Democracy in China, according to President Hu

I'm just going through my feed reader, and I saw this little blip at the China Digital Times about Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to a Chinese school during his recent trip to Japan:

During Hu’s visit, eight-year-old Songtian Haoji stood up and asked the Chinese leader: “Grandpa Hu, why did you want to be the president?”

His question inspired laughter in the classroom.

“I want to tell you, I myself did not want to be the president,” Mr. Hu answered. “It was the people in the whole country who voted me in, and wanted me to be the president. I should not let the people throughout the whole country down.”

This is proof that those of us outside the Middle Kingdom still have quite a bit to learn from it. While we go through the fractious drudgery of electing the president, the National People's Congress is endowed with such an intimate knowledge of its people's political will that, with the authority of Article 62 of the Constitution, it goes about making that arduous descision for them. The people's "vote" is expressed in their unanimous acknowledgment of the Congress's superlative wisdom.

My quest for the "reasonable" KMT...

(Photo: "Long Live the King" is a common sight here in Thailand)

I've been thinking about a recent email conversation with another Taiwan blogger. I have not asked the author's permission to publish these emails, so (s)he shall remain anonymous.

The original email conversation started over my recent posts looking at views being promulgated at The China Desk. My interlocutor (who has emailed me often with helpful information and details, who knows that I don't always agree with him, and who respects that) warned me not to expect any substantial dialogue with an "anti-democracy, pro-free-market-anarcho-capitalist authoritarian." Did I mention that said person doesn't mince words?

I responded:

I did know he's about as blue as they come, and I've read his site for some time. This past week, though, was the first time I actually got around to writing about something he wrote.

I would like to get a better understanding of what some blue-leaning people think about the state of Taiwan, but I haven't been able to find much in the line of reasonable stuff. I (and we may disagree on this) believe that some blues are reasonable people with strong and valid reasons for their political positions, and I'd like to understand that better. The China Desk, though, certainly isn't the place to find it.

The subsequent response brought a challenge: give an example of what I would call a "reasonable" blue supporter.

That got me. The truth is, and I have commented on Chu's site to this effect as well, most of what I have found is exactly what I've been told I would find: KMT apologetes who don't seem willing to accept the wrongs of their forbearers, while all too readily accepting even the most minor faults of the DPP.

I thought for some time about this before replying:

Perhaps what I mean is that, yes, a lot of blues are exactly that (people operating on what are false precepts, just as many greens probably have exaggerated impressions of blues -- e.g. that they are all responsible for the ills of the KMT -- but the way some people will attack a blue with vitriol, I feel, only makes them cling more to their beliefs [and vice versa]. I often get the impression in Taiwanese and American politics that the idea of us all being in this together has been totally lost. For my part, though, I'm going to try [to] keep my calm and present my counter arguments the best I can.

So, I guess what I was trying to say is that I've been looking to better understand why the blues believe what they do and how that can change. It comes from being a pretty liberal-leaning person in one of the reddest states in the US. Just because these people...lean towards a politician I find to be despicable, I don't villainize them, nor even the politician for that matter. All I can do is learn how best to make my case and hope people will see where I'm coming from. The hardest part is accepting that some people just won't change or don't care. Yelling and sermonizing doesn't change that.

So, that's what I've been trying to do. I've been trying to learn what makes blues tick. I'm not talking about the evil ones who are responsible for all those horrible things, but the ones who support those evil ones. What makes the voters look past their politicians' faults?

Moreover, just because I can't give you an example of a good or reasonable blue, doesn't mean they don't exist. I admittedly know very few blues.

Looking back at the email, I want to be clear that the first word of the first sentence is "perhaps." I make this note, because I have, for several months now, been asking myself if Ma's election was actually the best outcome, and I don't think I'm operating on false precepts. I am too tired and busy to go into it now in great detail (I'm in Bangkok right now), but I will try to outline it as best I can.

I've written extensively of my views on the DPP's failings, the fact that their objectives (Democracy, Justice, Progress, etc.) demand a higher standard, which they have not lived up to. Of course, that doesn't mean that the argument cannot be made that the DPP, since its inception, has conducted itself much better than they KMT. The point is, rather, that the Taiwanese don't necessarily hold the KMT to the lofty goals they once did the DPP, so corruption and lies from the KMT don't weaken the KMT as much as even one rotten DPP politician. Therefore, the fact that the DPP has not proved to be above the sort of vice and ineptitude that Taiwanese are used to from the KMT, one could make the case, undermines the entire party.

Remember the bacon debate? Well, I'd just as soon let sleeping dogs do what they do best, but, in the months that have passed, I have not stopped thinking of that debate. I can't stop thinking that what the Taiwanese did was just what people in every other country do when they've lost faith in their politicians: they vote for the party that will get them the best incentives. That's what it's about after all, isn't it? Incentives. The KMT may have torn up the infrastructure the Japanese built up over the fifty years they occupied Taiwan, but will the KMT be the party to build it up again? They likely have the power, connections, and, yes, bacon to get it done.

