The Bigger Picture
Published on December 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed the impact Tea Party activists and Christian ‘values’ voters had on the 2012 presidential campaign aspirations of three Republican governors who were held in high regard by the GOP establishment, but who are also no longer involved in the 2012 Presidential campaign. This week I will pivot to a discussion of the markedly different reasons why two other Republican governors declined to run for President in 2012.
The current Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, surprised many Republicans when he announced he had decided not to run for the GOP nomination on April 22nd of this year. Although Barbour cited the physical strain of a 63 year old man running for president as well as the family and duties as governor concerns expressed by Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie, Republican insiders claim his real reason was a more pragmatic one. Despite his fund raising prowess and numerous political and business connections, Barbour concluded that he simply couldn’t win the General election because of his racial segregationist past.
Barbour grew up in Yazoo City Mississippi during the 50’s and 60’s. In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to overturn state laws favoring racially segregated education, a Citizens Council led by William Barbour, Haley Barbour’s father figure uncle, was formed in Yazoo City. So when 53 African-American residents signed an August 1955 petition in favor of desegregating Yazoo City’s local schools, the Citizens Council retaliated by publishing their names and asking whites to stop dealing with them. Over the next four months 51 of the petition signers asked to have their names removed from the petition due to their loss of jobs and business.
But in an August 2010 interview with the Weekly Standard Barbour ignored this fact and claimed that the Citizens Council was an organization of town leaders that facilitated integration in Mississippi because “they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the (violent white racist) Ku Klux Klan would get their ass run out of town.”
Mind you, Haley Barbour had other political liabilities as a lobbyist for business special interest groups in Washington DC and Mississippi’s ranking as the worst of fifty states in a wide range of areas including, economic development, education and healthcare. But even though Barbour had been able to develop persuasive arguments for why those things shouldn’t be held against him, the fact is he was never able to come up with a satisfying response to charges about his segregationist past.
Much more surprising to this political commentator was former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s May 14th announcement that he would also not run for President in 2012. Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister who had used his Christian ‘values’ credentials to become a favorite of the Republican Party’s anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage Christian social conservatives. Despite John McCain and Mitt Romney’s huge cash advantages, he used their support to win the first Republican primary in Iowa and then ran a surprisingly close second to the eventual winner of the 2008 Republican nomination, John McCain.
Unlike Romney and most of the other Republican presidential candidates, Huckabee, is was very personable candidate who used his quick wit and self-deprecating sense of humor to good advantage with audiences out on the campaign trail as well as on the TV tube. His affability subsequently led to his current jobs as ABC’s replacement for legendary radio commentator Paul Harvey and as the TV host of Fox News weekend show “Huckabee”.
Huckabee was a consistent leader in polls of Republican voters so I was surprised on May 14th when he announced on his TV show that he would not run for President saying “All the factors say go, but my heart says no. But after further reflection I think he was telling the truth, just not the whole truth. Huckabee’s heart wasn’t in it because he has always hated trolling for campaign funds and he preferred drawing a seven figure annual income from a few hours of TV and radio work every week to the rigors of campaigning for President.
I will discuss the real reasons why three other Republican hopefuls decided not to run, including my favorite Republican diva Sarah Palin, in my next and last column of 2011.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tea Party Christians and Republican Non-Candidates
The Bigger Picture
Published on November 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed the extraordinary influence that right wing evangelical Christians and the anti-tax Tea Party movement currently exert on the Republican Party and its political leaders. Today I will begin discussing the impact these ideologically doctrinaire groups have had and will continue to have on the field of Republican Presidential candidates.
I will begin by first discussing several Republican presidential candidates who either withdrew from the race or decided not to run. The first casualty was Tim Pawlenty, who actually began his campaign for the GOP nomination well before the end of his second term as governor of Minnesota in 2010. Pawlenty had been on John McCain’s short list as a possible vice presidential running mate in 2008, and establishment Republicans had been talking about him as a possible presidential candidate in 2005, even before he even ran for a second term as governor in 2006. So it came as no surprise when Governor Pawlenty also started showing up to speak at Republican Party functions in the early Republican primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina during 2008 and 2009.
Pawlenty continued his meticulous preparations to run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination by announcing in June 2009 that he would not run for a third term as governor and by creating a political action committee (PAC) to raise money for his campaign called Freedom First. He then hired respected Republican presidential campaigners such as Vin Weber, former Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant, and Sara Taylor, the former Director of the Office of Political Affairs for President George W. Bush.
So by the time Pawlenty formally announced he was running for President in May 2011, the only real surprise was that he had waited so long to make it official. But while Pawlenty had the necessary conservative Republican credentials, he could never become a Tea Party favorite because he wasn’t a fiery public speaker and he had a reputation for being able to strike compromises with Minnesota’s Democratic controlled state legislature.
