An Opportunity for Globalist Centrist Liberalism

Source: National Review

The world may appear to be sharply divided among the far left and the far right on the social media, and even on the mainstream media these days. However, you could make the case that with the election of Emmanuel Macron as the French President, some hope has been revived in centrism and globalist liberalism. Because the polls in late April were nothing less than a scare with Marine Le Pen ending up neck-a-neck.

One of the features of the shifts to far left and far right camps in public discourse has been the cynicism toward centrism and pragmatism. Candidates such as Hillary Clinton have been condemned as “neo-liberal” by progressive and leftist activists, who could have prevented the Trump Presidency by turning out in greater numbers for her favor. The shift toward absolutism might sound romantic to some in a twisted way, but it has given us politicians such as Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and perhaps even Trump on the right and Jeremy Corbyn and Tulsi Gabbard on the left. Of course, each honest in their own dangerous way. I am deliberately not mentioning Bernie Sanders in this list, whose proposals of single payer healthcare is anything but an extreme view for a centrist liberal, but he has a rather unhealthy obsession with the Wall Street.

While still both the left and right in the West are variants of liberalism, relatively speaking, but both have seemed to lose the essence of its ideals of late. The left continues to demonize the idea of private property while the right frequently compromises the liberties of people who either look different or are less fortunate. And another group simply refuses to pay for just about anything. Did I mention Ron Paul in the list?

Since when have these ideas become abominations to the people?

There is no wonder even today a majority of the population might agree on centrist ideas and fortunately that is still what a lot of voting pattern around the world follows. Though that voting pattern has been consistently shifting rightward, evident in Turkey, India, and Israel. Common sense, yes, you hear this expression very frequently in the campaigns of more conservative politicians in the West. But actually, you would rather associate this term with more centrist and pragmatic liberals beyond party lines.

The disillusionment and cynicism of the recent years have particularly been on the rise as a “people’s awakening” of sorts. This has been generally true for the attitude toward the United Nations but the precarious unity of the EU has particularly brought it into light. Blame it on the operational and bureaucratic flaws of these globalist bodies but there is no reason why the ideals behind them should be targeted without anyone putting up a reasonable defense for them.

On the other hand, there is really nothing about centrism or economic liberalism that necessitates apathy toward those who are less fortunate in the society. This ideological direction does not necessarily eliminate a social democracy. It is not as if most of the moderate British conservatives would be effectively killing the NHS, despite their fiscal conservatism. Certainly, not the Liberal Democrats. I guess centrist liberals would only be more respectful of private property and freedom for businesses than obsessing over bringing the budget into surplus too much.

Most moderate Republicans would not dare criticize late night host Jimmy Kimmel making a case for healthcare safety nets by bringing up his sick child. It is precisely the mindset that attacked him for it that a centrist liberal would discourage. Long story short, centrist liberals are more likely to side with a pragmatic, practical direction, keeping a balance between the bleeding heart and the facts of the world. Most of them would at least entertain the idea of a single payer healthcare approach while respecting private caregivers for humanitarian reasons, despite the controversy around its ideological correctness.

Another reason why globalist and centrist liberals are important is their interventionism, another point that gets under the skin of people on both extreme left and right. While there is no point getting behind a warmonger, an isolationist progressive or libertarian would be as caustic to world peace as a relentless hawk.

As much as we would like to hate President Bill Clinton and President George H. W. Bush, their timely humanitarian action in Bosnia and Kuwait goes unappreciated. It is amazing how the critics of American imperialism completely fail to recognize how the intervention has saved the freedom for the people of South Korea and West Germany. Furthermore, globalist liberals would be all for aid and accepting refugees and intervening to prevent a genocide, while an isolationist nationalist or an apathetic progressive could prove to be a humanitarian disaster. But enough of what they might mean for a government.

Despite the apparent lack of enthusiasm, the ideological polarity itself ironically presents an opportunity to the third way liberalism to bring people from left and right together. At least as a practical electoral alliance holding your nose. In a way, the rise of Donald Trump represents that possibility as opposed to someone like Sen. Ted Cruz who could become the President too. Although some could argue the same about Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.

