmund Burke stated wisely and correctly that leaders have a contract with the past, the present, and the future. We must honor and respect our history, those that came before us, and the laws that have been set down from ancient times (especially the laws of God). We must also serve the interests of those who now live and are currently being governed, and we must govern so that we protect the best interests of those who have yet to live, to make the world a better place than it was when we found it.
This is obviously easier said than done. Being human beings, we are all fallible (and I am certainly at least as fallible as anyone else is). As Lord Acton wisely said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Where political power leads directly to great wealth (as it does in Kenya and many other countries), political power will be fought over and bloody coups and revolutions (whether done through fraud, violence, or the normal deception that goes in running for office) will occur. If leaders see power as a way to gain wealth and respect and fulfill long-held ambitions to lord it over others, rather than as an opportunity to serve the best interests of the general public, those leaders will be corrupted by their office, will corrupt those that gain access to a part of the power and influence they shower on others, and they will oppress the people they rule.
In the end, good government is an exceedingly rare thing, and it only occurs when people are governed by the laws of God and their behavior is circumscribed through the discipline that comes from obedience to God and a love and respect for others that seeks to use power to serve rather than to command and lord it over others. The proper use of power to serve is rare, whether that power is held in political office, in the corporate boardroom, in non-profit organizations and churches and schools and families. We may rightly long for the return of Jesus Christ to rule over this world with justice and mercy and wisdom, but we must never forget that if we are to rule, we must practice the proper use of power now, whatever our domain for doing so, even if it is just in ruling over ourselves. If we fail to practice wisely, we will watch the same ugly battles in Kenya take place among our churches, our schools, our homes, and our nations, perhaps with less violence, but with no less rancor and division. We will reap what we sow, and we will stand at the judgment seat of God either having set a good example of service to others, or we will be condemned as hirelings and wolves, fit for utter blackness. The choice is ours, and let us choose wisely. What good is the wealth and power gained and used corruptly if we lose our eternal lives?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Finally, A Presidential Candidate Almost Just Like Me...
As an occasional pundit more than a little interested in a politics and the use of power (a frequenet subject of this blog in one fashion or another), the goings on the 2008 Primary Season have been of great interest to me. While I hope I do not make the frequent mistake of many in believing that political leaders can fulfill escatological hopes for the bringing of heaven on earth (unlike some people), I nonetheless am a firm believer that the quality of our leadership is of great importance and that in a democratic republic where the ultimate accountability for leaders rests in the people, if one does not participate in the political process, one has no right to complain about the results. This does not mean I always agree with what leaders to choose from, or that I agree with all of their behavior in various elected offices, but I believe we have to do the best job we can as wise stewards of our freedom from tyranny and (whenever possible) oligarchy. That is the subject of another rant, though.
Occasionally, though, I find a candidate who, unusually, reflects my own rather quirky views and personality. Such is the case this year. However, first, I must begin with a story. In 2000 I was a freshman at the University of Southern California when it came time to vote in the primary. As the primary approached, I was an undecided voter, not knowing much about Sen. McCain and not being an enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush (despite voting for him in the general election of both 2000 (in California) and 2004 (in Florida), I never have been an enthusiastic supporter of him). However, I had the chance to witness Sen. McCain speak in person at Bouvard Auditorium just before the election, and I found him to be an immensely sincere and passionate speaker, worthy of my support (he got my vote, despite losing the primary and the campaign).
Once 2008 came around, I thus already was interested in Sen. McCain's campaign, though matters looked rather grim in the last half of 2006 as anti-war fever swept the nation and the Republican party started resembling the nativist (anti-immigrant) Know-Nothings of the 1850's, another tumultuous and highly polarized time in our nation's history. Though I disagreed with Sen. McCain on some aspects of his proposed solution to illegal immigration (namely, those parts which suggested amnesty), as a long-time resident of areas with high amounts of immigrants, I see the need for a comprehensive immigration solution that encourages legal immigration and harshly punishes those companies that employ illegal immigrants and make it easier for them to engage in normal business practices (see Wal-Mart, Bank of America, etc.). As a graduate student in engineering, I also see the need for reforming the H1-B (work visa) program, which is in shambles as the high supply of qualified foreign graduate students (who could greatly benefit this nation) is mostly prevented from finding legal gainful employment. As someone, therefore, who was familiar with the immigration situation, I was more than a little sympathetic to McCain's position as trying to negotiate a comprehensive (and necessarily compromise) solution.