As a result, another candidate from Minnesota was able to use her oratory skills and legislative track record of never compromising with Democrats to capture twice as many votes as Pawlenty from the Tea Party activists and evangelical Christians who dominated the voting in Iowa’s August 13th Republican caucus straw poll. Since Pawlenty had invested a great deal of his time and money in Iowa, he quickly realized that his dismal finish behind Minnesota’s Michelle Bachman also signaled the end of his Presidential campaign hopes.
Although Tim Pawlenty may have become the first formal casualty of the Republican Party’s antagonistic ideological extremists when he ended his presidential bid on August 14th, he is by no means the only one. Several other Republican governors with conservative credentials but a track record of compromising with Democrats or state legislatures controlled by the Democratic Party, wisely decided not to even bother to run for President in 2012.
Second term Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, who isn’t eligible to run for governor again in 2012, refused to yield to heavy pressure from establishment Republicans when he announced on May 22nd that he would not run for President. After Daniel’s opted not to run, his first term counterpart from New Jersey, Chris Christie, then came under heavy pressure from long time Republicans to jump into the 2012 presidential race. But with time running short, on October 4th Christie put an end to the speculation by saying “now is not my time.”
While both Daniels and Christie cited their families and duties as governor as reasons why they decided not to run in 2012, GOP insiders have also speculated that both men felt it would be difficult to win the Presidency in 2012 if they forced to stump on a GOP platform that reflected the views of Tea Party activists and Christian evangelicals. Both governors were also well aware that they owed their previous General election successes to their ability to attract more moderate independent voters, rather than just the support of the Tea Partiers and Christian conservatives that currently dominate Republican Party primary politics.
In my next column I will discuss several other Republican governors, as well as their reasons for deciding not to run for the GOP nomination for President in 2012.
Published on November 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed the extraordinary influence that right wing evangelical Christians and the anti-tax Tea Party movement currently exert on the Republican Party and its political leaders. Today I will begin discussing the impact these ideologically doctrinaire groups have had and will continue to have on the field of Republican Presidential candidates.
I will begin by first discussing several Republican presidential candidates who either withdrew from the race or decided not to run. The first casualty was Tim Pawlenty, who actually began his campaign for the GOP nomination well before the end of his second term as governor of Minnesota in 2010. Pawlenty had been on John McCain’s short list as a possible vice presidential running mate in 2008, and establishment Republicans had been talking about him as a possible presidential candidate in 2005, even before he even ran for a second term as governor in 2006. So it came as no surprise when Governor Pawlenty also started showing up to speak at Republican Party functions in the early Republican primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina during 2008 and 2009.
Pawlenty continued his meticulous preparations to run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination by announcing in June 2009 that he would not run for a third term as governor and by creating a political action committee (PAC) to raise money for his campaign called Freedom First. He then hired respected Republican presidential campaigners such as Vin Weber, former Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant, and Sara Taylor, the former Director of the Office of Political Affairs for President George W. Bush.
So by the time Pawlenty formally announced he was running for President in May 2011, the only real surprise was that he had waited so long to make it official. But while Pawlenty had the necessary conservative Republican credentials, he could never become a Tea Party favorite because he wasn’t a fiery public speaker and he had a reputation for being able to strike compromises with Minnesota’s Democratic controlled state legislature.
As a result, another candidate from Minnesota was able to use her oratory skills and legislative track record of never compromising with Democrats to capture twice as many votes as Pawlenty from the Tea Party activists and evangelical Christians who dominated the voting in Iowa’s August 13th Republican caucus straw poll. Since Pawlenty had invested a great deal of his time and money in Iowa, he quickly realized that his dismal finish behind Minnesota’s Michelle Bachman also signaled the end of his Presidential campaign hopes.
Although Tim Pawlenty may have become the first formal casualty of the Republican Party’s antagonistic ideological extremists when he ended his presidential bid on August 14th, he is by no means the only one. Several other Republican governors with conservative credentials but a track record of compromising with Democrats or state legislatures controlled by the Democratic Party, wisely decided not to even bother to run for President in 2012.
Second term Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, who isn’t eligible to run for governor again in 2012, refused to yield to heavy pressure from establishment Republicans when he announced on May 22nd that he would not run for President. After Daniel’s opted not to run, his first term counterpart from New Jersey, Chris Christie, then came under heavy pressure from long time Republicans to jump into the 2012 presidential race. But with time running short, on October 4th Christie put an end to the speculation by saying “now is not my time.”
While both Daniels and Christie cited their families and duties as governor as reasons why they decided not to run in 2012, GOP insiders have also speculated that both men felt it would be difficult to win the Presidency in 2012 if they forced to stump on a GOP platform that reflected the views of Tea Party activists and Christian evangelicals. Both governors were also well aware that they owed their previous General election successes to their ability to attract more moderate independent voters, rather than just the support of the Tea Partiers and Christian conservatives that currently dominate Republican Party primary politics.
