Barack Obama for US president

Experience has been the most trumpeted credential of the Climpton campaign in their quest to win the Democratic nomination over fierce rival Barack Obama, who has been tagged as having a lean resume ill-suited for the most powerful office of one, if not the, most powerful nation in the land. The recent red telephone ad of Clinton perhaps best illustrates this claim, portraying her as the candidate able to assume responsibility as commander-in-chief from day one. So we ask, how important really is experience?

Time recently provided a sobering analysis regarding this.

But we could actually just look at our own fence for the most telling example. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo could be accused of anything other than being politically inexperienced. She sat as assistant secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry in 1987, after being invited by then President Corazon Aquino, and promoted as undersecretary two years later. Then in 1992, she squeaked a 13^th place finish in the senatorial race earning her a three-year term. She then ran again in 1995 and this time topped the senatorial elections with about 16 million votes, which according to her official bio at the government website, is “the highest number of votes in Philippine history at that time”. Arroyo then ran as vice-president of then House Speaker Jose de Venecia and won by an overwhelming margin (“the largest mandate in the history of presidential or vice presidential elections”) over fierce rival Senator Edgardo Angara, who was Joseph Estrada’s running mate.

Arroyo’s academic background and political pedigree is of course another chapter in her bio. When she was 14 years old, her father, Diosdado Macapagal Arroyo, became president of the country.

She was valedictorian of her high school class at Assumption Convent, was consistently on the Dean’s List in Georgetown University in Washington DC, and graduated magna cum laude at Assumption College in Makati. She obtained a Master’s degree in Economics from the Ateneo de Manila University and a doctorate degree in Economics from the University of the Philippines.

But of course, we know the rest of the story, the one full of regrets, hate, and spite. Thanks to Arroyo, our country has been an argument in itself against democracy. We have been a textbook case of what democracy shouldn’t be. Our democratic terrain has been so ravaged all we got are but apparitions of freedom. And the person who has the highest responsibility for all of these-massive corruption, desecration of the ballot, the culture of impunity that has claimed the lives of countless many-is someone who has experience written all over her resume. And Arroyo did not just have ordinary experience, she had the experience necessary at that time-a sound understanding of economic principles at a time when we were still reeling off from the effects of the Asian financial crisis. Instead, it all went to waste. The only kind of economic framework we could perceive over the present situation is one where monetary interests and survival instincts prevail over any type of consideration, even human rights.

But then, Arroyo is just one of the many examples against experience, and there are also as much examples for it. The oft cited example in arguments for experience is the Bay of Bigs debacle of then President John F Kennedy. But as the Time articles point out, experience is never a quantifiable element that we could put a finger on.

If knowing the system is so useful, then second-term presidencies should be more successful than first-term. Instead, many Presidents lose effectiveness as they go along.

Just recently, Barack Obama gave what could be considered the most astute, and dare I say presidential, speech in his campaign, (click here for CJR’s post in anticipation of his speech and here for their entry after it) which is about racism and made in response to the hornet’s nest stirred by the sermon of his pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright. (Obama wrote a blog entry in the Huffington Post in response to the controversy.). If and only in itself, the speech, which is certainly one for the books, aptly portrays the message and spirit of his campaign, and all the more gained my respect. Right at bat, pundits lauded the speech, but outrightly questioned what collateral effects it may have in his campaign, considering that racism is still a very touchy issue in the US. Considering how crucial the current stretch is in the race, it would have been only politically convenient for Obama to toss the issue aside, with an obligatory apology and explanation thrown for good measure. But what he did was otherwise, allotting a sprawling speech on an issue which, he said, “this nation can not afford to ignore right now.”

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Coming at the heels of various missteps like off-tangent parries by advisers Austan Golsbee regarding NAFTA and Samantha Powers regarding Hillary (calling her a “monster”), plus his being associated with indicted real estate developer Tony Rezko in his fundraising and real estate acquisition, it would have been unsurprising if he just dodged the issue, yet he remained consistent.

I hope for Obama to win the presidenct for I find myself giving much premium on motivation and leadership as primary factors, as I believe there lies much power in encouraging people. Clinton is undoubtedly intelligent, but Obama, aside from being intelligent himself, moves people, moves to act, to believe, to hope-and that is clearly something for a nation and world in perpetual distress. (Important to note however that though Hillary boasts of having a much nuanced perspective of foreign policy affairs, Obama’s grasp is not at all empty or elementary as he has opposed the Iraq invasion in 2004 with no insignificant amount of reasonable arguments. And though Clinton’s health-care proposal was considered by pundits as the most detailed, Obama’s was deemed anything but simplistic.)