If you lose faith in the DPP's moral high ground, ability to improve Taiwan, and capacity to move Taiwan into a new era of prosperity, then you vote for the party that has the money, the structure, and the connections to do it (rightly or wrongly, justly or injustly). The world is full of people (in Iraq, Russia, etc.) looking nostalgically backwards to the authoritarian rulers who limited their freedoms but, at least, provided them with stability, e.g. a steady job. A prominent international criminal law/human rights professor mentioned to me yesterday a scene from the BBC documentary "No More Mandelas" (which I have not yet watched) where a black man in Soweto looked back at the Apartheid and the Nationalist Party asking, were we better off? Blacks were an oppressed majority then, but, at least, they could put food on the table.

The conversation about this documentary took place at the seminar on Transitional Justice that I'm participating in in Bangkok right now. It's striking how often, during the course of the presentations and discussions, I come back to the importance of cooperation, which I realized in the email conversation above was what I was getting at. I don't think the DPP has much of a chance for survival if it doesn't try to maintain the moral high ground, and that has to do largely with whether or not they can bridge the gap between themselves and the KMT. I'm starting to believe more and more that Taiwan has two governments, and many people choose which of those two governments they wish to follow and largely disregard the other. Someone needs to bring about the idea that everyone on that island is "in it" together. Villainization and debasement of the "other side" serves very little purpose as does a salvo of personal attacks.

I'm not saying, either, that I've never taken part in this myself. It's quite easy to do, but, more and more, I'm starting to learn that there are better ways to move forward.

...and I'm still looking to have an enlightening conversation with some blues, as I do believe that there are intelligent people on both sides of the divide.

Picking through The China Desk's claims on Tibet and California

Recently, an article entitled "China's Claims to Tibet Have Greater Validity than US Claims to California"at The China Desk caught my attention. I have admittedly little knowledge of the historical links between China and Tibet compared to other issues I usually study, and I was intrigued by Bevin Chu's idea that California might serve as a parallel not only to better understand what is happening in China and Tibet but also to re-evaluate my own perspectives on the US' claims to the Southwest. Concerning the latter, I'm always interested in the double standards different nations impose when dealing with other countries, like, for instance, when the US supports the secession of one region, though it fought dearly against the secession of southern states during the Civil War.

In the end, though, I found Chu's arguments, and those made in the article he referenced, to be very misleading on most counts. The very fact that he seems to give no credence whatsoever to countervailing arguments is worrisome. I have an inherent hesitation from accepting beliefs that are presented from a position of such self-assured infallibility as Mr. Chu often seems to write.

The reason I decided, this time, to read the article was because of my own misgivings over the recent revelations that Western press outlets have taken liberties in editing photos and videos when reporting on Tibet. I've been very troubled by this, so I decided I needed to get a better understanding of the situation.

After doing so, however, I find China's claims over Tibet are just as tenuous and rooted in historical approximation as many of China's other claims, including Taiwan, of course.

Chu's general premise: If Americans want to dispute the justice of Chinese rule over Tibet, then they should also, to avoid imposing double standards, take a look at their own control of California.

But the United States annexed California in 1848, a mere 160 years ago. If the passage of 160 years must be accepted because "Too much time has passed. What's done is done," then Tibet, which became part of China 737 years ago, is even more "irrevocably a part of China."

If "You can't turn the clock back" because "Too much time has passed, and what's done is done," then why are these Hollywood stars attempting to turn the clock back for the Tibetan region of China, but not for the California region of the US?

In fact, China's vastly more compelling claim to Tibet doesn't end there. As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.

Chu's Claims

Claim #1:

Many Dalai Lama acolytes don't even know that the honorific title "Dalai," as in "Dalai Lama," is not even a Tibetan word. It is a Mongolian word. It was first conferred upon leaders of Tibet's lamaist theocracy by the Mongolians during the Yuan dynasty. It was later conferred upon Tibet's theocrats by Hans during China's Ming dynasty, and Manchus during China's Qing dynasty.

That's right. The Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China.

It seems here that Chu is saying that because the term "Dalai Lama" actually comes from the Mongolians who were, at the time in control of China, then the authority also conferred upon the man named the Dalai Lama derives from China. Does that mean that the American president's authority should be traced to the origin of the word president itself, being derived from the French président or, further back, Italy, as it was the seat of Roman power and the origin of the Latin præsidentum?

The term "Dalai Lama" comes from the Mongol prince Altan-Khan's translation of the 3rd Dalai Lama's name: Sonam Gyatso. Gyatso means "Ocean" in Tibetan, and Lama is the Tibetan word indicating a priest of high rank. All the Mongol prince did was translate Gyatso into the Mongolian word for "ocean," which is dalai.

The only way Chu could make the argument that the "Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China" is if he could prove that it was the Emperor of China who chose each successive Dalai Lama, which is not the case. The succession of the Dalai Lama is dictated by consultation of the Nechung Oracle. Therefore, the authority of the Dalai Lama is derived from the people who believe in the oracles' ability to sense into which body the phowa has chosen to channel the Dalai Lamas "mindstream."

Of course, the PRC would say that, traditionally, China permitted the selection of each Dalai Lama, and by way of it's permission displayed its authority over the process. In order to prove that, though, Chu would need to present an instance, before the PRC or ROC, when a selection was made by the oracle but the Chinese refused the selection. Such an event would have to predate the ROC and PRC because otherwise it would not show a traditional precedent. The PRC's desire, for instance, to weigh in on religion is well publicized, and Tibetans are certainly not exempt. In the nineties, the PRC tried to designate their own Panchen Lama (2nd after the Dalai Lama), despite the Dalai Lama having named another to the position. The boy named by the Dalai Lama is now the world's youngest political prisoner. Ironically, it appears that Panchen Lama is a wholly Tibetan term, unlike Dalai Lama, yet it's the only position that evidences a precedent of Chinese involvement in its selection.