In my next column I will discuss several other Republican governors, as well as their reasons for deciding not to run for the GOP nomination for President in 2012.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The Koch and Tea (Republican) Party
The Bigger Picture
Published on November 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
On November 6th 2012, exactly fifty three weeks from today, Americans will troop to the polls to cast their ballots in an extremely important Presidential and Congressional General election. While all elections involving the selection of America’s next president are usually considered vital for the future of the United States, in 2012 America truly stands at a crossroads because American voters will not only be choosing who the next President will be, they will also be making a decision about what they want their government to be.
After surveying the field of Republican Presidential candidates and their respective positions on a range of domestic as well as foreign policy issues, it is very apparent that regardless of who eventually emerges as the Republican nominee for President, Americans will still have a clear choice between either voting to elect a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate backed by an assortment of right wing political ideologues, or voting to re-elect a more forward looking Democratic President with a centrist legislative agenda.
But what makes the 2012 election even more significant, is what the American voters’ choices will say about what they believe our government’s role should be in stimulating the economy as well as its role in providing for and protecting the needs of American citizens. That is because the positions of the Republican presidential candidates reflect the narrow interests of Tea Party activists, evangelical Christians and other special interest groups.
The Tea Party minions claim that the solution for America’s economic ills is to eliminate the federal budget deficit by cutting government spending but they also refuse to countenance tax increases of any kind. However, most of the anti-tax Tea Partiers also don’t want to see any cuts in their Social Security and Medicare benefits, which together account for roughly 50% of government spending. Furthermore, a majority of them also don’t want to see any cuts in America’s defense spending which comprises another 25% of the budget.
The fact that no reputable economists agree with the Tea Party activists’ contention that America can eliminate its budget deficit by cutting government spending in other areas and without raising taxes is beside the point. Tea Partiers are wedded to their angry fantasy that federal government spending is the problem and cutting both spending and taxes is the solution. As a result, rather than risk the ire of these anti-tax extremists, all of the Republican presidential candidates have now adopted the Tea Party’s hard line stance and none of them will even agree to a compromise such as $1 in tax increases for every $9 in spending cuts.
But all of the Republican candidates must also appease socially conservative white evangelical Christians, many of whom were hoping Sarah Palin would run for President. Given their equally rigid anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-immigration positions, it should come as no surprise that many of these so called “Christian Values” voters are also supporters of the rigidly anti-tax, anti-government spending Tea Party movement.
However, something the Tea Party and evangelical Christian movements don’t like to acknowledge is the extent to which they both rely on support and funding from corporate special interest groups to spread their antagonistic and ideologically extreme message. Fox News supports them with in kind donations of media publicity and Rupert Murdoch then reaps profits from advertisers using Fox employees like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to hawk gold and books that are aimed at this segment of the American public.
But the ultimate symbol of right wing hypocrisy is the billionaire Koch brothers funding and sponsorship of groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works that also train Tea Party activists and provide funding for the Republican candidates they support. These organizations support the Koch brothers’ opposition to an extension of unemployment benefits and federal regulation of the oil, finance, food and drug industries, but then ignore the fact that the Koch brothers’ companies also head the list of America’s biggest corporate beneficiaries of federal tax breaks for the oil and agriculture industries. I will discuss the effect they have had on the field of Republican presidential candidates in my next column.
Published on November 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
On November 6th 2012, exactly fifty three weeks from today, Americans will troop to the polls to cast their ballots in an extremely important Presidential and Congressional General election. While all elections involving the selection of America’s next president are usually considered vital for the future of the United States, in 2012 America truly stands at a crossroads because American voters will not only be choosing who the next President will be, they will also be making a decision about what they want their government to be.
After surveying the field of Republican Presidential candidates and their respective positions on a range of domestic as well as foreign policy issues, it is very apparent that regardless of who eventually emerges as the Republican nominee for President, Americans will still have a clear choice between either voting to elect a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate backed by an assortment of right wing political ideologues, or voting to re-elect a more forward looking Democratic President with a centrist legislative agenda.
But what makes the 2012 election even more significant, is what the American voters’ choices will say about what they believe our government’s role should be in stimulating the economy as well as its role in providing for and protecting the needs of American citizens. That is because the positions of the Republican presidential candidates reflect the narrow interests of Tea Party activists, evangelical Christians and other special interest groups.
The Tea Party minions claim that the solution for America’s economic ills is to eliminate the federal budget deficit by cutting government spending but they also refuse to countenance tax increases of any kind. However, most of the anti-tax Tea Partiers also don’t want to see any cuts in their Social Security and Medicare benefits, which together account for roughly 50% of government spending. Furthermore, a majority of them also don’t want to see any cuts in America’s defense spending which comprises another 25% of the budget.
The fact that no reputable economists agree with the Tea Party activists’ contention that America can eliminate its budget deficit by cutting government spending in other areas and without raising taxes is beside the point. Tea Partiers are wedded to their angry fantasy that federal government spending is the problem and cutting both spending and taxes is the solution. As a result, rather than risk the ire of these anti-tax extremists, all of the Republican presidential candidates have now adopted the Tea Party’s hard line stance and none of them will even agree to a compromise such as $1 in tax increases for every $9 in spending cuts.