America is stuck in a rut right now, thanks to the sweeping disenchantment caused by the unnecessary and fraudulent Iraq war, and clearly evidenced by the weakening value of the dollar (see a commentary in the financial times by former Fed chair Alan Greenspan on the present US crisis). It is a time most opportune for someone in America to rouse public sentiment, matching acts with rhetoric, for democracy for the world (in light of the successes of Russia, China, etc.) and execute sound foreign policies, if only to compensate for the disaster that is the Iraq war. I see no reason to hold doubt on Obama’s ability to carry out such tasks. It would be to America’s and the world’s benefit to hand the oval office to Barack Obama.

—

Just now.
Recent reports about Clinton’s travel schedules as first lady puts to question her “experience” claim.

—

March 20 marked the Iraq invasion’s fifth year. Bush still stands by his decision and says it was well worth it.

Nobel prize winning economis Joseph Stiglitz along with Harvard’s Linda Bilmes estimates the cost of the war to be going at three trillion dollars.

—

Please find time to visit CMFR‘s new project eyeonethics.

Don recently made an article about the Prince Harry issue, which pertains his deployment in Afghanistan and the arrangement with the British press to not cover it. Comments would be very welcome.

—

I love this.

The National – Slow Show

You know I dreamed about you
for twenty-nine years before I saw you
You know I dreamed about you
I missed you for
for twenty-nine years

 

2007

President Arroyo pleads for the media’s help in her pursuit to leave a legacy in her remaining three years before she bows out in 2010. Addressing various media executives, Arroyo asked for media to have “balanced reporting based on verified facts, constructive commentary on public issues, and editorial focus on news that matters to the lives and livelihood of ordinary Filipinos.”

To repeat, Arroyo is asking for “balanced reporting,” “constructive commentary,” and for “editorial focus on news that matters to the lives and livelihood of ordinary Filipinos.” The best for Arroyo to do to help the media is to leave them alone and let them do their job (I think I read this somewhere in PJR). We all have seen Arroyo’s skewed concept of what is news and to hear her demand for “balanced reporting,” and “constructive commentary” is like seeing Kim Jong-Il preaching on the soapbox about the merits of being sane. For all we know, under Arroyo’s watch came the record-breaking stats of slain and sued journalists. And she is actually asking for media’s help. The idea even of a president asking the media for “help” is indicative of a flawed understanding of the role news media plays in democratic institutions. Journalists do not help, or give favors to anyone. Bil Kovach and Rosenstiel, both esteemed journalism scholars, said it best when they wrote in their book The Elements of Journalism that “journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.”
Arroyo’s views however remains consistent with the way she has treated media for the duration of her presidency. It could be remembered how she walked out in a recent press conference after an Inquirer reporter asked why her much vaunted economic improvement has not trickled down to the poor. Arroyo, in a smile that took like a million muscles to mount, said that she does not want to talk about “disappointments,” but only about the good things, or words to that effect. Therein lies the problem. For Arroyo, the media is good as long as it reports good news about her. Journalism clearly is not what she’s asking for but PR. Arroyo seems only willing to swallow good and sweet news about her administration and nothing else. No wonder, her administration is diabetic, the wounds of her mistakes rankling and festering, hovering like a ghost atop Malacañang.

Unsurprisingly, this view is not inconsistent with her other cabinet members, the most glaring example being her notorious pitbull Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez. When UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston went to the country to investigate the rising incidence of extra-judicial killings, Gonzalez barked that the problem with us Filipinos is we allow foreigners to come into our country and examine our dirty kitchen. When Alston issued his preliminary observation commenting that the military is in a “state of denial,” Esperon harped back and said that Alston was in fact the one in denial because of his “refusal to believe that the CPP-NPA could perpetrate such killings.” The military still sells the line that the hundreds of extra-judicial killings in our country which includes activists, lawyers, journalists are all part of communist purges within the CPP-NPA, an organization which interestingly, as the military purports, have acquired the curious habit of decimating its own ranks, doing so for the past two decades since democracy was restored. I myself had the first-hand experience of a government official talking to me bemoaning that what all the media does is to report negative things about the government. Recollection of said incident triggers a leper bell in my subconscious so please excuse me if I beg off in elaborating.