The person of Donald Trump has always appeared to be pragmatic and centrist, even liberal, in his approach to things but it is unfortunate that he relied on more far right policies and people to run his campaign. Perhaps that was the only way he could win this election. The policies he is enacting are not any more encouraging either. But who knows, that might change with time as he is beginning to figure out the realities of the political world and governance. And say, if Jared and Ivanka do not stay too far. Hanging on to a thread, are we not?

But don’t get too depressed. The world may still give sanity a chance.

It’s not too late.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

How About Leaving the People Alone?

Source: The Baltimore Sun

Source: The Baltimore Sun

There is a reason why the tradition of keeping your vote secret is often respected. Even if not so much anymore.

Nothing like this election year has brought up how political polarization divides people. Even in some cases end friendships and tear up families. Because people cannot help but taking politics personally.

Perhaps the rise of social media has something to do with the increased political polarization as people get more easily exposed to more extreme political views than those appearing on mainstream media.

But probably the most interesting part is when political commentators like Glenn Beck and Stephen Colbert, who have been blowing into this fire for years, coming on TV and wondering how we got here. Bill Maher just confessed that they should not have been so hard on Romney and McCain because their warnings are falling on deaf ears about Trump.

But it is not just the common people, comedians or fringe commentators who have been polarized so venomously.

All the judgments of the pundits and gurus on TV on why Hillary Clinton lost and why the hell America did it have been amusing, to say the least. It has been a whitelash, according to Van Jones. It is because the racist white America has reacted against the Obama Presidency because he is black. Because apparently, they were on a break during the Obama years. I thought only people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh came up with such ideas.

Trump’s rise has clearly emboldened the Alt-Right, the white supremacists, and the neo-Nazis. Just like the victories of Narendra Modi and Benjamin Netanyahu have allowed the respective right wings to become more vocal and active. But is it fair to paint all of their voters with the same brushstroke?

But it is a great mystery indeed why so many voters opted for such an unconventional candidate, who has displayed such inappropriate and unacceptable behavior. And to some, even made a mockery of the democratic system in the United States and could continue to do so. Is Donald Trump scary? Yes, I agree. But I am also not surprised that he is backtracking on more of his extreme positions. We don’t even know if he really has any political ideology, to begin with, other than his love for self, money, and power.

There are, of course, sane liberal commentators out there who are trying to seriously figure out the causes of the Democratic loss. But even most of them have a blind spot for the smugness and overconfidence in the Democratic camp.

If someone voted for Trump, it does not automatically make them racist. Because apparently a lot of them voted for Obama for two straight terms in Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? Obviously, they made a right choice back then.

Similarly, if someone voted for Hillary Clinton, it does not make them for corporate greed, elitism or corruption.

Alright, but either way, it sure makes them sexist. Because that beats racist every time.

Figured if something else went wrong?

Why did Hillary Clinton fail to win so many counties that Obama won, who was clearly more radical of the two in 2008? Why did she lose the working class men? Why did she lose the independents so clearly? Why did she lose Susan Sarandon? Even if she won the popular vote.

Why more Democrats voted for Trump in those swing states than the Republicans voting for her?

Few people see it this way, but perhaps the election of Donald Trump is the part of the same madness of hope and change that got Obama elected. And the rest of the protest vote going to Sanders, Johnson and Jill Stein. But is that all?

What if the campaign the Democrats ran was absolutely lame, negative, and broken? And probably was so terrible that you could not beat Trump with all the disasters during his campaign. No more Daisy ads working anymore. But guess what? Trump emerged the victor out of all that mess.

Then, of course, it is always the fault of the poor third party voters who are trying to fight the two party system so many people are critical of. The Gary Johnson protesters and the Jill Stein protesters. As if they are not allowed to have their own crazy, kooky political views. While I believe that these two tickets would have been an even bigger disaster than Trump in 2016, they offer a plenty of interesting ideas.

Gary Johnson got more than 4 million votes. I can hardly think of another Libertarian candidate ever doing a better job in the national polls. It’s not a spoiler. People are making a statement.

Finally, it is always the fault of the people who have not voted. The most irresponsible of all citizens. Oh, and guess what, Colin Kaepernick has no right to make a political statement by kneeling down during the national anthem before his NFL games.

So how about forcing these 45 million people to vote and to get them to attend a polling station or send in a ballot? I say they have a right to not vote. Isn’t that a vote in itself?