But all of the Republican candidates must also appease socially conservative white evangelical Christians, many of whom were hoping Sarah Palin would run for President. Given their equally rigid anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-immigration positions, it should come as no surprise that many of these so called “Christian Values” voters are also supporters of the rigidly anti-tax, anti-government spending Tea Party movement.
However, something the Tea Party and evangelical Christian movements don’t like to acknowledge is the extent to which they both rely on support and funding from corporate special interest groups to spread their antagonistic and ideologically extreme message. Fox News supports them with in kind donations of media publicity and Rupert Murdoch then reaps profits from advertisers using Fox employees like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to hawk gold and books that are aimed at this segment of the American public.
But the ultimate symbol of right wing hypocrisy is the billionaire Koch brothers funding and sponsorship of groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works that also train Tea Party activists and provide funding for the Republican candidates they support. These organizations support the Koch brothers’ opposition to an extension of unemployment benefits and federal regulation of the oil, finance, food and drug industries, but then ignore the fact that the Koch brothers’ companies also head the list of America’s biggest corporate beneficiaries of federal tax breaks for the oil and agriculture industries. I will discuss the effect they have had on the field of Republican presidential candidates in my next column.
Friday, October 7, 2011
The latest Nobel Peace Prize recipients
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Now that the Republican Party’s field of presidential candidates finally looks complete, I guess it’s about time for me to begin analyzing these presidential hopefuls’ chances of winning the Republican nomination and then discuss how I think they would fare against President Obama in the November 2012 general election if they were the Republican nominee.
But before I begin discussing the next American Presidential election, I want to use today’s column to discuss the most recent Nobel Peace Prize recipients. So fresh on the heels of my previous columns about the un-liberal democracies that I am worried might emerge in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, I want to acknowledge the Nobel Peace Prizes that were just awarded to Ms. Tawakul Karman, a democracy and human rights activist who has been at the forefront of the Arab Spring protests in Yemen, as well as to Leymah Gbowee, a peace activist who organized women to help bring an end to war in Liberia, and the President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first democratically elected woman President of an African nation.
Given the fact that prior to this year 85 men but only 12 women had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought it was more than appropriate that 3 more women were finally recognized for their courageous work on behalf of peace, democracy and women’s rights by the Nobel Peace Prize committee. While I do not dispute the worthiness of any of the 85 men previously awarded this honour, I also firmly believe that women should have won a lot more than 15% of the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded since 1901.
Although I am somewhat familiar with Ms. Gbowee’s work organizing women from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to bring an end to Liberia’s civil war and Ms. Sirleaf’s contributions to democratic governance in Liberia, as a fellow journalist I must confess that I am much more familiar with Tawakul Karman’s work. As a young mother of 3 children, Ms. Karman first began advocating for women’s rights and journalistic freedom back in 2003. Ms. Karman then founded Women Journalists Without Chains in 2005 as a part of her effort to obtain greater freedom of expression in Yemen and other countries on the Arabian peninsula.
In fact I actually had the privilege of meeting with Ms. Karman several years ago, in her capacity as the head of Women Journalists Without Chains, and discussing the aims of her organization with her. I must say that I was also extremely impressed by Ms. Karman’s willingness to risk her life in her ongoing efforts to obtain press freedom and greater civil rights for women in Yemen. Please note that long before this year’s Arab Spring uprisings began, Ms. Karman was organizing and leading demonstrations by journalists against censorship as well as protests on behalf of women’s rights and freedoms at the Girl’s College of Sana’a University.
In my previous columns I expressed my concerns about the true intentions of many Islamic political parties and my fear that if they gain power they will impose a ‘tyranny of the majority’ on minority ethnic and religious groups. A hopeful counterpoint to my concerns about these Islamic political parties is the fact that while Ms. Karman is also a member of Yemen’s Islamic Islah Party, she has never hesitated to criticize Islamic religious extremists.
Furthermore, even though Ms. Karman is a socially conservative Muslim woman, she removed her veil at a human rights conference in 2004 and no longer wears one because it was getting in the way of what she wanted to accomplish. Still, Ms. Karman does not advocate that other Muslim women should also remove their veils, only that they should do so if they want to.
So based on what I know about this Nobel Peace Prize recipient, if Islamic political parties decide to embrace the values of women like Tawakul Karman, then maybe my fears about a ‘tyranny of the majority’ taking hold in Arab democracies will prove to be unfounded.
Published on October 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Now that the Republican Party’s field of presidential candidates finally looks complete, I guess it’s about time for me to begin analyzing these presidential hopefuls’ chances of winning the Republican nomination and then discuss how I think they would fare against President Obama in the November 2012 general election if they were the Republican nominee.
But before I begin discussing the next American Presidential election, I want to use today’s column to discuss the most recent Nobel Peace Prize recipients. So fresh on the heels of my previous columns about the un-liberal democracies that I am worried might emerge in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, I want to acknowledge the Nobel Peace Prizes that were just awarded to Ms. Tawakul Karman, a democracy and human rights activist who has been at the forefront of the Arab Spring protests in Yemen, as well as to Leymah Gbowee, a peace activist who organized women to help bring an end to war in Liberia, and the President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first democratically elected woman President of an African nation.
