The Fall of Michael Ignatieff: A Teachable Moment

For those of you who do not follow Canadian politics, May 2, 2011 was an exciting day. Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party finally won their majority government. The New Democratic Party became the official opposition winning 102 seats in the new Parliament. The "Bloc Quebecois" Canada's "federal separatist" party (don't even ask what that is all about!) was virtually wiped out, winning only 4 seats and losing their official party status. And the Liberal party, aka "Canada's Natural Governing" party was humiliated, winning only 34 seats and losing their "official opposition" status. Its leader Michael Ignatieff, at one time thought to be a lock for our next Prime Minister (even by yours truly) brought his party to an historic lost, losing his own seat, and resigning the next day. He will be teaching at University of Toronto, presumably on how not to succeed in politics.

This gets me to my "teachable moment". Although there are undoubtedly a bunch of reasons why the election turned out as it did, let us go back to look at how and why Michael Ignatieff became the leader of the Liberal party. His first try was in Dec 2006. He was the favorite to win but lost to Stephane Dion. Two years later in December 2008 the Liberal party, eager to get back into power, even if this meant forming a coalition government with the other two opposition parties, unceremoniously turfed Stephane Dion. Rather than having a proper leadership convention, with debates, and all party members having their say, the Liberal party insiders anointed Michael Ignatieff as their new leader. Less than three years later, Ignatieff takes his party to an historic defeat and loses his own seat. The humiliated Stephane Dion, who unbeknownst to me, has been quietly labouring in the back ground all these years, wins his own seat. Ah, poetic justice.

Perhaps if the Liberal party had not been so eager for power in 2006 and had been patient enough to go through a conventional leadership process, party members would have realized in 2008 why they didn't like Ignatieff in 2006 and chosen someone else as their leader? Observers say that Ignatieff lost in 2011 because he didn't "connect" with the voters. Well, he obviously didn't connect in 2006 either. And maybe he wouldn't have connected in 2008 if put to the test.

So there's a lesson in all of this. Dispense with a democratic and participatory leadership convention at your peril.

The death of Bin Laden

This is a very treacherous topic to write about, unless you are prepared to join the celebratory throngs, both Democrats and Republicans, who think the killing of Bin Laden was the greatest thing to have ever happened. I must admit that I am happy that they finally got him. It does satisfy a human instinct for revenge, even though this may not be the most admirable of our instincts. Whether it's "justice" or not, as normally understood in countries that believe in the rule of law or due process is another question altogether.

The celebrations in the street, the high-fives, did bother me. As has been said by others, this is not a sport. I found it tasteless.

Some of the verbiage bothered me. The President's statement that they had "cut off the head" of the organization by killing Bin Laden was to my mind a terrible metaphor. He should not have used it. The statement by others that this was one of the greatest military operations ever was preposterous.

I found the following piece by Glenn Greenwald extremely good and thoughtful. Maybe you will too.

Wow, I Am Actually Paying Attention!

I do not usually blog about Canadian politics. The reason for this is simple - it's BORING!

Face facts folks. The French language "leaders" debate was actually moved because it conflicted with a hockey game. (We in Canada do not actually vote for our "leader"; but that's a different story). In Alberta, the same party has been in power for almost forty years. The Federal Liberal party was in power for nearly 70 years in the 20th century. We are now having our third Federal election in the past five years, with no great movement occurring in that time period. The country seems happy with the status quo - our economy is strong, our "loonie" is strong, our housing market is strong, separatism is a dormant issue.. you get the picture. So forgive me for yawning.

But wait! Things might be happening. The latest polls apparently show that our perennial last place party, the New Democratic Party, under its leader Jack Layton, (who has been the leader for 8 years despite the fact that his party comes in last every time) has surged in the polls, doubling its support from 14% to 28% in the last few days. It has overtaken the Liberals, who under its leader Michael Ignatieff, have taken over the last place spot. What does this mean? Well, I do not know for sure. But it could mean that the governing Conservative party will win but only with a minority government, and the three opposition parties (one of which is actually dedicated to the break up of Canada, but that's another story) will defeat the minority government and form a "coalition" government under, you guessed it, Jack Layton. Canada will have a "socialist (sort of) Prime Minister.

So now I am paying attention! I await May 2 with great anticipation. I may even try to get early election results from the East, by phoning my son, which I believe I am legally entitled to do. But I cannot blog about it until the polls close in Vancouver, sorry.

Ah, Canada. You got to love it!

Okay. Here is a problem.