So when McCain won New Hampshire, and then South Carolina, through the support of moderate Republicans (I would personally consider myself, like McCain, moderately conservative--and there is substantial, though not total, overlap between our positions), I was interested in helping out the McCain campaign in Florida, which I did. I happened to volunteer three evenings at the McCain office when I didn't have class during the week, and helped pass out stickers and signs at a McCain town hall meeting in The Villages (where I even got to escort a New York Times reporter to her seat through the relatively, but thankfully not violently, hostile audience), and attended a McCain rally in Tampa on Primary Election Eve. When McCain won a larger-than-expected five-point win the next day, I was quite pleased.
But I was less than pleased with the response of many conservative pundits to McCain's growing momentum. The same conservatives who had supported Thompson (of an 86% lifetime conservative voting record) considered McCain (of an 82% lifetime conservative voting record) an apostate to the Republican party, almost as if one was voting for Hillary Clinton. Various conservatives said that if McCain won the primary that they would not vote Republican in the final election (thus perhaps giving the election to Hilary). It puzzled me that many conservative Republicans would be so hostile to someone who was mostly (though by no means entirely) in favor of their positions.
Then again, I often puzzle why, in my own circles, those who are conservative consider me to be such a radical revolutionary when in reality I am far from it. Certainly, I am a pugnacious maverick who enjoys tweaking the establishment now and again, and certainly I have some longstanding issues with authority (which I will be the first to admit). Intriguingly enough, I found many of the same parallels in McCain's own life. For one, he received many demerits in the Naval Academy because he would not stand for the arbitrary and capricious use of power by upperclassman over underclassman. Here was something I wholeheartedly agreed with. His noble stand in Vietnam not to take advantage of his father's position as admiral in getting out of the Hanoi Hilton out of order and in thus submitting himself to an additional five years of torture and imprisonment was a noble stand for his comrades in prison, worthy of my highest respect. Here was someone who did not dodge or avoid the draft or use political influence to gain a cushy spot in the National Guard, but someone who suffered for the sake of fairness and justice as a prisoner-of-war.
It appeared to me that the reason why McCain is so universally loathed by conservatives (see Rush, a man whose right to speak I defended in my first editorial as an pre-teen in a western Pennsylvania newspaper, and others) was not because of his positions on such matters as the environment, immigration, and finance reform, but because he was not beholden to them. McCain's independent streak, especially shown in his combative and pugnacious personality, not his positions, is accountable for his unpopularity. His appeal with moderate voters lies in the fact that he is willing to work across the aisle (a rare quality these days, probably testament to the fact that he's not a baby boomer) and considers the good of the United States and all of its people above the slavish adherence to the establishment. This, inspite of the fact that he usually (over 80% of the time) agrees with that conservative establishment.
In fact, as a student of history, the situation between McCain and the Republican establishment mostly resembles the curious fate of Stephen Douglas, Illinois' Senator and frequent opponent of my favorite president of all time (Abraham Lincoln). Throughout the 1800's, the base of the Democratic party was in the South, and until the Civil War this base held most of the positions of great authority in the Supreme Court and in party leadership despite being a minority among the population of the US as a whole for almost all of that time. In 1860, Stephen Douglas ran for president, and sought the nomination of the whole Democratic Party. Despite usually supporting the south, they considered him ideologically impure thanks to his opposition of the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution for Kansas, which would have made Kansas a slave state due to the votes of a bunch of illegal Missouri border ruffians and the boycott of the election by anti-slavery Kansas (who organized their own government based in Topeka). Due to this supposed "heresy" to the southern Democrats, and his unwillingness to countenance a national slave code to protect the right of slaveholders to carry their "property" safely all over the United States, the Southern Democrats refused to support his candidacy, even though he was the only Democrat capable of beating the Republicans in a momentous election (does this sound familiar yet?). After a heated and ugly campaign, the Democratic party split, Abraham Lincoln won the general election, and the rest is history.