Given the fact that prior to this year 85 men but only 12 women had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought it was more than appropriate that 3 more women were finally recognized for their courageous work on behalf of peace, democracy and women’s rights by the Nobel Peace Prize committee. While I do not dispute the worthiness of any of the 85 men previously awarded this honour, I also firmly believe that women should have won a lot more than 15% of the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded since 1901.
Although I am somewhat familiar with Ms. Gbowee’s work organizing women from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to bring an end to Liberia’s civil war and Ms. Sirleaf’s contributions to democratic governance in Liberia, as a fellow journalist I must confess that I am much more familiar with Tawakul Karman’s work. As a young mother of 3 children, Ms. Karman first began advocating for women’s rights and journalistic freedom back in 2003. Ms. Karman then founded Women Journalists Without Chains in 2005 as a part of her effort to obtain greater freedom of expression in Yemen and other countries on the Arabian peninsula.
In fact I actually had the privilege of meeting with Ms. Karman several years ago, in her capacity as the head of Women Journalists Without Chains, and discussing the aims of her organization with her. I must say that I was also extremely impressed by Ms. Karman’s willingness to risk her life in her ongoing efforts to obtain press freedom and greater civil rights for women in Yemen. Please note that long before this year’s Arab Spring uprisings began, Ms. Karman was organizing and leading demonstrations by journalists against censorship as well as protests on behalf of women’s rights and freedoms at the Girl’s College of Sana’a University.
In my previous columns I expressed my concerns about the true intentions of many Islamic political parties and my fear that if they gain power they will impose a ‘tyranny of the majority’ on minority ethnic and religious groups. A hopeful counterpoint to my concerns about these Islamic political parties is the fact that while Ms. Karman is also a member of Yemen’s Islamic Islah Party, she has never hesitated to criticize Islamic religious extremists.
Furthermore, even though Ms. Karman is a socially conservative Muslim woman, she removed her veil at a human rights conference in 2004 and no longer wears one because it was getting in the way of what she wanted to accomplish. Still, Ms. Karman does not advocate that other Muslim women should also remove their veils, only that they should do so if they want to.
So based on what I know about this Nobel Peace Prize recipient, if Islamic political parties decide to embrace the values of women like Tawakul Karman, then maybe my fears about a ‘tyranny of the majority’ taking hold in Arab democracies will prove to be unfounded.
The Tyranny of the Majority
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by expressing my concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that have bloomed in countries like Egypt and Tunisia during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’. But I am also concerned that many of us in the Western news media who have grown up in liberal democratic societies do not fully appreciate the important role that strong electoral and judicial institutions play in protecting the rights of minorities from the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
So today I will discuss some of the more specific concerns that both I and many other citizens living in the nations of North Africa and Middle East have about what might happen in their countries if and or when protesters succeed in toppling their authoritarian regimes. But I want to begin by first noting that India is the only nation with a significant Muslim population that also has a long history of liberal democracy experience. Furthermore, according to Freedom Watch, Indonesia and Mali (I would also include Malaysia) are the only majority Muslim countries that currently enjoy the political freedoms we associate with liberal democracies.
However, even though liberal democratic political governance is a rarity in majority Muslim nations, I disagree with those Islamosceptics who argue that Islam is somehow incompatible with the citizen equality principles of liberal democracy. The arguments I hear most often in America and Europe are that most Muslims either harbor a desire to live in a society based on the Sharīʿah religious law of Islam or wish to be governed by a religious political authority al-Qaeda refers to as the ‘grand caliphate’ that will enforce Sharīʿah.
I have no doubt that the pseudo-religious political extremists in al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), as well as many of the less extreme Muslims who support the Muslim Brotherhood, have a desire to be governed according to Islamic law. But I also know there are Jewish extremists who wish their societies were governed by the Halakha laws of the Torah and Christian extremists who believe Biblical laws should hold sway. In other words every religion has at least some adherents who believe their holy texts should be taken literally rather than interpreted within the context of the time when they were originally written.
No. I argue that the majority of modern Muslims are actually no different than the majority of modern Christians and Jews in that they believe their democratic societies’ civil and criminal laws should be drafted by their elected officials in accord with their national constitutions instead of the ancient texts of their respective religious faiths. In fact, if our modern laws were actually based on these ancient religious texts, then those of us who curse God or any children who curse their parents would all be condemned to death for these criminal ‘offences’.
