NEW ORLEANS -- Last weekend's Southern Republican Leadership Conference presented a pair of contrasts.
Though the city has been coming back economically since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the New Orleans Saints' Super Bowl win gave the city a huge psychological shot in the arm, and the impending departure of the much and appropriately maligned Mayor Ray Nagin can't seem to happen soon enough to suit the city's residents. Mayor-elect Mitch Landrieu hasn't been sworn into office yet, but one can't help but get the feeling when talking to residents that they have turned the corner emotionally.
Though the SRLC technically covered a 16-state footprint, reports said Republicans from 41 states gathered at the event. Attendees were largely state and local activists gathered for a party pep rally and a taste of 2012 politicking. And compared with the previous SRLC, held in Memphis in March 2006, the Republicans' mindset couldn't have been more different.
No single Republican presidential contender commanded immediate attention. Republicans seem to be perfectly willing to let that stuff wait until after November.
The Democratic wave had not hit at the time of that gathering four years ago, nor was it even apparent. But President George W. Bush's job approval numbers were at 36 percent, and it was pretty obvious things weren't going well for the GOP -- and they knew it.
But this past weekend, Republicans were energized and ready to storm the ramparts. And interestingly, they seemed to be unusually focused on the midterm elections. Often at such functions, many party activists pay perfunctory attention to the midterm but, like politicians looking past whomever they are shaking hands with, their minds are on someone else. Not this year. November commanded nearly full attention, establishing the importance in their minds of scoring big gains and containing Democratic power.
It also seems to say something that no single Republican presidential contender commanded immediate attention. Republicans seem to be perfectly willing to let that stuff wait until after November.
The straw poll conducted during the event seemed almost an afterthought; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney prevailed over Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by a single vote, 439-438. Romney didn't come, but he sent plenty of backers. Indeed, Saturday he was appearing in Minnesota with another potential Republican contender. Gov. Tim Pawlenty remained in his state to greet a large contingent of Minnesota National Guard troops returning from Iraq.
Three speakers commanded the most attention: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.
Gingrich, who is clearly eyeing a 2012 bid, carries more baggage than a Mayflower moving van. But his speech, as most of his do, displayed a very smart guy who has been a sharp-eyed student of Republican politics and voters for over 30 years. He is someone who thinks big thoughts and communicates them exceedingly well, and he knows exactly how to stroke every erogenous zone in the Republican body politic.
His baggage might keep him out of the race or limit his ability to win the nomination, but watching him in action leaves a strong impression he has as much raw ability and political instincts as the rest of the field combined.
Sure, he delivers the gratuitous applause lines like every good politician, but Gingrich wants to appeal to the minds, not just the hearts, of Republicans.
Palin is catnip for the Republican base. Watching her flirt and tease with GOP audiences leaves the impression that she uses her femininity much the same way California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does his masculinity.
Palin doesn't compete with Gingrich for the minds of GOP voters, but she sure goes after their hearts -- and she does it with a sassiness that is fun for even those who don't like her. She is good at what she does and is underestimated by too many. In terms of political correctness, she seems to revel in being just a little bit naughty, delighting the crowd by correcting herself after using the word "shoot" and having her PAC pass out Alaskan reindeer jerky.
Though it's more likely Barbour will stay on the sidelines in the 2012 presidential race, he, like Gingrich, has studied what makes Republican voters and activists tick for a very long time.
Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, played the role of adult here, giving the gathered party activists some advice they needed to hear. Noting that he couldn't win an election in Vermont, Barbour urged attendees to be mindful that it takes a broad-based party to win in all 50 states. And he warned them about demanding ideological purity, reminding them of the dictum of his "old boss" Ronald Reagan, who said that someone who votes with you 80 percent of the time is not a 20 percent traitor
Friday, April 16, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Reforming the User Fee Approach for Funding Transportation
After a year spent lobbying states to develop “alternative” revenue sources for replacing the federal government’s rapidly shrinking budget for roads and transit, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood rejected Pennsylvania’s request to implement tolls on I-80, citing a law that prevents such funds from being used for anything but the roads where they’re raised. The ruling puts the state in a $500 million fiscal hole and will significantly affect transit agencies from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, all of which had been hoping to take advantage of the new financing source.
