Politics
This is just a starting/placeholder page for this topic. As usual, I hope to add more as I go along. Do check the links on the left, or below each post.
Ralph Nader - Is America ready for an idealist?
Whenever people talk about whether America is ready for a black president or a woman president, I wonder, how come no one has asked the question, "Is America ready for an idealist for a President? Someone who can stick by his principles and not just say what people want to hear?" I just happened to stumble on to Ralph Nader's campaign page. You know what, when Nader first announced that he would run this year, I wasn't too sure how to react. Personally, I think he's a great guy. But knowing how things work, I thought that there's just no way he could win, and he could end up bringing John McCain to the White House.
You know what? I just realized that I was just being 'practical' and 'pragmatic'. Even the idealist in me didn't want to recognize the possibility that another idealist and an activist such as Ralph Nader running for President could actually be a good thing. Ultimately, democracies get the governments they deserve. 'What's wrong with being practical?', you ask? Well, if you want to play that logic, consider this: It's a most practical and logical thing for a corporation to close down a factory in the US and shift production to China. When costs in China go up, then it's practical to move to another wretched third-world country - after all there are enough poor people and corrupt governments ready to be exploited in the most 'practical' manner. For the neocons, it's obviously practical to get rid of one hurdle at a time - it just happened to be Saddam Hussein's turn last time. For the oil companies and the auto companies, it's practical to wait for a few more years before acting on the threat of climate change. And so on. So, you want to join the list of 'practical' folks out there? Why not give idealism a chance? Ask the question in all earnestness and look for an honest answer - what's the worst that can happen by having an idealistic president? Well, apart from that chap getting shot midway through his presidency, that is.
2008 is a fantastic year when so many great candidates showed up all at the same time. When you think of all those who had to drop out, you seriously have to wonder - are the remaining three candidates somehow better than all those who had to drop out? No, I can't buy that. They are just better at saying what people want to hear, not what really needs to be said or done. Only three candidates were prepared to speak their mind - Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and now Ralph Nader. I cannot imagine how any of these three guys could be a worse president than the three remaining candidates. I only have to conclude that America is not yet ready for an idealist. America doesn't deserve an idealist. Sad, but true. But I have decided to follow Ralph Nader's campaign to see what he has to say. I hope he gets the required number of signatures to run for office.
Everyone seems to be caught up in technicalities and jargon - lack of experience, voting record, poor judgment, protecting the nation, blah blah blah. If you take EACH ONE of these issues and seriously evaluate Ralph Nader, I don't see how you can treat him like a fringe character. Of course, if you are part of some 'special interest' group with your own axe to grind, then it's obvious you may not agree with Nader on all the points. But don't forget that you can disagree with people like Ralph Nader precisely because you know where they stand on issues, and you can count on them to stick to their principles. Not so with most other candidates, including the 'front runners'. Like I said, in the ultimate analysis, democracies get the governments they deserve.
Twelve Issues that Matter for 2008 - from Ralph Nader's campaign page - it clearly shows how his stand on various issues are distinct from that of Obama/Clinton and McCain.
Whites, Blacks and Hispanics - Where are the Native Americans?
Something just occurred to me - from what you hear on TV and see on the internet, 'race' is supposed to be a factor in these elections. And when someone talks about race and the elections, it seems that the only races that matter are whites, blacks and hispanics. How come no one talks about the Native Americans? Don't they count? Of course, there are the Asians and East Indians (actually, they should be called East Asians, South East Asians, etc., because Indians - I mean those from India - are also Asians. People from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc., are 'South Asians').
When I thought about it, it seems to me that East Asians and South Asians are perhaps not that many in number - and besides, they are not exactly known to vote as a block - as seen by the politicians from both parties trying to woo them. I think the same can be said about the Native Americans? Perhaps they don't all vote as a block - perhaps their priorities are all different, depending on where they happen to live? It's easy to think of the East Asians and South Asians as 'immigrants', and somehow, whites and blacks consider themselves to be the 'native' people, and the real 'native' people don't enter the picture as much. As for the hispanics, I think there is a difference between how they view themselves and how others view them - as 'native', immigrant or 'aliens'.
In case you are wondering what my point is, really, there is no big point here - I just wondered how the Native Americans (I'm not calling them 'Indians' - that's a stupid misnomer that has somehow stuck for 500 years!) must be feeling about this whole election process and all the talk about race as an issue. I guess it's convenient to keep it simple in such matters - and not to muddy the waters any further.