Canada is a big country. We have several time zones. So on May 2, 2011, the polls in Eastern Canada will close hours before the polls are closed in Western Canada. Once the polls are closed in a region, vote counting will begin there and results will be announced there. But, oh my God, what happens if people in the West hear about the election results in the East before their polls close? They may be "influenced" by the results! They may not even vote!!! So, what do Canadians do about that?

Choices:

A. Do nothing. Let free speech prevail. Be like the Americans ( who also have time zones) and suck it up.

B. Have staggered closings so that all polls close at the same time no matter where you live.

C. Do not start counting anywhere until all polls are closed.

D. Make it illegal to transmit results from one part of the country to another part, even by tweeting.

So.. what did Canada decide?

New York Times and Goldstone

You would think that an op-ed by internationally recognized jurist Richard Goldstone would be of interest to New York Times readers.

I guess not.

Explaining broken promises

As I noted in an earlier posting, an interesting aspect of the upcoming 2012 Presidential campaign will be how President Obama explains a string of about faces. The latest one involves the use of military trials in Guantanamo. Of course, the dilemma for the Republican nominee is that it will be hard to criticize the President for breaking a promise when he ends up doing something favoured by Republicans. Should be tricky.

By the way, there is a Canadian Federal election happening now. When something interesting happens there, I will let you know.

Turning a blind eye to atrocities

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different".

So said President Obama in his Libyan speech to the American people. American exceptionalism; a concept now seemingly embraced by President Obama. As I heard this line, I wondered which nations the President had in mind. Not Canada, I hoped. I also found it an odd comment coming as it did from a person who considers himself a citizen of the world.

And as I read the news reported every day concerning the terrible atrocities being committed elsewhere, for example, in the Ivory Coast, I think back upon that comment and wonder why in the world the President bothered to make it.

The Goldstone Report Part 2

Some of you might be interested in the U.N. Goldstone Report, Part 2.

Iraq and Libya: Striking Similarities

Is it just me or does it also appear to you that the U.S. (i.e. Obama) led invasion of Libya is strikingly similar to the U.S. (i.e. George Bush) led invasion of Iraq. Both were originally justified on grounds which were soon departed from. In Iraq, when it became clear that there were no WMD's, the rationale for the war became "regime change". In Libya, the war originally was justified on the "no fly" zone premise - i.e. make sure that the Libyan air force could not be used to attack civilians. When that was quickly accomplished, the West began blowing up Libyan tanks and armor on the ground in order to assist the opposition in their desire for "regime change". Thus in both cases the removal of brutal dictators from power became the raison d'etre for the intervention, although in neither case did it start out that way.

Another similarity is that neither country posed an immediate and direct threat to American or western interests. Yes, both dictators funded and supported terrorists, who did pose a threat. If anything, Iraq posed a greater threat to Western interests and the interests of its neighbors than did Libya. (Remember the invasion of Kuwait?) Libya, in fact, has in recent years shifted somewhat towards assisting the West in fighting Al Quaeda, much more so than one could say of Saddam. Thus, if this was the basis for either of the wars, the invasion of Iraq was more justifiable than the Libyan adventure.

Both countries had repressive and cruel dictators. Although it is difficult to place them on a cruelty scale, if one did, it seems to be that Hussein would best Gaddafi on this scale. After all, he massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, using chemical weapons to do so. And if one were to use the removal of oppressive dictators as the justification for a foreign intervention, it would be impossible for the West to stop at either Iraq or Libya.

There is one difference. George W. actually sought and obtained Congressional approval for his war. President Obama did not. He was not even around for his war, deciding to go on his South American trade trip instead.

Now do not get me wrong. I am glad that Saddam Hussein was deposed, and I will be glad if Gaddafi is. The fact that we cannot and do not get rid of all repressive dictators is no reason not to get rid of some of them. What bothers me, as it always does, is the hypocrisy of those who were so quick to condemn George W for Iraq, but who now describe the Libyan intervention as a "just war". At least those on the far left who want Obama impeached are consistent.

George W. must be chuckling to himself right now. It will be very interesting to hear what President Obama has to say tonight and what the reaction will be.

The 2012 Presidential Campaign

The 2012 Presidential campaign will be very interesting to watch. It will clearly be very different from 2008 for obvious reasons.

First, President Obama will be unable to focus his campaign on being the anti-Bush. This will rob him of his major, and one might say his principal, 2008 message. President Obama will have his own record to defend. Things can no longer be blamed on George W.