This is why, in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ upheavals that have already toppled the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and threaten to do so in Syria, I believe most middle class Muslims in these nations share my concerns about the ethnic, political and societal instability that will result from attempting to establish liberal democracies in nations that do not have the institutional foundations or experience needed for effective democratic governance.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they know Islamist groups will probably win the first democratic elections since they are better organized than the secular young activists who led and promoted the ‘Arab Spring’ protests. But despite assurances from Islamist groups that they will draft constitutions that promote an open-minded and peaceful version of Islam that does not discriminate against ethnic and religious minority groups, many Muslims seriously doubt this.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they have seen the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after Hussein was toppled and the burning of Coptic Churches after Mubarak was driven from power in Egypt by Salafists who espouse the intolerant Wahhabist version of Islam. I hope I’m wrong, but based on what has happened thus far, I simply don’t believe that the kind of democracies that will emerge in the Arab world in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ will bear much resemblance to the liberal democracy that the ‘Arab Spring’ protesters were hoping for.
Published on October 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by expressing my concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that have bloomed in countries like Egypt and Tunisia during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’. But I am also concerned that many of us in the Western news media who have grown up in liberal democratic societies do not fully appreciate the important role that strong electoral and judicial institutions play in protecting the rights of minorities from the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
So today I will discuss some of the more specific concerns that both I and many other citizens living in the nations of North Africa and Middle East have about what might happen in their countries if and or when protesters succeed in toppling their authoritarian regimes. But I want to begin by first noting that India is the only nation with a significant Muslim population that also has a long history of liberal democracy experience. Furthermore, according to Freedom Watch, Indonesia and Mali (I would also include Malaysia) are the only majority Muslim countries that currently enjoy the political freedoms we associate with liberal democracies.
However, even though liberal democratic political governance is a rarity in majority Muslim nations, I disagree with those Islamosceptics who argue that Islam is somehow incompatible with the citizen equality principles of liberal democracy. The arguments I hear most often in America and Europe are that most Muslims either harbor a desire to live in a society based on the Sharīʿah religious law of Islam or wish to be governed by a religious political authority al-Qaeda refers to as the ‘grand caliphate’ that will enforce Sharīʿah.
I have no doubt that the pseudo-religious political extremists in al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), as well as many of the less extreme Muslims who support the Muslim Brotherhood, have a desire to be governed according to Islamic law. But I also know there are Jewish extremists who wish their societies were governed by the Halakha laws of the Torah and Christian extremists who believe Biblical laws should hold sway. In other words every religion has at least some adherents who believe their holy texts should be taken literally rather than interpreted within the context of the time when they were originally written.
No. I argue that the majority of modern Muslims are actually no different than the majority of modern Christians and Jews in that they believe their democratic societies’ civil and criminal laws should be drafted by their elected officials in accord with their national constitutions instead of the ancient texts of their respective religious faiths. In fact, if our modern laws were actually based on these ancient religious texts, then those of us who curse God or any children who curse their parents would all be condemned to death for these criminal ‘offences’.
This is why, in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ upheavals that have already toppled the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and threaten to do so in Syria, I believe most middle class Muslims in these nations share my concerns about the ethnic, political and societal instability that will result from attempting to establish liberal democracies in nations that do not have the institutional foundations or experience needed for effective democratic governance.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they know Islamist groups will probably win the first democratic elections since they are better organized than the secular young activists who led and promoted the ‘Arab Spring’ protests. But despite assurances from Islamist groups that they will draft constitutions that promote an open-minded and peaceful version of Islam that does not discriminate against ethnic and religious minority groups, many Muslims seriously doubt this.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they have seen the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after Hussein was toppled and the burning of Coptic Churches after Mubarak was driven from power in Egypt by Salafists who espouse the intolerant Wahhabist version of Islam. I hope I’m wrong, but based on what has happened thus far, I simply don’t believe that the kind of democracies that will emerge in the Arab world in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ will bear much resemblance to the liberal democracy that the ‘Arab Spring’ protesters were hoping for.
Are the Arab Spring nations ready for democracy
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
While I was watching the first nationally televised Republican Presidential debate involving all of the major Republican contenders (except for Sarah Palin?), I couldn’t help but wonder how this quadrennial American election ritual would play out if it was also conducted in all other nations around the world. But while I could envision similar exercises of democracy occurring in Europe, I had much more difficulty imagining civil democratic debates like this happening in the so called ‘Arab Spring’ nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
The nations mentioned as part of the ‘Arab Spring’ come to mind because most of the activists involved in protests that toppled the authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and most recently (with the help of NATO) the Gaddafi regime in Libya, seem to believe that democracy will solve their nations’ problems. So since I have also been discussing America’s partisan democratic political paralysis in my most recent columns, I thought it would be appropriate to spend some time discussing both the promise and the pitfalls of democratic political governance.
Make no mistake, I have been and always will be a staunch advocate of liberal political democracy, a political governance system where all citizens not only have the right to vote in free and fair elections, but also have equal rights in all other areas of daily life. I also count myself as fortunate to have been born and raised in a nation that was the world’s pioneer in developing the concept of liberal democracy and promoting the use of it in other countries.
But having said that, I must also say that I believe liberal democracy really only works in nations that have also established the strong judicial and electoral institutions that are required for liberal democracy to be an effective political governance system for all of those nations’ citizens. These institutions ensure that decisions made by the majority in liberal democracy political systems do not place the interests of the majority of citizens above the interests of dissenting individuals, thus effectively oppressing citizens who happen to be in the minority.