The government’s interpretation of the law suggests that it will be difficult for any state to implement tolls on existing Interstate highways without a promise that it will use all revenues for the sake of the maintenance and upgrade of the road where money is charged. In no way does this prevent future roads from being built and funded through tolls, but it certainly suggests that the chances of being allowed to charge users new fees to drive on existing roads are slim. The law will have to be changed if Mr. LaHood wants to continue pushing for “different” ways to fund transportation — or the Secretary will have to recant and begin advocating a gas tax increase to fulfill Washington’s obligation to pay for infrastructure maintenance and construction, a step the administration has repeatedly said it is unwilling to do.
I’ll refrain from commenting here on the merits of tolls; I have suggested in the past that taking advantage of this revenue stream in metropolitan areas with poor public transportation links could result in a significant decline in mobility for the poor and lower middle class.
Nonetheless, today’s explicit vision of transportation funding, premised on the idea that “user fees” should pay for improvements and expansions, must be challenged. The assumption, promoted for years, that a gas tax-financed highway network “pays for itself,” is no longer accurate. Nor does it allow for society to transition easily from existing travel modes to more sustainable ones. Apart from the benefits and pitfalls of tolling, the idea that a new revenue source couldn’t be instituted in Pennsylvania because the funds raised won’t go directly back to those paying them is an antiquated manner of going about building future infrastructure.
The highway system that “pays for itself” — the foundation of the user fee concept — is the progeny of the federal government’s decision to use fuel taxes as the primary funding source for new roads. The system enforces the idea that people who drive should pay for the roads on which they travel by contributing every time they fill up. The problem with this idea is that it only applies to federally funded highways: All the other roads on which people travel to get to those highways are funded by state and local sources, often not user fees. So even in its heyday, the system didn’t “pay for itself.”
The gas tax system also cannot keep up with changing automobile propulsion technologies; people driving more fuel efficient or even zero emissions vehicles simply are not contributing to the costs of road construction. Thus not only the recent decline in federal government revenues but also the demand from Secretary LaHood for a new and different way to pay for projects, even while maintaining his insistence on the user fee approach.
More importantly for advocates of alternative transportation, the user fee system doesn’t work for transit and other non-automobile solutions because they are invariably subsidized by revenues originating from other sources. In other words, while some mass transit spending is user fee-based (the fares on buses and trains), most of it comes from elsewhere.
How can we continue to argue that the transportation system should be funded through user fees when a significant part of the network contributes nothing to the larger account? The fact that road users contribute all of the funds to Washington’s transportation account continues to be a political problem, since only 70% of overall spending goes back into roads. If the user fee theory is the guiding principle, how can that be justified?
I have argued previously that an expansion of income tax sourced general fund spending, already the money being used to shore up the federal transportation gap in the absence of a new transportation bill, would be the most appropriate, most socially equitable way to improve overall financing for all types of infrastructure spending.
But in order to move forward with a long-term reliance on such money, the political obsession with using user fees to pay for more roads and transit must come to an end. While the idea that roads “pay for themselves” may sound romantic, it results in a system that spends far too much on roads; it also provides the rationality for decisions such as the recent Pennsylvania one since based on user fees alone, it makes little since to transfer funds raised on I-80 to transit elsewhere.
We need a political shift: a new conception of how transportation is funded to meet new needs.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Plane Crash Boosts Polish Prime Minister Tusk
The plane crash that killed Poland's president and leading opposition politicians has removed in one stroke key opponents of Prime Minister Donald Tusk and his ruling centrist Civic Platform.
While a shocking blow to Poland's body politic, analysts say constitutional mechanisms will ensure that there is no power vacuum and there will not be any long-term impact on stability.
The crash will reinforce Tusk's already considerable dominance of Polish politics, and analysts say it may have relatively muted long-term consequences, although they also stress that it is too early to predict the full impact of such an unprecedented accident on the national psychology.
President Lech Kaczynski, his top aides, the central bank governor and seven lawmakers from the main opposition Law and Justice Party were among 96 people killed when their plane crashed in thick fog near Smolensk in western Russia.