Second, President Obama will be unable to campaign on a "Change You Can Believe In" theme. No-one will be buying that. The past three years have been more like "business as usual" for US politics; arguably even worse than usual.

Third, there will be a lot of 2008 campaign promises not kept which will be targets for opponents. For example, not only is Guantanamo not closed. but military trials have been supported by the Administration. Promises of transparency in legislation have not been kept. A lot of Bush era foreign policies have been followed. I am sure opponents, both on the left and the right, will be able to come up with a long list of broken promises.

Fourth, the President seems to have lost the "far" left. Calls for his impeachment by Democrats and liberal supporters regarding his Libya intervention are really quite amazing. Obama's weak defense of the treatment of Private Manning while in detention has drawn the wrath of human rights groups and liberals. The President strangely enough now seems to appeal more to soft conservatives than to liberals.

Fifth, the world has not gone well. Peace in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians seems to be further away now than ever. The turmoil in the Arab world itself, involving the attempted overthrow of American friendly regimes, has caught the President off guard. Talking with one's enemies, like Iran's Ahmadenijad, has not happened and is not going to happen. The US unemployment rate is still very high, housing sales have slumped terribly, the deficit has ballooned. Through this all, President Obama has seemed strangely absent.

The one strong card the President has of course is that a Republican must emerge who can beat him. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, however. The 2012 Presidential campaign will be a lot different than the last one.

President Obama and Private Manning

President Obama has been "assured" by the Pentagon that the treatment of Bradley Manning while in detention meets U.S. standards. Statement Department spokesman P.J. Crowley disagrees with that assessment and has resigned ( i.e. been fired) as a result of his public statements to that effect. The incident is disturbing. Not only does the treatment of Private Manning, the alleged Wikileaks leaker, appear to me to be inhumane and degrading, but it yet again points out the hypocrisy of those who continue to defend President Obama. If George Bush had said that he had been assured by the Pentagon that the treatment accorded to detainees met U.S. standards and was appropriate, would he have received such a free pass? No need to answer - this was a rhetorical question.

The most ridiculous comment of the week

A "coup d'etat" is a "sudden extrajudicial overthrow of a government" typically by a military; so says Wikipedia.

So when Robert Reich describes what the legitimately elected representatives did this week in Wisconsin in passing legislation taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions as a "coup d'etat", Mr Reich definitely wins the prize for the most ridiculous comment of the week. If there was any coup at all in Wisconsin ( and there was none by the way ) it was by Democratic senators who fled the state and hid from law enforcement officials so that the government could not function, or by the protesters who tried physically to block the proceedings.

Why the legislation was passed and whether it is good or bad for Wisconsin residents and workers is a legitimate question. But to describe the process as a "coup d'etat" shows the reluctance of many opponents to engage in a serious conversation about this and thereby to try to tone down what has become an angry and potentially violent situation.

The Defunding of National Public Radio

Excuse me if I wade into a debate which admittedly does not affect me in any way - the question of whether the American taxpayer should be required to continue its funding of NPR. It is, however, an interesting debate and I simply cannot resist.

As a frequent visitor to the States, I listen to NPR quite a lot. I have breakfast while the Dian Rehm show is on. I listen to the Prairie Home Companion with Garrison Keillor, and I love Car Talk with brothers Click and Clack. In the evenings there is continuous Jazz on our local NPR affiliate. So I am a fan. I find the political discussions generally biased in a liberal direction. That frequently irritates me, but I have an easy solution. When I can't take it any more, I turn the station off.

If Americans needed to be reminded why NPR should stop receiving tax payer money, the Schillers did an excellent job of that. Ron Schiller was the Executive VP in charge of fund raising, who in a conservative "sting" operation made no bones of the fact that he is a committed liberal who believes that the Republican party and especially the Tea Party supporters are stupid, extremely racist, Islamophobic, and xenophobic. Democrats are much smarter according to Ron, but apparently not so smart that they know when to keep their mouths shut and to recognize when they are being set up. But no matter; Ron was fired and now joins several other high ranking NPR executives who have recently lost their jobs.

Vivian Schiller was the NPR CEO who was fired (or in the parlance of high level firings - "resigned") for a few reasons. For one thing, she hired Ron Schiller. She also badly bungled the firing of Juan Williams. In short, things have been going badly for NPR in recent days under her watch.