The renowned French historian and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville discussed this very scenario in his book, On Democracy in America. In a chapter entitled, “The Tyranny of the Majority”, Tocqueville observed that the separation of powers defined in the American Constitution was designed to limit the power of the majority within America’s government while the individual citizen rights cited in the American Bill of Rights placed legal limits on the decisions made by citizen majorities in order to prevent them from oppressing minorities.
While the democratically elected American Congress operates under the same democratic principle of ‘majority rule’ that parliamentary democracies do, thanks to the separation of powers the separately elected American President still has the power to prevent legislation approved by a majority of members of Congress from becoming law. As a result, the political party with a majority in Congress cannot pass new laws or change existing ones without the consent of the President. The majority political party can more easily pass laws when the President is a member of the same party, but in practice the President is quite often a member of the minority party.
However, there have also been times in America’s history when both Congress and the President have approved of laws or refused to change laws that infringed on the rights of individuals or groups that were a part of the electoral minority. In these instances, laws that had the support of the majority of citizens were challenged by those in the minority and subsequently rejected by judges who were members of America’s independently appointed judicial system.
But America isn’t unique in having a politically independent judiciary that protects the rights of minorities since this is a defining characteristic of many parliamentary democracies. My concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that bloomed during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
Published on September 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
While I was watching the first nationally televised Republican Presidential debate involving all of the major Republican contenders (except for Sarah Palin?), I couldn’t help but wonder how this quadrennial American election ritual would play out if it was also conducted in all other nations around the world. But while I could envision similar exercises of democracy occurring in Europe, I had much more difficulty imagining civil democratic debates like this happening in the so called ‘Arab Spring’ nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
The nations mentioned as part of the ‘Arab Spring’ come to mind because most of the activists involved in protests that toppled the authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and most recently (with the help of NATO) the Gaddafi regime in Libya, seem to believe that democracy will solve their nations’ problems. So since I have also been discussing America’s partisan democratic political paralysis in my most recent columns, I thought it would be appropriate to spend some time discussing both the promise and the pitfalls of democratic political governance.
Make no mistake, I have been and always will be a staunch advocate of liberal political democracy, a political governance system where all citizens not only have the right to vote in free and fair elections, but also have equal rights in all other areas of daily life. I also count myself as fortunate to have been born and raised in a nation that was the world’s pioneer in developing the concept of liberal democracy and promoting the use of it in other countries.
But having said that, I must also say that I believe liberal democracy really only works in nations that have also established the strong judicial and electoral institutions that are required for liberal democracy to be an effective political governance system for all of those nations’ citizens. These institutions ensure that decisions made by the majority in liberal democracy political systems do not place the interests of the majority of citizens above the interests of dissenting individuals, thus effectively oppressing citizens who happen to be in the minority.
The renowned French historian and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville discussed this very scenario in his book, On Democracy in America. In a chapter entitled, “The Tyranny of the Majority”, Tocqueville observed that the separation of powers defined in the American Constitution was designed to limit the power of the majority within America’s government while the individual citizen rights cited in the American Bill of Rights placed legal limits on the decisions made by citizen majorities in order to prevent them from oppressing minorities.
While the democratically elected American Congress operates under the same democratic principle of ‘majority rule’ that parliamentary democracies do, thanks to the separation of powers the separately elected American President still has the power to prevent legislation approved by a majority of members of Congress from becoming law. As a result, the political party with a majority in Congress cannot pass new laws or change existing ones without the consent of the President. The majority political party can more easily pass laws when the President is a member of the same party, but in practice the President is quite often a member of the minority party.
However, there have also been times in America’s history when both Congress and the President have approved of laws or refused to change laws that infringed on the rights of individuals or groups that were a part of the electoral minority. In these instances, laws that had the support of the majority of citizens were challenged by those in the minority and subsequently rejected by judges who were members of America’s independently appointed judicial system.
But America isn’t unique in having a politically independent judiciary that protects the rights of minorities since this is a defining characteristic of many parliamentary democracies. My concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that bloomed during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
What do Americans want their government to do
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by observing that Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected. However, Republicans in Congress are not the only ones pandering to narrow minded, right wing interest groups in a bid to win elections. Almost all of the Republican Presidential candidates are also tripping over each other in an effort to appease Tea Party members as well as Christian fundamentalists. So what does this mean going forward?
In the more distant future, the impact is positive because it means the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate will in all likelihood endorse public policies and ideological positions that appeal to the extremist elements that currently control the Republican Party. However, as a consequence, American voters will also have a clear choice between either voting for a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate with a right wing political agenda or voting to re-elect a Democratic President with a much more forward looking and centrist legislative program.
Unfortunately the near term effect is decidedly negative because it means the partisan political paralysis in Washington DC, which almost lead to a historic default on America’s debt, will continue for at least another 18 months. With a national election looming, Republican candidates, whether they are running for Congress or for President, will be loathe to compromise with their Democratic counterparts on legislation that will address America’s anemic economic recovery and stubbornly high unemployment or the country’s bloated federal budget deficit.