Moreover, the PRC has announced that it will have the final word on reincarnation:

Whenever the next succession takes place there will be three extra complications. The first is that in 2007 China announced new regulations to govern the reincarnation of all Tibetan clergy: it has said it will have the last word in determining whether someone has been reincarnated. In other words, atheist party officials will govern Tibetan spiritual decisions.

Claim #2

As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.

I'm certainly not going to defend 19th-century American beliefs in Manifest Destiny, and indeed in the very PBS article that Chu cited there is a quote from Ulysses S. Grant expressing his belief that the war was

one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

Yet, unjust as it may have been, the Mexicans fired first, and there is an official treaty in which Mexico ceded what is now the American Southwest to the US government with no wiggle room. To my knowledge, the same doesn't exist with Tibet, while a tradition of Tibetan de facto independence and even, arguably, Tibetan superiority does.

Of course, I know treaties aren't the only manner by which countries go about procuring territorial bounty, and that tradition, such as would be the case for Tibet, is another way countries lay claim to their soil. However, it's funny that, as Chu readily states, it was through Mongol collaboration, during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, that Tibet became a part of the "Chinese" (then, Mongol) Empire.

Thus, it seems that the existence of, at present, an independent Mongolia would be the best evidence countering Mr. Chu's claims that Tibet is an inseparable part of China. Moreover, China's vague, distant authority in Tibet over the centuries, to my knowledge, isn't terribly different from the tributary kingdoms China once ruled over in Korea and Vietnam. I doubt many would take kindly to the idea that China still has claims over these independent countries as well.


Claim #3

From article linked in Chu's post:

For years, the “re-conquista” movement in California and across the southwest has been gaining momentum.

To put it simply, the author gives no evidence.

Claim #4

From article:

Mexico claims the right to interfere in our internal politics as more of its citizens move across the border and establish residency. When Vicente Fox was the President of Mexico, he regularly referred to the “120 million” Mexicans he represented. At the time, Mexico’s population was only 100 million but he explained he also represented 20 million Mexican living inside the United States.

That seems about right. If they are not citizens of the United States, then he still represents them. I live in Taiwan, but Chen Shui Bian is not my president.

Doesn't the United States reserve the right to interfere in the internal politics of a nation if it concerns US, its people, or its interests? For better or for worse, I'm pretty sure that's the way it goes.

Claim #4

From article:

Two years ago, the Mexican Congress passed an absentee voting law to accommodate these many new citizens of their country. Now, Mexican citizens living permanently inside the United States may participate regularly in Mexico’s national elections. There have also been initiatives inside the Mexican Congress to add seats for representatives from districts in areas like California. Imagine a Mexican legislator telling a U.S. Congressman that he received more votes in the district and is therefore the democratically elected representative of, say, Los Angeles?

In November, I'll be voting for the next United States president by absentee ballot from Taiwan. Is that so alarming?

Moreover, if that Mexican legislator was foolish enough to present himself before the US Congress and claim himself, by virtue of his votes, the elected congressman from a certain district, it would suffice to simply point to the Constitution and alert the politician to these lines:

• Article 1, Section 2
  

  No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

• Article 1, Section 3
  

  No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

That should clear up any misconceptions. If need by, I'm sure they can procure a cope of the document in Spanish.

Claim #5

From article:

Many Americans were shocked to learn that 58 percent of Mexicans surveyed in a national poll believed the Southwestern United States rightly belongs to Mexico.

Who did the poll? I'm assuming it's the Zogby Poll written about here.

Most of those that emigrated from Mexico became naturalized US citizens and have become productive citizens. Unfortunately, some embittered intellectuals (on both sides of the border) have advocated that most of the southwest US belongs to Mexico. As a result they also believe that there should be no border control between Mexico and the US. Their rantings have convinced many that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. This view is reflected in a recent Zogby poll. The poll revealed that 58% of Mexicans believe that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. That probably explains why 60% of Mexicans also believe there should be no border control.

Remember, the poll says nothing of Mexican Americans, only Mexicans. The article is where the connection to intellectuals on both sides of the border who believe that the lands belong to Mexico. The people polled have no voting power in the US and join the ranks of people around the world who espouse beliefs that just don't match up with reality.

Moreover, I assume that if one were to do a poll among Mexican-Americans and recent Mexican immigrants in America, seeing as they fled their country, the results would be considerably different. Even if they believed the US unjustly acquired its Southwestern territories, they probably wouldn't be advocating its return.

Also, let's not forget that, in 2004,

Despite statements by such officials as the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector, David Kay; its former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke; former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, as well as admissions by senior administration officials themselves, a majority of the public still believes Iraq was closely tied to the al-Qaeda terrorist group and had WMD stocks or programs before U.S. troops invaded the country 13 months ago.

''The public is not getting a clear message about what the experts are saying about Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and its WMD program'', said Steven Kull, director of the Program'' on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey.