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with radio and television anchors, fundraisers, or other employees to have political views and biases on important issues of the day. I would be shocked if they did not. People who work in these fields are obviously very interested in politics and current affairs, and probably very well informed. Of course they have views. And they should not be afraid to express them! BUT, when they are working for a publicly funded outfit and are counting on the tax dollars of the very people they disdain and insult, well then something is clearly wrong. It is one thing to think middle Americans who support conservative causes are stupid and racist, but quite another to have these very same people forced to support you and your organization. That is "Chutzpah".

Ron Schiller was right in one thing he said to the fake Muslim Brotherhood putative donors. NPR does not need public money and would be better off without it. It would liberate them from from the shackles of political correctness; it would allow them to openly tell the listener how they feel about things, instead of having to skulk around the water cooler, disdaining their fellow Americans in secret. Listeners who don't like what they hear can tune in to something else. People who do like it can offer their financial support in terms of donations to keep their stations alive and flourishing. We in Alberta have done just that with internationally acclaimed radio station CKUA.

Perhaps public funding made sense when radio and television stations needed the money so that people in smaller, rural communities could have access to entertainment and news, particularly when it was not commercially viable for private broadcasters to access these areas. But now with satellite, internet, and a gzillion choices, most of them free and easily accessible, is there any need to publicly fund news and entertainment outlets? And when Americans see the mountain of government debt that the US has accumulated, the escalating costs of health care, and cutbacks in all sorts of more important services, it is not surprising to see that the majority of those recently polled (see my last posting) want this public funding support of NPR to stop. Maybe thanks in part to the Schillers it now will.

FOLLOW UP:

Another suspended NPR employee for falling into yet another trap and apparently agreeing to protect an "anonymous" donor from government scrutiny. Also a letter from NPR journalists expressing outrage at Ron Schiller's comments. See here.

The Polarization of the Media

The firing of National Public Radio's CEO Vivian Schiller is an interesting event, about which I will have more to say in my next posting. It feeds directly into the current debate as to whether any "news" outlet should be the recipient of public moneys and, more particularly, whether NPR should be "defunded". We in Canada have had similar discussions about the funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, although I do not believe there is any serious move or appetite in Canada for "defunding" to happen to the CBC.

As an observer of American cable news outlets, I have frequently commented on how polarized the American media is, reflecting the deep divisions that exist in the public itself. MSNBC plays out in left field, FOX in right, and CNN floats around the center. It was therefore interesting to me to note the recent "polling" which MSNBC and FOX are conducting on their respective web sites as to whether NPR should be defunded. If you look at the MSNBC poll, you will discover that at the time of this posting, 55% feel that NPR should be defunded, as opposed to 42% who feel it should not be. The same question asked on the FOX website produces a vote of 93% who are in favour of defunding while only about 5% support continued funding. Not only does this demonstrate the vastly different audiences which support these networks, but it more importantly shows that despite NPR's pronouncements that it is an objective and professional news outlet, it does not appear that way to the public. Liberals love NPR because they obviously think that NPR promotes their political views. Conservatives hate NPR because they perceive the opposite. Thus whatever NPR thinks it is doing, i.e. representing different viewpoints and the diversity of public opinion, it certainly is not coming across that way to the American public.

The Party of No Show

When Republicans in the U.S. Congress repeatedly voted "no" to Democratic legislative measures, they were dubbed the "Party of No". Well, Democratic state senators in Wisconsin have taken their "no" one step farther. They have become the party of "no show".

In order to block Republican attempts to pass budget cutting legislation, including taking away the collective bargaining rights of public union employees, the Democratic senators in the Republican controlled house fled the State of Wisconsin. They apparently hid out in Illinois in an undisclosed location. This prevented any votes on the controversial bills, since the house had lost its quorum. (Indiana Democratic senators followed suit in their state).

I found this whole episode fascinating. It struck me as somewhat undemocratic. After all, there were November elections, and the Republicans won. They are proceeding with their promised legislative agenda, just as the Democratic Congress proceeded with theirs (health care etc.) when they were in control of the US Congress. Although the Republicans in Congress voted "no" to the Democratic legislation, they at least showed up, debated, and voted.

But perhaps "all is fair in love and war and politics". And if not showing up to vote prevents a vote, maybe the Wisconsin senators were just exercising their democratic right to stay away from the house in order to prevent the vote?