Furthermore, even after the 2012 elections, any real action on these issues will still be contingent on the results of those elections. I believe Standard & Poor’s cut America’s AAA debt rating because its analysts agree with me that Republicans will not be able to win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012. Given the fact that Republicans are unlikely to compromise regardless of the 2012 election results, a political solution for America’s debt problems also appears to be unlikely for at least one or two more election cycles.
Granted, as a part of the ‘deal’ Congressional Republicans and Democrats made with President Obama in order to avoid a bond default, a Congressional ‘Supercommittee’ will be created this month to decide by November 23 how America will cut more than $1.2 trillion of its debt. But given the Republican Party’s unwillingness to compromise, I seriously doubt that the 6 Republican and 6 Democratic members of this ‘Supercommittee’ will ever be able to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts. Furthermore, even if they do reach an agreement by 23 November, both the Democratic controlled Senate and the Republican led House of Representatives will debate the ‘Supercommittee’s recommendations until Christmas or well into the New Year.
But the ‘Supercommittee’s’ budget cuts really only address the federal budget deficit over the next decade. In the meantime, Congress still has to approve the budget for the upcoming 2012 fiscal year which begins in October. Since Congress didn’t approve the 2011 budget until April of this year due to Republican intransigence, it is likely we will see more partisan political wrangling and the possibility of another government shutdown just in time for Christmas.
If the ‘Supercommittee’ is unable to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts or if Congress does not approve the cuts it recommends, this will trigger automatic budget cuts for all US domestic programs as well as for the Defense Department. But as Standard & Poor’s noted, they downgraded America’s AAA debt rating because these cuts don’t demonstrate any significant progress by America’s dysfunctional Republican Party towards balancing America’s books.
So it will be up to America’s voters to decide what our government’s role in stimulating the economy and protecting the needs of its citizens should be when the cast their votes in 2012. I remain cautiously optimistic that they will choose more wisely than they did in 2010.
Published on September 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by observing that Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected. However, Republicans in Congress are not the only ones pandering to narrow minded, right wing interest groups in a bid to win elections. Almost all of the Republican Presidential candidates are also tripping over each other in an effort to appease Tea Party members as well as Christian fundamentalists. So what does this mean going forward?
In the more distant future, the impact is positive because it means the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate will in all likelihood endorse public policies and ideological positions that appeal to the extremist elements that currently control the Republican Party. However, as a consequence, American voters will also have a clear choice between either voting for a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate with a right wing political agenda or voting to re-elect a Democratic President with a much more forward looking and centrist legislative program.
Unfortunately the near term effect is decidedly negative because it means the partisan political paralysis in Washington DC, which almost lead to a historic default on America’s debt, will continue for at least another 18 months. With a national election looming, Republican candidates, whether they are running for Congress or for President, will be loathe to compromise with their Democratic counterparts on legislation that will address America’s anemic economic recovery and stubbornly high unemployment or the country’s bloated federal budget deficit.
Furthermore, even after the 2012 elections, any real action on these issues will still be contingent on the results of those elections. I believe Standard & Poor’s cut America’s AAA debt rating because its analysts agree with me that Republicans will not be able to win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012. Given the fact that Republicans are unlikely to compromise regardless of the 2012 election results, a political solution for America’s debt problems also appears to be unlikely for at least one or two more election cycles.
Granted, as a part of the ‘deal’ Congressional Republicans and Democrats made with President Obama in order to avoid a bond default, a Congressional ‘Supercommittee’ will be created this month to decide by November 23 how America will cut more than $1.2 trillion of its debt. But given the Republican Party’s unwillingness to compromise, I seriously doubt that the 6 Republican and 6 Democratic members of this ‘Supercommittee’ will ever be able to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts. Furthermore, even if they do reach an agreement by 23 November, both the Democratic controlled Senate and the Republican led House of Representatives will debate the ‘Supercommittee’s recommendations until Christmas or well into the New Year.
But the ‘Supercommittee’s’ budget cuts really only address the federal budget deficit over the next decade. In the meantime, Congress still has to approve the budget for the upcoming 2012 fiscal year which begins in October. Since Congress didn’t approve the 2011 budget until April of this year due to Republican intransigence, it is likely we will see more partisan political wrangling and the possibility of another government shutdown just in time for Christmas.
If the ‘Supercommittee’ is unable to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts or if Congress does not approve the cuts it recommends, this will trigger automatic budget cuts for all US domestic programs as well as for the Defense Department. But as Standard & Poor’s noted, they downgraded America’s AAA debt rating because these cuts don’t demonstrate any significant progress by America’s dysfunctional Republican Party towards balancing America’s books.
So it will be up to America’s voters to decide what our government’s role in stimulating the economy and protecting the needs of its citizens should be when the cast their votes in 2012. I remain cautiously optimistic that they will choose more wisely than they did in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