The bottom line is the administration’s concept of news is anything that is favorable to them: legit news is good news.

In fact, if Arroyo is really genuinely concerned with press freedom, she could start by reformatting the government sequestered channels, mainly NBN, RPN and IBC. She could start by releasing her administration’s leash on the said station’s news programs and allow them to operate freely as news media and not as bootlickers of her administration.

Another statement made by Arroyo during her recent dialogue with media executives could also explain why killings continue to be unresolved under her watch: “You know, one of the things that allowed us to achieve 6.9 percent growth rate in the first quarter, the stock market record in our history, the strong peso, the reduction in underemployment, is our focus on the economy. And I try my best not to be distracted by politics and so we’re continuing this kind of work and mindset.”

See, Arroyo stated that she will “focus on the economy” and to try her best “not to be distracted by politics.” That’s like a parent telling her children to fuck off as her only responsibility is to generate cash for their everyday existence.

That’s a problem, a president who begs off from politics. Elementary lessons in political dynamics remind that “conflict” is the stuff politics is made of. Arroyo basically does not want to get her hands dirty. No wonder the killing of journalists continues unabated, what with her anemic measures, if any actually, to stem it.

Politics is conflict resolution, to put it simply. In the regime of a president who wishes to skirt “politics,” would we be then surprised if she fails to cut the tide of extra-judicial killings? Of course the president need not to deal with such problems first-hand, but her pronouncements are unquestionably illustrative of the virtues surrounding her governance. Alston indeed nailed the hammer right on the head when he uttered the word “denial.” Despite the increasing numbers of journalists being killed and sued (no less by the president’s husband), Arroyo has never discarded her habit of pronouncing that press freedom is well and alive in our country. Could press freedom be alive in a country where journalists are continually killed and libeled? Yes if one has a twisted sense of what press freedom actually is. (It would be well to note that a day after the president asked for media’s help last Wed, a journalist was arrested for libel (again!).)

What’s disturbing also is not Arroyo’s concept of news, (that is, good news), but her idea of how to treat negative news (if there even is such a term. Negative news only used to pertain to news that falls out of the accepted norms of what constitutes news for Arroyo, which then means anything that is critical of her administration). “Forward.” Let us move forward has been the general tune of her administration when it comes to facing political crisis. Well, that’s unsurprising considering that Arroyo in the first place does not want to be “distracted by politics.” Let bygones be bygone so they say.

In the House Centennial Rites last June 8, Arroyo said that the “overwhelming victory of our coalition in Congress and in the local governments is a continuing mandate of reform, unity, more work and less politics, looking forward and leaving behind the contentious past.” The word “forward” was repeated four times in Arroyo’s SONA in 2004. “Now, is our time to march forward as one,” Arroyo said in her inaugural address on June 30, 2004. In her address before media executives last Wednesday, Arroyo said in her opening statement that her administration intends to “begin a new phase of my administration, which is the legacy phase and we would like to share with you what we’d like to do to move forward and to ask for your support so that we can achieve all the things we want to do for the next three years.”

The practice is not entirely lost on her aides. When Comelec Commissioner Rene Sarmiento proposed to revive the probe on the Garci tapes just recently, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said “Let’s move forward. Let’s leave behind things that will not contribute to our nation’s progress.“
In 2005, Ignacio Bunye said “It’s time that we move forward so that the Philippine economy can take off,” in line with the House probe on the Garci tapes.

Alex Magno, known administration apologist, said in an ABS-CBN interview on the elections day that we all should move forward and forget about the unresolved cases of the present administration. Media critic Vergel Santos retorted that we are indeed moving forward, “from fraud to fraud to fraud.” Touché.

It’s quite alarming that our situation is growing increasingly similar to George Orwell’s 1984. (Instead of big brother, we’ve got small sister). Take a look at this . Couple that with the fact of the newly-minted Anti-terror law, and the recently proclaimed EO 608, which aims to plug leaks from all sectors of the government.

Even Arroyo’s speeches and her aids have been largely suffused with Orwellian doublespeak, so what then could we expect from her if she says such words as “progress,” “development,” or even “freedom?”

Nothing. In fact, don’t expect nothing. Perhaps it would be better to expect the worst.