But then I wondered, why hide out in Illinois? Why couldn't they have just stayed home in Wisconsin? I gather that Wisconsin state senators cannot just not show up. They apparently can be compelled by law to attend the session. Thus they had to flee and hide. Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

Another interesting side bar to this whole budget cutting episode is that apparently some teachers who attended the protests and missed work were getting fake "sick notes" from doctors. This would prevent them from having their salaries docked because they were absent from work without cause. Now if this is true, it is a bit disturbing, no? It is one thing to stand up for what you believe in, even if there is a price to be paid for your convictions, but another to try to avoid taking responsibility for your act, by lying about it. Especially by teachers, who probably get a lot of "sick notes" and other excuses, from their students. It will be interesting to see how the teachers explain their behaviour to their students, when they recover from their illnesses, and return to work.

Who would have thought that Wisconsin state politics could be this interesting?

Helen Thomas: An Encore Presentation

For those out there who doubted where Helen Thomas stood on the topic of Jews and Israel, doubt no more. In a revealing interview on CNN, Ms. Thomas tries to explain her earlier comment that Jews living in Israel should go back to Poland and Germany or wherever else they came from. After all, explains Thomas, Jews could have just stayed in Poland after they were liberated from concentration camps, since they were not being persecuted anymore. Is this woman serious? What is she saying - that those few Jews who were able to survive the camps should have just picked themselves up, knocked on the doors of their confiscated homes and businesses, and announced they were back? A recent piece in the Huffington Post discusses the "welcome" that Jews who stayed in Poland after the war received, and it does not fit Ms. Thomas' description.

Then there is the favorite defense of the Thomas types. They go on the offensive, claiming that you cannot criticize Israel in the United States. If you do, so they explain, you will be called an anti-Semite. Also, according to one of Thomas' earlier opinions, Jews control the media, making it difficult or dangerous to criticize Israel at any event.

Now let's get this straight. It is absolutely true that all critics of Israeli policies are not anti-Semitic. In fact, some of the most vocal criticisms of Israeli policies come from Israelis and Jews. But what is also true is that some critics of Israel are in fact anti-Semitic and it is the latter motivation which impels their criticisms.

Is Thomas anti-Semitic? Hell no, says Helen! Jews are not even Semites, so how can she be anti-Semitic? So I guess antisemitism does not even exist, at least in so far as Jews are concerned, according to Helen Thomas.

Free speech is important and I am glad Helen Thomas exercised hers. For as I have written before, I would far prefer to know what opinion leaders really think about the important issues of the day, then chase their thoughts underground. Helen Thomas does not regret what she said although she regrets going public about her views. I for one am glad she did. For I now know a lot more about Helen Thomas as a previous important White House press room journalist than I did before.

Tiger's Spit

Golf fans will be well aware by now of Tiger Woods' infamous "spit". It was on the 12th green in the "Omega Dubai Desert Classic" as Tiger crouched over his ball figuring out his next putt. As far as spits go, it was a classic. No holding back on that one.

The commentator was horrified. Not only did Tiger spit, but he left it there, on the pristine green, for the next foursome. Now golfers are pretty fussy about the quality of the greens they play on. Little bits of dust are dutifully picked up. Ball marks are repaired. But what do they do with a gob of spit? And what if their ball rolls over it? Does spit change the ball's direction or speed? Who knows.

Tiger was fined by the European tour. Fines I think are pretty common for "spitting in public". I am not sure what Tiger's fine was. He also apologized. Yet again. But we are getting pretty used to that with Tiger.

What is it with athletes and spitting? Baseball players seem to spit a lot. Athletes wearing face masks rarely spit; makes sense. Some athletes never spit. When was the last time you saw a table tennis player spit?

Spitting can (I think) be brought on by exertion; especially in cold weather. Or by congested lungs. In some places it is fairly common. Ever been to India? But golf is generally a non-spitting game, although I have seen other golfers ( including Tiger) spit.

Tiger of course does his commercial brand no good by his golf course antics( spitting, throwing his clubs, swearing). The fact that he also has not won a tournament in more than a year does not help.

So there it is. After watching Egypt go from a military dictatorship to a military dictatorship in the past couple of weeks, the Tiger story is light relief.

Egypt ten days later

It has been ten days since I last posted on the turmoil in Egypt. I admitted then that I did not know what to think with respect to the probable outcome of all of this. Will this uprising end as did the most recent Iranian protests (or the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests for that matter), with no positive change in the country, or will it end more significantly? If it ends in significant change, will be it a positive or negative one? I suggested that "time will tell". It still will.