"[The] plane crash will raise concerns about [Polish] political stability and relations with Russia, but the outlook is reassuring regarding the institutional transition for the presidency and the central bank," said Preston Keat, an analyst for Eurasia Group, a London-based political risk consultancy.
"The leading political and policy actors will move quickly to stabilize the situation," he said.
Kaczynski, 60, and his twin brother, Jaroslaw, who heads the Law and Justice Party, have spearheaded opposition to Tusk's pro-market economic policies, his embrace of the European Union and his push for early adoption of the euro.
Lech Kaczynski, known for his combative nationalism, his devout Roman Catholicism and deep distrust of both the EU and of Vladimir Putin's Russia, had been expected to seek a new five-year mandate in a presidential election due this fall.
Under Polish law, parliamentary speaker Bronislaw Komorowski is now acting president and the election will take place by the end of June. Komorowski, 58, is the candidate of Tusk's Civic Platform, and opinion polls have shown him winning the post.
The candidate of the small leftist opposition SLD, Jerzy Szmajdzinski, also died in Saturday's crash.
In Poland, the government holds most power, but the president has a say in foreign policy and can veto laws. Kaczynski irked Tusk's government by blocking media, health and pension reforms.
"When all the dust has settled, I don't think this tragedy will fundamentally change Poland's situation economically or in any other way," one government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.
"There are a lot of uncertainties at the moment. People are very upset, but the risks seem relatively limited. Poland's democracy should prove its resilience. The constitution states clearly what must happen," he said.
"The presidential election campaign will be difficult, but I expect people will show restraint in these circumstances," the government official said.
Many expect an upsurge of sympathy for Jaroslaw Kaczynski and the Law and Justice Party, a populist right-wing party, in coming weeks, but it is far from clear whether this will translate into votes.
The Law and Justice Party has been trailing Tusk's Civic Platform in opinion polls, with about 25 percent support against 50 percent for the ruling party. Poland is due to hold a national election next year.
"The point is that [Lech] Kaczynski was set to be voted out later this year and all the aides who died with him would have been out of power too," said Krzysztof Bobinski, head of the Unia & Polska Foundation, a pro-EU think tank.
"This disaster could provoke a generational change in PiS [Law and Justice Party] as Jaroslaw will be shattered," Bobinski said. "He was very close to his brother. He has completely dominated PiS, but this could now be an opportunity for younger party members to come forward."
The devastating blow to the Law and Justice Party is not confined to party politics. Among those killed in Saturday's crash were Kaczynski allies such as central bank chief Slawomir Skrzypek and Janusz Kurtyka, head of the National Remembrance Institute, which supervises Poland's communist-era archives.
Both Skrzypek and Kurtyka had been thorns in the Tusk government's side, on economic issues and on Poland's communist past, respectively.
Internationally, Kaczynski's death is unlikely to have much impact. After a long delay, Kaczynski had been forced to sign the EU's Lisbon Treaty, which was strongly backed by the Tusk government. The treaty revamps the bloc's institutions.
Kaczynski, a staunch defender of Ukraine and Georgia against what he called Russia's "new imperialism," also found himself largely sidelined by the Tusk government as it worked to build better economic and political relations with Moscow.
While a shocking blow to Poland's body politic, analysts say constitutional mechanisms will ensure that there is no power vacuum and there will not be any long-term impact on stability.
The crash will reinforce Tusk's already considerable dominance of Polish politics, and analysts say it may have relatively muted long-term consequences, although they also stress that it is too early to predict the full impact of such an unprecedented accident on the national psychology.
President Lech Kaczynski, his top aides, the central bank governor and seven lawmakers from the main opposition Law and Justice Party were among 96 people killed when their plane crashed in thick fog near Smolensk in western Russia.
"[The] plane crash will raise concerns about [Polish] political stability and relations with Russia, but the outlook is reassuring regarding the institutional transition for the presidency and the central bank," said Preston Keat, an analyst for Eurasia Group, a London-based political risk consultancy.
"The leading political and policy actors will move quickly to stabilize the situation," he said.