''The analysis suggests that if the public were to more clearly perceive what the experts themselves are saying on these issues, there is a good chance this could have a significant impact on their attitudes about the war and even on how they vote in November'', he added.

The survey and analysis found a high correlation between those perceptions and support for Bush himself in the upcoming presidential race in November.

Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was either ''directly involved'' in carrying out the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided ''substantial support'' to al-Qaeda, 57 percent said they intended to vote for Bush and 39 percent said they would choose his Democratic foe, John Kerry.

Yeah, opinions can change, when the facts become more apparent.

Claim #6

From article:

Most of the ingredients the U.S. State Department considers necessary before calling for a plebiscite are already here: A large population of unassimilated foreign nationals and another government pretending to be their voice. The ingredient still missing is civil unrest or severe economic conditions that aggravate the delicate political situation.

This paragraph in the article cited by Chu really seems to undermine his original argument. It certainly seems that one could easily defend the position that Tibet fits all four of those conditions.

I'm no expert on Tibet. Indeed, this is the first time I've ever really sat down to take a look at China's claims to the region. I thank Mr. Chu for giving me the opportunity. I look forward to any comments or corrections those reading this may offer.

The end of an era: no more fighting politicians

Reuters reports:

But the Democratic Progressive Party, blamed for starting many of the fights when the opposition Nationalist Party (KMT) majority would not budge on an issue, is calling a ceasefire for its legislative contingent, the party whip said this week.

"The brawls are worse and worse for Taiwan's image," Ker Chien-ming told Reuters ahead of a legislative session that opens next week. "We will avoid conflicts."

A ceasefire would end a 20-year Taiwan tradition.

The DPP's white flag comes just a month after it suffered a legislative election defeat so bad Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian publicly apologised and resigned as party chairman.

Some voters said they rejected the independence-leaning DPP, outlawed for much of its history until Taiwan became more democratic in the 1980s, because of its fighting ways.

I've never heard that, the idea that people didn't vote for the DPP because they start fights. I'm not saying it's untrue. I've just never heard anyone say, "I don't like the DPP because they plan fights in the Legislative Yuan to get media coverage." Oddly enough, I have gotten lots of emails that go something like this:

I really like your website. For a long time, the only thing I ever new about Taiwan was that their politicians fight all of the time.

Yep. It's not Taipei 101, technological innovation, or being one of the freest countries in Asia that puts Taiwan on the map for many people. Rather, it's the fact that idiot politicians occasionally beat the snot out of each other to catch the wandering eye of the media.

In any case, it's an asinine strategy, and it's, I think, in the DPP's best interest not to be responsible for sullying the image of Taiwan's democratic practices. I'm glad that they've decided to take the high road on this iss....

Or not. Maybe it's just a matter of numbers. After all, they're just Taiwanese politicians, not Spartans. As Ker Chien-Ming is quoted as saying, "It's impossible to fight now because our numbers in parliament are so small."

If you're going to stop fighting, at least do it with some dignity, right? Even if it is your piddly numbers, how 'bout saying you had a change of conscience. Say you realized that fisticuffs weren't the best, most civilized way to highlight the KMT's boycotting ways.

More missile mess....

I have a new favorite blog to add to my list: Arms Control Wonk. I've been reading it for the last couple of weeks, and, thus far, I haven't been let down. I've linked to it several times when writing about China, Russia, and the US' quibbles over the militarization of space.

Well, yesterday, posted on the site was an extensive plea to the US not to break apart the USA 193 satellite that has lost control and is currently plummeting back to earth. The article holds as suspect certain claims used to argue for shooting the satellite down and positing that "worst case scenarios" were misleading in that they don't seem to take into account the possibility that "they are wrong about the debris estimates or how much debris would reenter with a successful intercept."

There's also the issue of hydrazine (jet fuel). I heard a guy from NASA yesterday on CNN explaining that if anyone is to see a brown or blue gas* in the air, make sure not to breath it. (Phew!) The stuff is apparently not very delicate:

May cause toxic effects if inhaled or ingested/swallowed. Contact with substance may cause severe burns to skin and eyes. Fire will produce irritating, corrosive and/or toxic gases. Vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation. Runoff from fire control or dilution water may cause pollution. (DOT, 2000)

What isn't being said when they talk about the hydrazine risk is that, apparently, there is very little of it on the satellite.

The political implications of a missile interception aren't too pleasing either:

I don’t know how to express the political risk. Not knowing the risk, however, is different from it being “zero” — which is how the Bush Administration, at best, seems to count it. At worst, some members seem to assign a positive value to conducting an ASAT test.

The Chinese will use this to excuse their January 2007 test and, perhaps, future ones. The Russians seem interested in playing along, too. I’d like to be able to argue that they’re wrong; That this is different.

I have argued, in the past, that we have a strong interest in constraining the development of debris-creating anti-satellite weapons. Sadly, our intercept will make that outcome harder to achieve, not easier.

Given the extremely small risk to people on the ground, as well as the three people in orbit, these risks — though difficult to quantify — almost certainly should dominate the discussion.

But what loser is going to go to bat for confidence building measures in outer space when there is a giant tank of hydrazine bearing down on a Cub Scout Jamboree and one really awesome, heroic chance to blow it out of the sky? Hell, I bet the thing explodes into fireworks with red, white and blue stars and streamers like over the Mall on the Fourth of July.

