Times of Pakistan

John Lennon once described the scene inside the Beatles during the heyday of the fan frenzy of Beatlemania in the 1960s as similar to being inside the eye of a hurricane. “We always called it the eye of the hurricane – it was calmer right in the middle,” Lennon said.

This might be the case inside the White House these days as President Barrack Obama sends the country into a tizzy with weekly announcements of new domestic and foreign policy initiatives that are drastically changing the political landscape.

These policies are so different that critics are arguing hes ruining the country while the Presidents supporters say his programs are just the right ones to get the country back on track.

With so many pundits and politicians commenting on President Obamas every move, its reminiscent of the crazy chaos that surrounded the Fab Four in the early days of the British invasion. “Everybody got into the mania,” Beatle George Harrison once said.

As an example, in the brief five months since President Obama has taken office, the country has digested an $800 billion economic stimulus package – with little or no debate; the bailing out of our national banks and two major automobile companies; an increased military effort in Afghanistan; potential trouble in Pakistan; nuclear weapons issues in North Korea and Iran; a soaring unemployment rate at home; a worldwide swine flu medical emergency; a Supreme Court appointment featuring the first Hispanic woman; enhanced interrogation issues involving both the former administration and the current Speaker of the House; massive spending deficits; the appointments of several new “czars,” including an executive compensation czar; and now imminent – the launching of a national health insurance program.

This is but a partial list of the issues and activities the new administration has thrust upon the country. So its little wonder that national opinion polls are mixed on the Presidents personal approval ratings versus those for his programs. No doubt there is a simmering anxiety about his policies, and this can be summed up in one word: spending. The economy is not out of the woods, and there is a justifiable fear that the massive deficit spending as proposed by the President will thwart the economic recovery.

Republicans are almost gleeful over the prospects that the Democrats have overreached on spending – asking the country to borrow upwards of $9 trillion over the next 10 years. The GOP is already anticipating big gains in 2010 congressional elections. The single biggest worry among some is inflation – the inevitable result of the vast amount of money that is now being printed in Washington – but a return to the Jimmy Carter years of stagflation is also a dreaded possibility.

Stagflation is defined as a period of slow economic growth and high unemployment (stagflation) with rising prices (inflation) and the result is a knockout punch that will set the economy back for years. The current economic calamity has brought one thing into focus for the American people – they cannot be addicted to the free spending and vast consumption mentality of the past. Surveys are showing that consumers are reining in their spending and starting to save more in the process -a pattern that might continue for years to come.

Republicans further argue that the Obama plan cannot work because federal spending can only create jobs temporary in nature and add to the growth of the government – not the growth of the economy. Democrats are countering that something different had to be done and jump starting the economy required more federal investment, taxes, and spending.

It will be another year or so before we have the answers to whether the Obama plan has worked. But one thing can be said – President Obama has remained calm and convinced that his ideas will get the country back on track. As the political whirlwind continues, President Obama can take refuge in how four boys from Liverpool handled a mania of a different sort some 45 years ago – as Lennon said, “It was calmer right in the middle.”

Lets hope the country has the same success as the Beatles once did.

Robb Austin is a former newspaper reporter and elected Member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and has successfully run numerous Congressional campaigns. Learn more at http://robbaustin.com

Does the average American hold to a consistent ideological policy on every issue? Does the average American agree with their stated political party on every issue? Do political parties consistently hold to their same ideology or platform over the decades? The answer to all is a no!

The ideals of conservatives and liberals are not always constant across all lines. At times, these philosophies have even seemed interchangeable between the political parties. People are confused when they look at traditional definitions of the conservative and liberal and try to reconcile them to the “labels” today. That is because politicians exploit these terms to their own purpose.

“Conservative” and “liberal” are loaded terms because of the rhetoric politicians use against each other. Calling someone a liberal gives an automatic negative reaction from a segment of the public; this is true even though they may not truly understand what the term represents. The same is true when you label someone a conservative; it is a signal to automatically reject that person and their values. This is the politics of divisiveness. This style of politics is destructive. It is intended to be so.