Kaczynski, 60, and his twin brother, Jaroslaw, who heads the Law and Justice Party, have spearheaded opposition to Tusk's pro-market economic policies, his embrace of the European Union and his push for early adoption of the euro.
Lech Kaczynski, known for his combative nationalism, his devout Roman Catholicism and deep distrust of both the EU and of Vladimir Putin's Russia, had been expected to seek a new five-year mandate in a presidential election due this fall.
Under Polish law, parliamentary speaker Bronislaw Komorowski is now acting president and the election will take place by the end of June. Komorowski, 58, is the candidate of Tusk's Civic Platform, and opinion polls have shown him winning the post.
The candidate of the small leftist opposition SLD, Jerzy Szmajdzinski, also died in Saturday's crash.
In Poland, the government holds most power, but the president has a say in foreign policy and can veto laws. Kaczynski irked Tusk's government by blocking media, health and pension reforms.
"When all the dust has settled, I don't think this tragedy will fundamentally change Poland's situation economically or in any other way," one government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.
"There are a lot of uncertainties at the moment. People are very upset, but the risks seem relatively limited. Poland's democracy should prove its resilience. The constitution states clearly what must happen," he said.
"The presidential election campaign will be difficult, but I expect people will show restraint in these circumstances," the government official said.
Many expect an upsurge of sympathy for Jaroslaw Kaczynski and the Law and Justice Party, a populist right-wing party, in coming weeks, but it is far from clear whether this will translate into votes.
The Law and Justice Party has been trailing Tusk's Civic Platform in opinion polls, with about 25 percent support against 50 percent for the ruling party. Poland is due to hold a national election next year.
"The point is that [Lech] Kaczynski was set to be voted out later this year and all the aides who died with him would have been out of power too," said Krzysztof Bobinski, head of the Unia & Polska Foundation, a pro-EU think tank.
"This disaster could provoke a generational change in PiS [Law and Justice Party] as Jaroslaw will be shattered," Bobinski said. "He was very close to his brother. He has completely dominated PiS, but this could now be an opportunity for younger party members to come forward."
The devastating blow to the Law and Justice Party is not confined to party politics. Among those killed in Saturday's crash were Kaczynski allies such as central bank chief Slawomir Skrzypek and Janusz Kurtyka, head of the National Remembrance Institute, which supervises Poland's communist-era archives.
Both Skrzypek and Kurtyka had been thorns in the Tusk government's side, on economic issues and on Poland's communist past, respectively.
Internationally, Kaczynski's death is unlikely to have much impact. After a long delay, Kaczynski had been forced to sign the EU's Lisbon Treaty, which was strongly backed by the Tusk government. The treaty revamps the bloc's institutions.
Kaczynski, a staunch defender of Ukraine and Georgia against what he called Russia's "new imperialism," also found himself largely sidelined by the Tusk government as it worked to build better economic and political relations with Moscow.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The role of the media in politics
I am not a US citizen; therefore I cannot vote. I am, however, very aware of the role the media plays in politics; mainly because as much as I try, I cannot get away from it. With the looming election and the scandals around it, it would be nearly impossible not to notice all the radio, television and newspaper ads that have been taking over the regular commercials (which I hated before, but now sorely miss!)
Don't get me wrong: I believe that the media is essential in politics. Nowadays when people are busy and don't have time to sit and watch show after show about whether Obama is a Muslim and whether Clinton really did go under sniper fire in Bosnia, they have many options to choose from to become politically educated.
For those of us who are not so up to date on the political campaigns, political news programs on stations such as CNN or FOX News can be very helpful. These programs often offer a variety of information about both sides of the political race, and can help you make your decision about who to vote for. Televised debates are also informational and entertaining. Many times those debates are the most helpful of all media forums because the candidates themselves speak and answer questions, as opposed to annoying commentary from political analysts who believe they know it all.
The Internet is also a great media source when looking for information about the political campaigns. Personally, it is my favorite, because I can pick and choose what I read or watch, and can make my searches very specific. Even though I cannot vote (yet), I like to learn about the candidates and educate people around me when I can. Still, I wish that there were stricter rules when it came to what can and cannot be shown by the media, simply because there are some people who will focus only on the scandals, and not on the issues that really matter.