Let’s face it, supporting the shot is the “safe” thing to do. After all, the debris risk will probably work out ok, while we’ll never know if the satellite would have hit a populated area. The cost, in terms of space security, is so difficult to identify, that one can simply explain it away with facile counterfactuals. “Oh, the Russian’s were just looking for an excuse, they would have done it anyway.”

Indeed, China has already said it is working on "preventive measures," which could mean anything. Of course, none of this is going to stop them from shooting the satellite down.

*If you follow the link, you'll see that hydrazine is listed as a "colorless" gas. However, I specifically remember the fellow from NASA saying that it was blue or brown.

Kosovo and Taiwan.

This is obviously no small issue for Taiwan, as the parallels are hard to miss. What's striking is the completely different response from the international community. The United States, Europe, and Australia all support Kosovo's independence (though not Taiwan's), while Russia and China are less than ecstatic.

China, especially, was on the defensive when Taiwan congratulated Kosovo:

China's Foreign Ministry blasted a statement by Taiwan welcoming the former Serbian region's independence, saying the self-governing island did not meet the criteria for recognizing other countries.

"It is known to all that Taiwan, as a part of China, has no right and qualification at all to make the so-called recognition," spokesman Liu Jianchao said in a statement posted on the ministry's Web site.

"We firmly oppose to anyone or any organization under any form to split Taiwan from the mainland. Any attempt that separates Taiwan from the mainland is doomed to fail," Liu said.

Earlier Monday, Taiwan's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying Kosovo's determination to achieve independence was "truly admirable."

"Taiwan is a member of the international community that cherishes democracy and freedom, and the government is delighted that the people of Kosovo have the fruits of independence, democracy and freedom to look forward to," the statement said.

"May Kosovo enjoy a bright and prosperous future," it added.

As for the international community's support for Kosovo, I don't know enough about the its situation to comment definitively, but I suspect that it has a lot to do with the fact that Serbia is considerably smaller, poorer, and less powerful (militarily and diplomatically) than China. On the face of it, at least, it seems that Taiwan would have a better case than Kosovo for indepence, since the PRC's flag has never even flown over Taiwan. In any case, I'd be interested in learning if that's not the case.

From the China Post:

China is a much greater force than Serbia, which has a population five times that of Kosovo and territory eight times larger. China's population is 56 times that of Taiwan, and its territory 225 times that of the island.

Fearing attack from China, 70 per cent of Taiwanese prefer the island to maintain its status quo, while only about 10 per cent want immediate independence or unification with China.

That last paragraph is somewhat misleading, as less than three percent of Taiwanese actually support immediate unification with China. It's true that most people in Taiwan support the "status quo," a term whose definition can only be determined with a GPS device. Yet, when given only the option of unification or independence, the Taiwanese overwhelmingly choose independence. I talked about this at length here.

Yesterday's declaration is anything but a non-issue for the United States, not only because Taiwan is watching, but so is Kurdistan.

Around 20 million Kurds are scattered between northern Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey, describing themselves as the world's largest stateless minority. Most live in southeastern Turkey, where Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) guerrillas have fought an insurgency since 1984 in which more than 30,000 people have died. A ceasefire was called in 1999, but fighting resumed in 2004. Turkey fears that Kurds in northern Iraq plan to set up their own state, stirring tensions among Turkish Kurds.

A horrible, self-inflicted blow to McCain's credibility.

Something that I never imagined possible has just transpired, and a man for whom I had a lot of respect has just lost much of it. It appears that for some reason John McCain, one of Washington's most stalwart and unwavering critics of torture who was himself tortured in Vietnam, has voted against a bill that would ban the practice:

I simply cannot see any explanation for this except politics - that McCain feels the need to appease the Republican far right at this point in time, and, tragically, the right to torture has now become a litmus test of "conservative" orthodoxy. It's a Karl Rove wedge issue of a classic kind: using the crudest of emotional appeals to gin up populist authoritarianism for the sake of Republican partisan advantage in wartime. There is nothing conservative about torture, of course. But the authoritarians of the far right are hardly conservatives in the traditional sense either.

So McCain reveals himself as a positioner even on the subject on which he has gained a reputation for unimpeachable integrity. It's worth reading Jon Chait's illuminating new piece in this context. I repeat that I am heartbroken. McCain has indeed been a leader in preventing the military from torturing terror suspects, and in banning waterboarding. But by leaving this lacuna in the law, he gives this president the space he wants. As president himself, of course, McCain would surely instruct the CIA to uphold the American way of interrogation, and not to adopt techniques once used by the Gestapo and prosecuted by the US as war crimes. But we now know that there will be one difference between Obama and McCain in November. One will never tolerate torture; the other just did.

Daily Show videos on the hateful Romney speech...

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

- former Republican presidential candidate, Willard Mitt Romney

Hillary = Obama = Surrender to terror?

This was the kind of stuff I was referencing yesterday when I said Romney gave a "divisive, hateful speech." The whole "vote for the liberals and die at the hands of the terrorists" card hasn't been played for a long time. I've been reassured recently by the level of maturity exhibited by the kids in the D.C. sandbox over the last year. I almost believed that the rancor had bled out to the edges of the political fabric, leaving everyone else to have a relatively civil conversation about where we go next.

