"New era" and all...

Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America. The last 21 months have seen a fascinating campaign, which has even attracted skeptics like me. It has been really interesting seeing a vibrant democracy at work, its structures and institutions churning out the best, the worst and the lot in between. On a personal note, it has been a most illuminating exercise to witness the contradictions within me while trying to reconcile the hypnotic allure of 24x7 media coverage and my passion for electoral politics with my skepticism of the self-righteous hyperbole that seems to characterize a lot of American politics. The coming days will see a bevy of voices and analyses elevate the incidents of the recent past to an iconic status. Hence I shall desist from following such a course and content myself with links to certain perspectives that interpret the Obama phenomenon in their own ways. The diversity of these perspectives is an indication of the challenge the Obama administration faces and perhaps hints at the reasons why it is bound to fail!

Andrew Sullivan in a magnum-opus piece in December 2007 passionately arguing the historical necessity of an Obama candidacy.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel in "The Nation" on the 4th Of November lays down the battle lines.
And last but not the least.....
My own analysis of the situation in April 2007. It's not one of my better written pieces and some of the points are contentious but I still stick with most of what I wrote then.

It will be most instructive re-visiting these opinions 4 years from now.

Ps. Totally useless fact---Obama is the second President after Martin Van Buren whose name, when typed in a Google application(gmail, blogger etc), is shown to possess an incorrect spelling.
Image Credits

New lamps and old ones?

        Mohammed Amir Ahmed Khan in the Tehelka on how things will be the same whoever wins the US presidential elections this November. I agree with him on this(my take). However he extends this to propose that it doesn't make much of difference whoever wins and puts forward the argument that all presidents have continued a common strand of foreign policy.

        I have my issues with that argument. It is true that many of the existing issues that face America and the world will not, in any way, 'change'(as some of the campaign slogans seem to imply). But it is equally true that a lot of new crisis situations can be avoided depending on whoever comes to power. Al Gore becoming the president in 2000 would have meant the continuation of lot of foreign policy high-handedness, but one can safely assume that Gore would not have invaded Iraq.

        John McCain is after all the author of the famous song..."Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb..Iran". Assuming that a McCain presidency and an Obama presidency will have the same impact worldwide is stretching it a bit too far. In case of the latter, Iraq will still fester, Palestinians will still be ghettoized in their own homeland and the military-industrial complex will still exert great influence, but the least one one can hope for is a better approach to Iran and for all you know Cuba and Venezuela as well.

Optmistic Ravings eh? Let's see.

A more scholarly study on McCain's militaristic credentials.

You Know What.

H.L.Mencken on "you-know-what"

"The larger the mob,the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man effectively fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the battle is waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum."

“The Presidency tends,year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move towards a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

Haha.

ie. aside from the pitting of intelligence/forcefulness personality/character against dumbness/moron/devious/mediocre. Doesn't always work that way but what's a little exaggeration in humour!

The King is Dead!Long Live the King

The Hindu today has an editorial,a leader page article and an opinion page article on the US primaries/elections and the accompanying hullabaloo

While the leading campaigner against the evils of L P & G would like us to believe that this is nothing but a reflection of the importance of these elections to the world at large, methinks The Hindu too has been seduced by the sheer drama that this election has brought with it to the living rooms and offices of a lot of us.

(It's my responsibility at this point to admit that yours truly was seduced a very long time ago by the abovementioned sheer drama)

Its very rarely that one will one find such extensive and intensive coverage of a foreign nation's pre-electoral hungama.If anything, it once again indicates the admirable genius of the American nation in dramatizing and hence commodifying everything under the sun.In fact the very act of conducting primaries for over a year and spending those insane amounts itself indicates a flair for self- absorption and self-obsession and a determination to ensure that others too are caught up in it.

The only parallel I can think of is the arranged marriage where the bride and the groom are excuses for a grand feudal ritual.

The whole world and half of America knows by now that Iraq,Iran,Global warming and host of other issues will still be in the headlines in 2012 when the whole process will be repeated again.It is also to be noted that the powers of the President of The US are actually considerably restricted by Congress.Yet the soundbyte-driven fest just goes on and on(the latest soundbyte is the appeal for an end to soundbyte driven politics).

Of course one can argue that the involvement of so many people in a nation's politics is a sign of a healthy democracy.Hey we are talking about the nation which elected George Bush twice,still esteems Bill Clinton and has established a pretty amazing record of dynasty politics(and what dynasties!)

At the end of the day the politics of a nation is dominated by large scale productions of images and this is why the mere participation of people alone does not a "healthy democracy" make.It's a cyclical process-the people make the images which dupe people to strengthen them and make more of them thus establishing a narrative beyond which the politics of that society will not move irrespective of the quantum of people's participation.At its most literal, we saw an example of this process in the Narendra Modi masks.In the US, it's just that more money is spent and the media used are both more direct and subtle at the same time.

So what do we do? As the educated intelligentsia aren't we supposed to be resisting the imposition of this foreign agenda tooth and claw and nail? Aren't we supposed to focussing on the manifold issues that are haunting our society? The only catch:navigate(with great difficulty) away from the US primaries/elections and th next thing you get to watch is the IPL.So you see-its Catch-1000..crores