What gets my attention the most in the media (for good or bad), are the negative ad campaigns. It is so rare to see a campaign ad that simply gives the positive aspects and the platform of a candidate. Instead, we are bombarded with "So and so believes in such and such. He has done this and that. Shame on him!" What have we learned about the candidate running the ad? That's right-nothing.
No-matter what our favorite (or least favorite) media source is, the truth is that politics would not be the same without the media. We may complain about how we cannot turn the television or radio on nowadays without being bombarded with campaign ads, but in the end, we come out more educated and informed. If we don't at least make an effort to learn more about politics in our country, we can only blame ourselves when the elections don't turn out the way we had hoped.
Don't get me wrong: I believe that the media is essential in politics. Nowadays when people are busy and don't have time to sit and watch show after show about whether Obama is a Muslim and whether Clinton really did go under sniper fire in Bosnia, they have many options to choose from to become politically educated.
For those of us who are not so up to date on the political campaigns, political news programs on stations such as CNN or FOX News can be very helpful. These programs often offer a variety of information about both sides of the political race, and can help you make your decision about who to vote for. Televised debates are also informational and entertaining. Many times those debates are the most helpful of all media forums because the candidates themselves speak and answer questions, as opposed to annoying commentary from political analysts who believe they know it all.
The Internet is also a great media source when looking for information about the political campaigns. Personally, it is my favorite, because I can pick and choose what I read or watch, and can make my searches very specific. Even though I cannot vote (yet), I like to learn about the candidates and educate people around me when I can. Still, I wish that there were stricter rules when it came to what can and cannot be shown by the media, simply because there are some people who will focus only on the scandals, and not on the issues that really matter.
What gets my attention the most in the media (for good or bad), are the negative ad campaigns. It is so rare to see a campaign ad that simply gives the positive aspects and the platform of a candidate. Instead, we are bombarded with "So and so believes in such and such. He has done this and that. Shame on him!" What have we learned about the candidate running the ad? That's right-nothing.
No-matter what our favorite (or least favorite) media source is, the truth is that politics would not be the same without the media. We may complain about how we cannot turn the television or radio on nowadays without being bombarded with campaign ads, but in the end, we come out more educated and informed. If we don't at least make an effort to learn more about politics in our country, we can only blame ourselves when the elections don't turn out the way we had hoped.
Love and Politics - Why Politicians Cheat
Humans need love
Human beings are naturally prone to seek love, nurturing and self-determination. They are born into love, are surrounded with loving entourages, and continually seek throughout their lives that dose of comfort and serenity that stems from the realization that they're loved, or more simply, admired. Humans need love, and love, as a social epiphenomenon, needs them. Love is, in this case, an epiphenomenon because it is a byproduct of other forms of human interaction, conciliation and reconciliation.
In seeking that utopian comfort of being permanently idolized, people are poised to act on their impulses and react instinctively to protect or maintain that status quo. At all stages of the human adventure, that need for particular attention is preeminent. Think about babies seeking frenetically their parents' attention or adults engaging in extraordinary expressions of feeling to show their jealousy.
Given that the need to be loved is natural, we are ready to accept the assertion that love can - and must be - eternal. Religions and other constructs of faith, beliefs and dogma fulfill that ethos in the sense that they permit us to start believing in an everlasting love, one that will smoothly transition from this terrestrial episode into an after-life occurrence.
Love and politics
Politicians, like most of us, have that intense striving for love and admiration. As any other human, they're willing to resort to arguably reprehensible means to get that admiration. The need for love, that is, the need for approval is peculiarly crucial for politicians because it conditions their electoral existence and survival. They must win votes, that is, they must be lovable enough for citizens to love them and grant them their votes.
Interestingly, those who have a heightened need of admiration are bold enough to utilize any means necessary to reach their goals. They need to manipulate. Politicians are in that category. Social scientists have long argued that politicians need to seduce the electorate continuously to safeguard their political capital. Politics is the science of managing the general good, and in handling that societal responsibility, people in power use various tools to provide law and order, which are pragmatic, down-to-earth, day-to-day necessities, but also idealism, and dreaming, which belong to the realm of imagination but are nonetheless critical.