For the most part, everyone believes that Iraq is a catastrophe -- the war on terror in general has had its fair share of mishaps -- and, while we all believe passionately in what we see as the necessary responses to the issues that face us with the war on terror -- staying in Iraq, diverting troops elsewhere (Afghanistan, maybe?), pulling out of the Middle East more or less completely, etc. -- we've been able to have a fairly civil conversation about it for some time.

I said fairly civil. The low blows of recent months have been nothing compared to those of the six years preceding.

Well, all that went out the window once Romney decided to take a load off. The above statement is just the beginning of the ludicrous drivel that passed for political discourse. He even pulled out the ole' they hate us for our freedoms and democracy:

And finally, let’s consider the greatest challenge facing America—and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy—to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

I was actually kind of suprised to President Bush whip this one out during his State of the Union Address:

The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule.

I'm not surprised because he's never used this one before, but just because I, again, was getting the impression that no one believed it anymore. Of course, as I've mentioned before, most everyone in the field roundly rejects this, especially former chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit Mike Scheuer:

[al-Qaeda's] goal is not to wipe out our secualr democracy, but to deter us by military means from attacking the things they love. Bin Laden et al. are not eternal warriors; there is no evidence they are fighting for fighting's sake, or that they would be lost for things to do without a war to wage. There is evidence to the contrary, in fact, showing bin Laden and other Islamist leaders would like to end the war, get back to their families, and live a less martial lifestyle. They share the attitude of the Afghan mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet war: They are weary of war, but not war weary in a way making them ready to compromise or fight less enthusiastically. In both cases, participating in a defensive jihad was a duty to God and therefore had to be pursued until victory or martyrdom.

Luckily, Jason Jones came by to clear things up, explaining that the only reason Romney got so far is thanks to the "douchebag vote."

This may be the moment for Ron Paul...No, I'm not kidding.

Romney is out.

Man, it feels good to say that.

Romney is out.

The divisive, hateful speech he just gave makes it feel all the more better. Of the four men who were still in the republican race this morning, there was no one more divisive than Romney. Of course McCain and Huckabee had played the liberals-will-be-the-end-of-US distraction, but no one had played it more willingly than Romney. Never was this been more evident than minutes ago when Romney announced that he was "suspending" his campaign.

Before I get started, though, I want to clear some things up. While it might not be evident in all my blathering about Obama and Paul, I have for quite some time liked John McCain. He was my choice in 2000, and I still have an (albeit withering) appreciation for him as a presidential candidate. And, if I were voting just based on foreign policy towards Taiwan, he'd be my only choice. I'm happy that he will likely be the Republican nominee.

Moreover, I am not writing this as a Ron Paul supporter. I've come to believe that Barack Obama, the "Left-libertarian," is the candidate that better fits my political views. That said, I have the utmost respect for Ron Paul and his candidacy. I commend his record, and I think it's a shame the media has treated him they way they have. It's on this principle, in the recent republican primaries in South Carolina, I voted not for Obama but for Ron Paul.

I'm writing this post because I feel that an interesting, new dynamic has been created by Romney's departure concerning the media's coverage of the campaigns. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been let down by the way the media has handled their coverage of the presidential candidates' races over the last six months or so. I may, however, have been the only person who half expected it to be any different. Naively believing that it didn't matter so much that these news companies are businesses and must make money, I assumed that as it became more obvious that Ron Paul had an incredible grassroots support web, unlike that of any other candidate, that the media would start to pay attention.

You live, and you learn.

What happened instead is that the media watched and reported incessantly on its floundering golden boys.

FRED THOMPSON, ladies and gentlemen! The country, nay, THE WORLD is abuzz with the possibility of a Thompson presidency! Hear ye! Hear y--- What? He's out already? How many states did he w--- None? Damn.

Well no worries, America's Mayor! RUDY! On his way to the White H--- He's out too? No states? Who's still in? Huckabee? Is he the guy who used to be fat? Really? Him?

Well played, y'all.

All the while, this depressing spectacle of the campaigns' slow deaths was followed with morbid infatuation, like watching ants squirm under a magnifying glass. Here's Rudy doing the Macarena! Today, Fred Thompson ate a hamburger, because he loves America! Tomorrow, we'll be doing a four hour special round-table on Mike Huckabee's weight and whether he'd be able to keep off the pounds during four year in the White House, our special guest, co-host of the hit show Project Runway, Tim Gunn, will be with us discussing presidential fashion over the years. So please join us tomorrow at 8pm eastern for "Don't Huck it up: Dieting with Mike Huckabee."

Never once did I see a general update on Ron Paul's campaign (and I watch a lot of news, too much). I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I defy anyone to show me a news network that talked about Ron Paul's stumping across the country. The only times I ever saw Paul on the news was when he was defending himself about claims that he was racist or, the media's favorite by far, whether he really should really be running as a republican.

I'm sure many won't think this is important, but the truth is that most people still don't get their news from alternative media (where Paul has done well). They get it from CNN, FOX, or major newspapers. Without the daily coverage that the media's crushes garnered, Paul simply does not become a household name.

Making things worse was the fact that Paul's questions in the debates were fewer than those of his competitors, reaching a nadir in the Reagan Library debates in which Paul only got, if my memory serves me correctly, three unique questions (Huckabee only getting a couple more).