There have been some developments, perhaps only superficial, but changes nonetheless. The violence seems to have subsided, at least for now. The protesters and Egyptian army are both in a holding pattern. The media has mainly left, and the wall to wall coverage has ended. There is a new face for the government, that of Vice President Omar Suleiman. From the reports I have seen, he is definitely not the person who is going to bring democratic change to Egypt.

What is interesting are the perceptions of how the Obama administration has handled this crisis. The reviews are mainly negative - both from the left and the right. The pro-protester supporters outside of the country see the defence of the protest movement as weak, cautious, and unhelpful. The pro-Mubarak supporters see the defence of the regime, as weak, cautious and unhelpful. So they both agree. There are not many out there who think the Obama administration has handled this crisis well, with confidence and determination. The Hillary Clinton "3:00 a.m." phone call ad comes to mind.

Many think that the administration in this crisis, as in others, seems to be constantly playing catch-up. Like a golfer - throwing grass clippings in the air, testing the wind, before choosing the appropriate club. (What is really annoying to me is seeing the golfer throw the grass in the air AFTER the shot has been played.) The administration has gone from saying little, to supporting a orderly transition, to supporting a transition that should have occurred yesterday. Cutting off aid has even been suggested.

Its not up to outsiders to dictate the outcome in Egypt. If I could have my druthers, I would choose a democratic, stable, pro-West, secular government in Egypt. But I am not an Egyptian resident and it's not my call. I will continue to watch and wait, and hope for the best ( while fearing the worst).

Turmoil in Egypt

As I watch the 24/7, wall to wall coverage, of the street protests coming out of Egypt, I frankly do not know what to think. Is this the "real deal", an event which will have profound lasting effects in Egypt and the Middle East, or a re-run of the Iranian protests of 2009? You will recall that "historic" event - endless television coverage and analysis, predictions of big change, but ultimately nothing. The protests ended, and the government remained intact, probably even more repressive than it was before. There was then in Iran as there is now in Egypt an emerging savior - Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei in Egypt. There was then in Iran as there is now in Egypt, criticism of the Obama administration from progressives for its not doing more to support the protest and protesters. Not exactly "regime change" a la George Bush and Iraq, but not exactly staying out of it either.

Unlike the Iranian uprising however the Egyptian one is a lot more politicized in the West. No-one in the West liked Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, so if they fell, a unanimous "good riddance". Whoever replaced them could not have been more hostile to the West as that regime was and is. The devil we know in Iran could in no way be better than the devil we do not know. In Egypt it is however different. There are many who are very concerned that if Mubarak falls, Western interests are in real jeopardy. Egypt is an important and "stable" (so we thought) American ally. There is obvious concern in Israel where an unstable Egypt, with Muslim Brotherhood as part of its government, cannot be good news. Other voices however are decidedly much more optimistic and even joyful at this turn of events. "Change in repressive societies is good" and "we should embrace instability" says Anne Appelbaum in Slate. That may be all well and good for Ms Appelbaum, who like me, lives thousands of miles from Egypt. I am not so sure that Egyptians who are currently guarding their homes from looters and protecting themselves from violence are embracing instability with such enthusiasm.

I do not know of course how this episode will end. Will it end with a whimper or will it be more meaningful and lasting? If meaningful, will it have a positive or negative meaning? Time I guess will tell.

THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH

What struck me most as I sat through the somewhat dull but informative State of the Union speech by President Obama was how much President Obama has transformed himself in the last two years. The polarizing, divisive and narcissitic rhetoric of the 2008 election campaign and the two subsequent years was gone. The language of "I am the change you have been waiting for", "I will restore America's reputation in the world", "I will repair the damage that 8 years of Bush have caused", "I will clean out the corruption of Washington" and so on, is no more. Instead the focus was on the greatness of American innovation, America as the "beacon of light" to the rest of the world, the greatness of the military (even to the extent of urging colleges to allow army recruiters back on campus), the will to defeat the terrorists, the importance of small business and higher education, refocusing on the three r"s, reducing the deficit and working together, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. There was no more blaming, and apologizing for America. It was a speech typical of what one might hear at a university convocation address from an Honorary Doctorate recipient. It was aimed at the middle class, the well educated, and the ambitious. It has positioned President Obama for the 2012 election. The President clearly has decided to combine his strong intelligence, and enormous rhetorical skills, with main stream American values. This will be a tough combination for Republicans to beat in 2012. What remains to be seen is how the more "progressive" elements of American society will view the President's metamorphosis, and more interestingly whether the new rhetoric will be matched by the President's legislative agenda.