Politicians mainly use their electoral clout as a catalyst or an advantage in seeking ways to satisfy their basic carnal drives. Sexual harassment procedures are not alien to that category of ways and means; other, less coercive initiatives, may include job promises and business deal preferences.
History shows us that there exists an eerily long panoply of infidelity cases involving politicians, and to a larger extent, people in power - the elite. Romans and Greeks were known to have very 'flexible' matrimonial laws, and historical accounts of European or African social evolutions indicate a propensity for aristocracy to engage in infidelity. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, is believed to have had an extramarital relationship with a slave at Monticello named Sally Hemings.
Careless cheating
Cheating politicians are not a scarce commodity; news commentators and journalists argue that the list of people in power and celebrities guilty of infidelity is longer than currently unveiled. In other words, the cheaters that have gotten caught are just an infinitesimal minority of the entire universe of elected officials.
Communication specialists and celebrity agents are always flabbergasted at the lack of care that some elected officials showcase in handling their affairs and dealing afterwards with infidelity matters, because that behavior is so diametrically opposed to the high sophistication these authorities maintain in managing their public image. Put simply, some politicians are willing to spend millions of dollars on PR campaigns just to get caught later like a teenager in their faithless proceedings.
Nowadays, that question of adulterous carelessness remains open while puzzling political science students. Many social science specialists have contributed their expertise to a body of knowledge that may begin to explain the causal relationship of politician spousal disloyalty. One reason put forward is the intrinsic human instinct: lust. Just as any other human, a politician is driven to carnal desires outside his conjugal realm simply because he or she cannot hold these desires at bay. Simple as that.
Another factor explaining why an elected official is willing to risk all their career in return for a few minutes of romantic episode lies in the quintessential trait of all people in power: the sense of omnipotence. In other words, that feeling of invulnerability, irrespective of the sin committed. This can be seen in recent episodes with former US president's escapades in the White House Oval Office with intern Monica Lewinsky or former New York State governor Elliot Spitzer's interest in prostitute services even though he had been best known for his stern prosecution of those prostitution rings when he served as the state's Attorney General. Even strange was the revelation later that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who was pushing for Clinton's impeachment because of infidelity was also living an adulterous life at the same time!
Some specialists have also suggested that politicians are also prone to infidelity because either they are unhappy in their current relationship or they encounter a high number of solicitations by virtue of their office and the fact that some of these demands can be at times highly pressing. Even though that explanation seeks to discharge politicians from their guilt, it does not provide an explanation as to why they're willing to cede to something that risks destroying in a few minutes or hours an entire career built over decades.
In a modern world dominated by ubiquitous journalism and populated by a diverse cohort of players - bloggers, paparazzi, journalists, "cell-phone camera enabled citizens" - it remains puzzling to try to understand such degree of careless infidelity from these officials.
Cultural differences around the world
Contrary to the United States, England, and a few other countries, infidelity matters involving politicians are not "career-killers". The underlying factor of such a dichotomy is based on the social premise that different cultures view adultery as a private matter which does not necessarily fall into the political realm. Another cultural element also is the fact that some societies ingrained in polygamist or polyandrous traditions view infidelity as a lesser sin. An illustration of this trend is the saga surrounding current Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi's private affairs and the indifference voters continuously show thereto in polls.
Do women also cheat?
Political commentators and historians agree that public infidelity of an elected official is mostly undertaken by men. Yet, they posit that women also have their fair share of adulterous affairs but are less likely to be exposed because of their minority in the political universe, the ambient social circumspection regarding female infidelity and the general discretion women are accustomed to in dealing with non-conjugal paramours. The recent case of former Ireland's prime minister's wife - Iris Robinson - involvement in an out-of-wedlock romance may start to debunk that myth.
Marquis Codjia is an MBA-degreed finance professional with a solid, varied risk management experience in the banking and capital markets arena. His areas of interest are geopolitics, the economy and social issues.
Of preeminent import to him are themes relating to North-South geostrategic affairs, the nature and the ability of social wealth to foster sustainable economic advance, the structural pedigree of poverty in (so termed) Third World countries, and lastly, the changing dynamics brought forward by the resurgent (so termed) emerging economies.