Yet, on February 28th, assuming the three candidates still remain, Paul will have an interesting opportunity. Sure, with only 16 pledged delegates, compared to McCain's 700+, I'm not holding my breath for a Paul candidacy, but there is the distinct possibility that the CNN debates at the end of this month could be the largest and most generous platform he will ever get, and he has a one clear advantage over his opponents.

If there are two things that Paul loves talking about, it's the economy and the war on terror. While I don't buy into the idea that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the economy, he's certainly not as comfortable as Paul, and Huckabee's knowledge of foreign policy is about as good as, well, Bush's. He didn't know what the NIE was, even days after the declassified report came out, and he tried to beat around the bush on a question about Pakistan, turning it into a question about immigration.

Despite his pretty dismal showing in the primaries so far, support for Paul doesn't seem to be waning. He's still bringing in money, and I don't see him throwing in the towel. If that's the case, he may be due for more exposure in the coming weeks as a result of the vacuum created by Romney's departure. However, the media, I'm sure, still sees Huckabee as a more viable candidate than Paul, so he'll have to fight for whatever exposure that he does get.

This is the DEMOCRATIC party, right?

No, this is not a reference to certain conservative politicians' affinity for the use of the term "Democrat Party" -- i.e. the party that is full of democrats, rather than the party that is for a more democratic system. It's more of an attempt to understand how the Democratic Party could possibly tolerate a convention that is so, well, undemocratic. I'm talking of course about the fact that forty percent of the votes in the upcoming Democratic National Convention will not be delegates allotted to the candidates through a proportion of the votes in caucuses and primaries. Instead, nearly half of the votes in the DNC will be cast by guys and gals who are just too darn important to vote with the masses in their state's primaries and caucuses.

It’s called the Democratic Party, but one aspect of the party’s nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy.

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.

This year, this is considerably more important than is usually the case, given that there is no clear front-runner in the Democratic race. It is scary to think of the possibility of a candidate with the most popular vote in the primary season losing to the one with the most delegates (does that bring to mind any bad memories, democrats?).

Look at where we stand right now. Barack Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton, yet Sen. Clinton has 87 more super-delegates than Sen. Obama putting her total delegate count 74 higher than his.

So, where does this system come from?

Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.

Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.

But in early 1970’s, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.

Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.

So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.

Am I to understand that the super-delegates were put in place to protect the party from the people? I can certainly understand that political insiders may have a better, more personal understanding of the candidates and thus, using their super-delegate votes, be able to steer an election away from the kook, but doesn't that just seem to go against the very foundation of the democratic party? It would seem that it is the responsibility of those in the know to disseminate reasons for and against voting for a certain candidate and let us decide whether or not to accept it, not simply conducting the outcome.

This is significant because it works against Obama:

“One was not to get (ideologically) extreme candidates; the other was to avoid the Jimmy Carter phenomenon — where you had a guy who was not very experienced and not very well regarded by most of his fellow governors, but nevertheless managed to win the party’s nomination,” Mayer said.

Many of us know that Obama is experienced* and is well-regarded by many, but the Clinton campaign has done a very good job of painting him as neophyte, which they contrast with Hillary's "35 years" of experience -- 15 of which were at an Arkansas law firm and six on the board at Wal-Mart. In addition, imagine how long it takes to become a super-delegate. I don't imagine that many of these people are young. I don't know of any, in fact, who are under fifty. This is significant considering the voting generation gap we're seeing around the country.

* As if often the case in politics, reality is cloudier than spin. Barack Obama started as a community organizer in 1985, at the age of 23. He's 46 now. That gives him 23 years of so-called "experience," working as an organizer, president of Harvard Law School, civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, state senator and US Senator.

Sexy Beijing asks folks on the streets of the Chinese capital who they'd vote for...

I'm sorry for the excessive posts on American politics today, but I can't stop focusing on Super Tuesday.

I found this video the other day. It was made for Sexy Beijing, a sort of Sex-in-the-City-meets-podcast-in-China, and I found it pretty interesting, if you can get past the Beijing accent.

Money Quote:
SB: What do you think [the US'] policy towards China should be?
Beijinger: They should recognize that Taiwan belongs to China and can't be divided. Also, they should support peace.

Hillary's womanhood, "35 years" and vicious attacks

Some think women will come out in droves for Hillary,

I should add that this was also an invaluable opportunity to sort of let Hillary into people's living rooms, something everyone needs to be comfortable with in any president. She certainly passed that test. And also it was a chance to allow people to see, who don't get to go to these sorts of events, just how impressive she actually is in this setting; I'm a little jaded having seen her do this sort of thing live so I'm no longer surprised by it, but to those that haven't, it's probably quite eye-opening.

while others question her service to women

I wish I felt what Robin Morgan feels. "Our President Ourselves!" she cheers, in a rousing pitch for Hillary Clinton. "We need to rise in furious energy – as we did when courageous Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the US Senate, as we did when desperate Rosie Jimenez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through."

Morgan asks, "Why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans women and men are justly proud of their struggles?"

I wish I felt her poet's passion for Clinton as a player in the global women's movement, but I don't. Indeed, I'm reminded that there are parts to be proud of in this movement of ours, and less attractive parts, of which Hillary Clinton, I'm sad to say, constantly reminds me.