Let us hope that the Republicans do not repeat this folly in '08. But in order to do so, they will, in all probability (it looks at this point like McCain is going to win a heavy majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday, with a heavy advantage going away for the nomination) have to deal with the fact that McCain will be their man in 2008. Will conservative pundits "hold their noses" and see behond the pugnacious spirit of McCain to see someone who represents the best chance to bring Americans beyond the polarizing politics of Baby Boomers engaged in the long culture wars, with a concern for the fate of our planet as well as the security and well-being of our nation? Will the threats of party activists to avoid voting be empty threats, or will they be acted upon? Much remains to be seen, but either way, I cannot help but feel for Sen. McCain, for despite his human flaws and imperfections (such as we all have), he is a man whom I deeply respect, and in whom I see a great resemblence in temperament and political opinions to myself. To see the depth of hostility shown by people who agree with him at least as much as with his two rivals (Romney and Huckabee) is to see the irrational hatred and hostility that I have long struggled against in my own battles against my own establishment (despite my substantial agreement with it). I suppose everything can be forgiven, except keeping an independent mind.
Occasionally, though, I find a candidate who, unusually, reflects my own rather quirky views and personality. Such is the case this year. However, first, I must begin with a story. In 2000 I was a freshman at the University of Southern California when it came time to vote in the primary. As the primary approached, I was an undecided voter, not knowing much about Sen. McCain and not being an enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush (despite voting for him in the general election of both 2000 (in California) and 2004 (in Florida), I never have been an enthusiastic supporter of him). However, I had the chance to witness Sen. McCain speak in person at Bouvard Auditorium just before the election, and I found him to be an immensely sincere and passionate speaker, worthy of my support (he got my vote, despite losing the primary and the campaign).
Once 2008 came around, I thus already was interested in Sen. McCain's campaign, though matters looked rather grim in the last half of 2006 as anti-war fever swept the nation and the Republican party started resembling the nativist (anti-immigrant) Know-Nothings of the 1850's, another tumultuous and highly polarized time in our nation's history. Though I disagreed with Sen. McCain on some aspects of his proposed solution to illegal immigration (namely, those parts which suggested amnesty), as a long-time resident of areas with high amounts of immigrants, I see the need for a comprehensive immigration solution that encourages legal immigration and harshly punishes those companies that employ illegal immigrants and make it easier for them to engage in normal business practices (see Wal-Mart, Bank of America, etc.). As a graduate student in engineering, I also see the need for reforming the H1-B (work visa) program, which is in shambles as the high supply of qualified foreign graduate students (who could greatly benefit this nation) is mostly prevented from finding legal gainful employment. As someone, therefore, who was familiar with the immigration situation, I was more than a little sympathetic to McCain's position as trying to negotiate a comprehensive (and necessarily compromise) solution.
So when McCain won New Hampshire, and then South Carolina, through the support of moderate Republicans (I would personally consider myself, like McCain, moderately conservative--and there is substantial, though not total, overlap between our positions), I was interested in helping out the McCain campaign in Florida, which I did. I happened to volunteer three evenings at the McCain office when I didn't have class during the week, and helped pass out stickers and signs at a McCain town hall meeting in The Villages (where I even got to escort a New York Times reporter to her seat through the relatively, but thankfully not violently, hostile audience), and attended a McCain rally in Tampa on Primary Election Eve. When McCain won a larger-than-expected five-point win the next day, I was quite pleased.
But I was less than pleased with the response of many conservative pundits to McCain's growing momentum. The same conservatives who had supported Thompson (of an 86% lifetime conservative voting record) considered McCain (of an 82% lifetime conservative voting record) an apostate to the Republican party, almost as if one was voting for Hillary Clinton. Various conservatives said that if McCain won the primary that they would not vote Republican in the final election (thus perhaps giving the election to Hilary). It puzzled me that many conservative Republicans would be so hostile to someone who was mostly (though by no means entirely) in favor of their positions.