Yes, each and every one of them has a right to make a political statement, no matter what, as long as they are doing so in a non-violent manner. Even by not voting. Criticize them all you will, but never think about forcing a political statement down their throats.

Our complaints about democracy would make sense when we give people the freedom who to vote for without bullying and pressuring them. Without turning them into social pariahs. Because in this case, it is very easy to become who you criticize.

So how about leaving people alone for a change?

They just might listen to your crap then.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

Pitfalls of the Two Party System

Source: directionsmedia.net

Source: directionsmedia.net

The American media is never short of opinions expressing shock at the several fringe political movements appearing in the country from time to time.

Over the years, we have seen the emergence of progressive Green Party enthusiasts backing a Ralph Nader presidency in the wake of progressive discontent from the Clinton years, arguably costing the Democrats the 2000 election. We have witnessed the Occupy Wall Street movement standing up to the role of financial corporations in the recession of the 2000s, and ending with the disappointment of more corporate bailouts from the liberal Democrat leadership. And we have seen the rise of the much demonized libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement standing up against the rising taxation and regulatory policies of the progressive Democrats and President Obama. This group has been voicing its dissatisfaction and frustration over a Republican Congress failing to reflect their demands, despite a massive mid-term victory in 2014.

The latest “fringe” wave of the populist anti-immigration sentiment rising ironically with the Presidential campaign of billionaire businessman Donald Trump is yet again shocking the world. Something which absolutely must have no place in the discourse of American politics, which should remain absolutely confined to the Democratic and Republican party.

There is really nothing new about the anti-immigration sentiment. We have seen political parties in Europe winning on the anti-immigration, anti-Euro platform, and some could argue that the recent remarkable voting performance of the UKIP and the ultimate victory of the Conservative Party is one such instance in the very liberal United Kingdom.

Regardless of the morality of this political view, reasonable questions should be asked why it cannot find its due place in the American representative politics. Especially considering the fact that what is painted the anti-immigration stance of the Donald Trump campaign is actually not against immigration, but only for taking strict action against illegal immigration. This is not just a right wing phenomenon, as we have seen such sentiment in the campaign of progressive Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, who considers open borders a “right wing proposal,” probably referring to the libertarian movement. But there really should be no mentions of any such proposed policy, with the only accepted versions being the official positions of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Any candidate that deviates from the establishment positions is an extremist and must not get the party nomination. Regardless of the fact how many among the general public support those positions. Marijuana legalization, on which the positions of the Libertarian and Green party are pretty clear, is one issue which has garnered overwhelming support from the American public lately. However, on the federal level, both establishment parties oppose the legalization, and are funding the controversial and unpopular war on drugs.

Even for the fans of obstructive government mechanism in the Presidential system of the United States like me, the two party system seems too exclusive for comfort. I am a strong proponent of separating the executive branch from the legislative, as opposed to the blurring lines in the Parliamentary system. However, you cannot help but marvel at the inadequacies of the two party system. Granted that America has a proud two-party political structure, that is apparently as simple as it is complex, but is it truly reflective of the ideological diversity of the country?

The two party system sounds like the sort of absolutist scenario that offers almost unlimited powers to the executive in the Parliamentary system. Either you are for an issue or against it, with no ifs and buts in between. Which does not even make any sense, because on most issues, both parties agree where it matters, and in the recent years, there really has not been any regulation with the exception of the Affordable Healthcare Act that significantly altered the state of affairs in a partisan manner.

Undoubtedly, both Democratic and Republican parties have room for a variety of ideas and positions on various issues. However, the candidates that eventually win nominations for the executive branch often have centrist and moderate views, and opinions which could be referred to be aligned with the establishment positions. This could also be said to be reflective of the moderate and centrist political approach of the people of the United States, but does this notion hold true on every issue?

Of course, there are more than two political parties in the United States, but what if they had the representation in the federal legislature as well? In any case, there really is no reason why a multiparty system should not work in a Presidential system in the United States. It might change the clear role of majority for one party and minority for another. I think it just does not work because the electoral system and media do not offer any margin for it, discouraging independent voters to even consider the option due to the lack of electability. But what if it becomes a possibility one day?

Maybe it would shock the US media less about certain fringe political positions, or unconventional Presidential candidates.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.