Human beings are naturally prone to seek love, nurturing and self-determination. They are born into love, are surrounded with loving entourages, and continually seek throughout their lives that dose of comfort and serenity that stems from the realization that they're loved, or more simply, admired. Humans need love, and love, as a social epiphenomenon, needs them. Love is, in this case, an epiphenomenon because it is a byproduct of other forms of human interaction, conciliation and reconciliation.
In seeking that utopian comfort of being permanently idolized, people are poised to act on their impulses and react instinctively to protect or maintain that status quo. At all stages of the human adventure, that need for particular attention is preeminent. Think about babies seeking frenetically their parents' attention or adults engaging in extraordinary expressions of feeling to show their jealousy.
Given that the need to be loved is natural, we are ready to accept the assertion that love can - and must be - eternal. Religions and other constructs of faith, beliefs and dogma fulfill that ethos in the sense that they permit us to start believing in an everlasting love, one that will smoothly transition from this terrestrial episode into an after-life occurrence.
Love and politics
Politicians, like most of us, have that intense striving for love and admiration. As any other human, they're willing to resort to arguably reprehensible means to get that admiration. The need for love, that is, the need for approval is peculiarly crucial for politicians because it conditions their electoral existence and survival. They must win votes, that is, they must be lovable enough for citizens to love them and grant them their votes.
Interestingly, those who have a heightened need of admiration are bold enough to utilize any means necessary to reach their goals. They need to manipulate. Politicians are in that category. Social scientists have long argued that politicians need to seduce the electorate continuously to safeguard their political capital. Politics is the science of managing the general good, and in handling that societal responsibility, people in power use various tools to provide law and order, which are pragmatic, down-to-earth, day-to-day necessities, but also idealism, and dreaming, which belong to the realm of imagination but are nonetheless critical.
Politicians mainly use their electoral clout as a catalyst or an advantage in seeking ways to satisfy their basic carnal drives. Sexual harassment procedures are not alien to that category of ways and means; other, less coercive initiatives, may include job promises and business deal preferences.
History shows us that there exists an eerily long panoply of infidelity cases involving politicians, and to a larger extent, people in power - the elite. Romans and Greeks were known to have very 'flexible' matrimonial laws, and historical accounts of European or African social evolutions indicate a propensity for aristocracy to engage in infidelity. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, is believed to have had an extramarital relationship with a slave at Monticello named Sally Hemings.
Careless cheating
Cheating politicians are not a scarce commodity; news commentators and journalists argue that the list of people in power and celebrities guilty of infidelity is longer than currently unveiled. In other words, the cheaters that have gotten caught are just an infinitesimal minority of the entire universe of elected officials.
Communication specialists and celebrity agents are always flabbergasted at the lack of care that some elected officials showcase in handling their affairs and dealing afterwards with infidelity matters, because that behavior is so diametrically opposed to the high sophistication these authorities maintain in managing their public image. Put simply, some politicians are willing to spend millions of dollars on PR campaigns just to get caught later like a teenager in their faithless proceedings.
Nowadays, that question of adulterous carelessness remains open while puzzling political science students. Many social science specialists have contributed their expertise to a body of knowledge that may begin to explain the causal relationship of politician spousal disloyalty. One reason put forward is the intrinsic human instinct: lust. Just as any other human, a politician is driven to carnal desires outside his conjugal realm simply because he or she cannot hold these desires at bay. Simple as that.
Another factor explaining why an elected official is willing to risk all their career in return for a few minutes of romantic episode lies in the quintessential trait of all people in power: the sense of omnipotence. In other words, that feeling of invulnerability, irrespective of the sin committed. This can be seen in recent episodes with former US president's escapades in the White House Oval Office with intern Monica Lewinsky or former New York State governor Elliot Spitzer's interest in prostitute services even though he had been best known for his stern prosecution of those prostitution rings when he served as the state's Attorney General. Even strange was the revelation later that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who was pushing for Clinton's impeachment because of infidelity was also living an adulterous life at the same time!