Then again, I often puzzle why, in my own circles, those who are conservative consider me to be such a radical revolutionary when in reality I am far from it. Certainly, I am a pugnacious maverick who enjoys tweaking the establishment now and again, and certainly I have some longstanding issues with authority (which I will be the first to admit). Intriguingly enough, I found many of the same parallels in McCain's own life. For one, he received many demerits in the Naval Academy because he would not stand for the arbitrary and capricious use of power by upperclassman over underclassman. Here was something I wholeheartedly agreed with. His noble stand in Vietnam not to take advantage of his father's position as admiral in getting out of the Hanoi Hilton out of order and in thus submitting himself to an additional five years of torture and imprisonment was a noble stand for his comrades in prison, worthy of my highest respect. Here was someone who did not dodge or avoid the draft or use political influence to gain a cushy spot in the National Guard, but someone who suffered for the sake of fairness and justice as a prisoner-of-war.
It appeared to me that the reason why McCain is so universally loathed by conservatives (see Rush, a man whose right to speak I defended in my first editorial as an pre-teen in a western Pennsylvania newspaper, and others) was not because of his positions on such matters as the environment, immigration, and finance reform, but because he was not beholden to them. McCain's independent streak, especially shown in his combative and pugnacious personality, not his positions, is accountable for his unpopularity. His appeal with moderate voters lies in the fact that he is willing to work across the aisle (a rare quality these days, probably testament to the fact that he's not a baby boomer) and considers the good of the United States and all of its people above the slavish adherence to the establishment. This, inspite of the fact that he usually (over 80% of the time) agrees with that conservative establishment.
In fact, as a student of history, the situation between McCain and the Republican establishment mostly resembles the curious fate of Stephen Douglas, Illinois' Senator and frequent opponent of my favorite president of all time (Abraham Lincoln). Throughout the 1800's, the base of the Democratic party was in the South, and until the Civil War this base held most of the positions of great authority in the Supreme Court and in party leadership despite being a minority among the population of the US as a whole for almost all of that time. In 1860, Stephen Douglas ran for president, and sought the nomination of the whole Democratic Party. Despite usually supporting the south, they considered him ideologically impure thanks to his opposition of the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution for Kansas, which would have made Kansas a slave state due to the votes of a bunch of illegal Missouri border ruffians and the boycott of the election by anti-slavery Kansas (who organized their own government based in Topeka). Due to this supposed "heresy" to the southern Democrats, and his unwillingness to countenance a national slave code to protect the right of slaveholders to carry their "property" safely all over the United States, the Southern Democrats refused to support his candidacy, even though he was the only Democrat capable of beating the Republicans in a momentous election (does this sound familiar yet?). After a heated and ugly campaign, the Democratic party split, Abraham Lincoln won the general election, and the rest is history.
Let us hope that the Republicans do not repeat this folly in '08. But in order to do so, they will, in all probability (it looks at this point like McCain is going to win a heavy majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday, with a heavy advantage going away for the nomination) have to deal with the fact that McCain will be their man in 2008. Will conservative pundits "hold their noses" and see behond the pugnacious spirit of McCain to see someone who represents the best chance to bring Americans beyond the polarizing politics of Baby Boomers engaged in the long culture wars, with a concern for the fate of our planet as well as the security and well-being of our nation? Will the threats of party activists to avoid voting be empty threats, or will they be acted upon? Much remains to be seen, but either way, I cannot help but feel for Sen. McCain, for despite his human flaws and imperfections (such as we all have), he is a man whom I deeply respect, and in whom I see a great resemblence in temperament and political opinions to myself. To see the depth of hostility shown by people who agree with him at least as much as with his two rivals (Romney and Huckabee) is to see the irrational hatred and hostility that I have long struggled against in my own battles against my own establishment (despite my substantial agreement with it). I suppose everything can be forgiven, except keeping an independent mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