Morgan recalls how Clinton defied the US State Department and the Chinese Government to speak at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women. I saw Hillary Clinton speak that rainy day in China and her defiance was something of which to be rightly proud. But even as Clinton called for the recognition of women's rights as human rights, the rigged-for-profit trade policies that she supported then and continues to endorse were encouraging a global sweatshop economy that has all but eradicated the right to unionize in most of the world -- a working woman's best protector. (It took her six years to get off the board of the anti-union giant Wal-Mart.)

"For too long the history of women has been a history of silence," Clinton told the World Conference then. But almost exactly a year later, she supported her husband's signing of the so-called Personal Responsibility Act, which successfully shifted responsibility for poverty in an affluent society off that society and onto the backs of poor mothers. Those moms barely got to say a word, while DC pols slandered and steamrollered them.

...and still others question Hillary's go-to phrase over the last year in which she touts her "35 years" of experience or public service. While I doubt many would say she has not done a lot for this country, her phrase is misleading in that she probably knows that most people don't really hold her fifteen years at one of Arkansas' most prestigious law firms and six years on the board at Wal-Mart in such high regard.

From The Nation:

After uncritically echoing that line for a year, the media has begun to do the math. "The overall portrait is of a lifelong, selfless do-gooder," McClathy reports today. "The whole story is more complicated---and less flattering."

After graduating from Yale Law School in 1973, Clinton spent a year at the Children's Defense Fund, her only full-time non-profit job. She worked as a law professor and on the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate.

Yet Clinton, as McClatchy notes, spent the bulk of her career in Arkansas--15 out of 35--at one of the state's preeminent corporate law firms, representing clients like Tyson Foods. During that time she did a number of good works. But from 1986-1992 she also sat on the board of Wal-Mart, pushing gingerly for women's rights while staying quiet as the company aggressively opposed labor unions.

The only demographic in which Hillary edged out Obama in South Carolina, if I remember correctly, were with voters who were looking for a candidate with experience. I've never understood how she gets so much of an edge for that. It's a shame Obama's campaign hasn't effectively countered the claims, seeing as

As if often the case in politics, reality is cloudier than spin. Barack Obama started as a community organizer in 1985, at the age of 23. He's 46 now. That gives him 23 years of so-called "experience," working as an organizer, president of Harvard Law School, civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, state senator and US Senator.

He's not exactly new to this.

You can also listen to this report at NPR:

When Hillary Clinton makes a campaign appearance, she almost certainly will highlight her experience — 35 years, she says — as one of her qualifications for president.

But Clinton is a little less specific when it comes to describing what exactly she was doing in the years before she became a U.S. senator in 2001.

Suzanne Goldenberg is author of a new book about Clinton, Madam President, and a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Guardian.

Goldenberg says it's difficult to see how Clinton calculates her 35 years of public service, since her fulltime job for many years was working for a corporate law firm in Arkansas.

From 1977 to 1993 — with intermittent breaks to campaign for her husband and after the birth of her daughter, Chelsea — Clinton worked at Arkansas' largest law firm, the Rose Law Firm, where she was also its first female partner.

Hillary certainly does get much more personal attacks than does Obama, I would say, and so would Stanley Fish [via 3 Quarks Daily]:

But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the “strangeness” of her eyes — “Analysis of Clinton’s eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries” — and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls “The Crazy Files”: she’s Osama bin Laden’s candidate; she kills cats; she’s a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).

But this list, however loony-tunes it may be, does not begin to touch the craziness of the hardcore members of this cult. Back in November, I wrote a column on Clinton’s response to a question about giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. My reward was to pick up an e-mail pal who has to date sent me 24 lengthy documents culled from what he calls his “Hillary File.” If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are “supported” by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don’t.

I can't be sure, but I bet the guy he's talking about is Robert Morrow, of whom I'm familiar only because he carpeted South Carolina with pre-recorded phone calls before the primaries here. He has made it his life's work to trash the Clinton's.

"Issues" and "Policy": Where's the difference?

What exactly is an "issue" or a "policy":

To the editors of the New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on policy goals:

"On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove."

What matters to the editors is experience in "tackling ... issues" -- in mastering details of policy and carrying them out one by one. "The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work."

To Caroline Kennedy, policy is not the real issue:

"Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates' goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."

The difference is striking. To the editors of the New York Times, the quality of leadership seems not to be an "issue." The ability to unite the country is not an "issue." What Obama calls the empathy deficit -- attunement to the experience and needs of real people -- is not an "issue." Honesty is not an "issue." Trust is not an "issue." Moral judgment is not an "issue." Values are not "issues." Adherence to democratic ideals -- rather than political positioning, triangulation, and incrementalism -- are not "issues." Inspiration, a call to a higher purpose, and a transcendence of interest-based politics are not "issues."

It is time to understand what counts as an "issue," to whom, and why.

The Apotheosis of Obama, polls, letters and Indonesia

Before you get the impression that everyone in America is clawing their way into any venue they can to catch an earful of Obama's sweet musings, think again.

Also, this poll's got Obama down by ten points. Yeah, I know, polls schmolls.

However, Obama did pick up 75 percent of the whopping one hundred expat votes in Indonesia. (Can't find anything on Taiwan).

3 Quarks Daily has a wonderful letter from an Obama supporter explaining that there is no experience gap and only a marginal policy gap b