Some specialists have also suggested that politicians are also prone to infidelity because either they are unhappy in their current relationship or they encounter a high number of solicitations by virtue of their office and the fact that some of these demands can be at times highly pressing. Even though that explanation seeks to discharge politicians from their guilt, it does not provide an explanation as to why they're willing to cede to something that risks destroying in a few minutes or hours an entire career built over decades.
In a modern world dominated by ubiquitous journalism and populated by a diverse cohort of players - bloggers, paparazzi, journalists, "cell-phone camera enabled citizens" - it remains puzzling to try to understand such degree of careless infidelity from these officials.
Cultural differences around the world
Contrary to the United States, England, and a few other countries, infidelity matters involving politicians are not "career-killers". The underlying factor of such a dichotomy is based on the social premise that different cultures view adultery as a private matter which does not necessarily fall into the political realm. Another cultural element also is the fact that some societies ingrained in polygamist or polyandrous traditions view infidelity as a lesser sin. An illustration of this trend is the saga surrounding current Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi's private affairs and the indifference voters continuously show thereto in polls.
Do women also cheat?
Political commentators and historians agree that public infidelity of an elected official is mostly undertaken by men. Yet, they posit that women also have their fair share of adulterous affairs but are less likely to be exposed because of their minority in the political universe, the ambient social circumspection regarding female infidelity and the general discretion women are accustomed to in dealing with non-conjugal paramours. The recent case of former Ireland's prime minister's wife - Iris Robinson - involvement in an out-of-wedlock romance may start to debunk that myth.
Marquis Codjia is an MBA-degreed finance professional with a solid, varied risk management experience in the banking and capital markets arena. His areas of interest are geopolitics, the economy and social issues.
Of preeminent import to him are themes relating to North-South geostrategic affairs, the nature and the ability of social wealth to foster sustainable economic advance, the structural pedigree of poverty in (so termed) Third World countries, and lastly, the changing dynamics brought forward by the resurgent (so termed) emerging economies.
The Irony of Evangelical Political Growth
Religious influence in politics is nothing new, either in world or American history. In fact, despite the demarcation our Constitution seeks to ensure, there has been a necessary, if uncomfortable, symbiosis between the two. Religion has, at times, been the voice of progress in a sluggish nation, as with the Civil Rights Movement. Religion has at other times been the voice of caution amid a world of uncertainty and violent change, such as in WWII and the Cold War.
Today, the dance has become more entangled and fevered. Nary a day passes without news of an assault by religion onto politics, or politics onto religion, depending upon your perspective. Yet, what makes the interactions between the two so unsettling today is that they seem to indicate something far greater. Something is going on. Skirmish after skirmish lend light to the fact that we are in the middle of something much bigger than ourselves.
Evangelical Christianity, the ubiquitous political voice, wants to tell our country that we are in a war over God. Preferring theocracy to democracy, or at least a church-driven state to the moral morass they believe our one-voice-one-vote system has birthed, evangelical Christianity has galvanized itself, creating a smooth-operating and many-tentacled organism that is powerfully steering the present and future of American politics.
Left-of-center folks scoff at the very mention of a God-war, desiring instead to keep their eye on the political ball. Naively believing that today's politics are just about politics, liberals and left-leaning moderates denounce all talk of God in political conversation.
Today, the dance has become more entangled and fevered. Nary a day passes without news of an assault by religion onto politics, or politics onto religion, depending upon your perspective. Yet, what makes the interactions between the two so unsettling today is that they seem to indicate something far greater. Something is going on. Skirmish after skirmish lend light to the fact that we are in the middle of something much bigger than ourselves.
Evangelical Christianity, the ubiquitous political voice, wants to tell our country that we are in a war over God. Preferring theocracy to democracy, or at least a church-driven state to the moral morass they believe our one-voice-one-vote system has birthed, evangelical Christianity has galvanized itself, creating a smooth-operating and many-tentacled organism that is powerfully steering the present and future of American politics.
Left-of-center folks scoff at the very mention of a God-war, desiring instead to keep their eye on the political ball. Naively believing that today's politics are just about politics, liberals and left-leaning moderates denounce all talk of God in political conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