“Politics” itself has become a dirty word:

The Oxford Dictionary describes “politics” as:

“1 the activities associated with governing a country or area, and with the political relations between states.

2 a particular set of political beliefs or principles.”

Compare that to Oxfords definition of “party politics” as: “Politics that relate to political parties rather than to the public good.”

Implicit in these definitions is that “politics” is designed to provide for the governing of a country for the public good; “party politics” is not concerned with the public good, but rather the good of the party; the public good is left on the trash heap and the good of the party becomes the goal.

THE CHALLENGE AHEAD

Conservatism and liberalism should not be a “one or the other” choice. Both philosophies have proven their value to society over time, and both should be part of our future. Both philosophies should be understood, and both appreciated for their contributions. Both can, in fact, be held at the same time. For example, our society needs to move ahead with new solutions to the problems we face (a liberal value), but tempered to whatever degree possible by practices in the past which have proven successful (a conservative value).

In other words, by all means, let us move forward, while learning from the past. However, to do this, we must get past the party politics of division and blame.

Barack Obama did not become President of the same country that he started campaigning for in early 2007. Obama is now the President of a country in turmoil. It is not an enviable position. Where will Obama draw the strength to lead America out of its turmoil?

Obama faces challenges that perhaps no American President has faced since Franklin Roosevelt came into office in 1932. Roosevelt faced a world-wide depression, and a world increasingly threatened by fascist powers in the Pacific and Europe. Roosevelt stood up to those issues; it was not easy and it was not fully completed until after Roosevelts death. However, America survived those times, and emerged a stronger nation for it.

President Obama now faces a U.S. economy that is in ruins, our confidence shaken to its core. The U.S. military faces a war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, once thought won, is threatening to spill over into Pakistan, which in turn, may spill over into India. Iraq could yet still spill over into Turkey and Iran. Combined, these two issues, economics and war, will demand our attention.

ENDING THE POLITICS OF DIVISION

Two centuries ago, Edmund Burke said, “All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.” President Obama must find a way to lift Americas spirit, and gain its peoples confidence. To do that, he must find a way around the divisive politics that has poisoned the American political system, for Obama cannot solve Americas problems alone. He will need a Congress willing to work in earnest to find solutions and compromise. Otherwise, business as usual in Washington, D.C. bodes poorly for America.

The founding of America was a remarkable event in history. America put to the test the question of whether man is fit to rule himself, whether man is capable of providing equality and justice, or is man to be ruled by Monarchy or aristocracy, for his own good. America became the worlds first democratic nation. One of the major principles of America is that it is governed under the U.S. Constitution, not by the will of men; the final source of authority is the people, not a Monarch, not a President. The rights of the people were set above all else, to be preserved for all posterity. The opening line of the U.S. Constitution states this boldly and plainly:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Since its inception, there have been those that charge America is destined to fail; and yet, America has survived for over 200 years. However, America will not survive as a democracy, if its people fail in their desire for the principles that founded America: liberty, justice, equality, and virtue. It is a burden that America willingly undertook in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, and carried it through a bloody Civil War, and two World Wars. Can the American people continue to carry this burden? If it is to be, it must be through the people, for in a democracy, there can be no other.

After obtaining a degree in political science, I embarked on a career in insurance and government. For the last 21 years, I have worked for local government and government associations. I have written articles, as well as manuals, assisting local government in effectively managing their activities and exposures. I have also provided training in these areas, been a frequent speaker at educational seminars, and acted as President of an association of governmental employees.

During this time, I continued an interest in the politics that is embedded in government and where politics is leading this nation in the Twenty First Century.

Rick Lawrence, June 6, 2009
Ricklawrence13@live.com
http://www.DemosResPublica.com

“Negative campaigning,” also known as “mudslinging”, attempts to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent, or the opponents policy, rather than emphasizing ones own positive attributes or preferred policies.

Many say that political campaigning is more negative and unethical than ever. Whether this is true is the subject of debate. Politicians have long thrown mud at each other. In fact, the history of negative campaigning reaches back to the earliest days of this nation. Then as today, rumor and gossip fed a public hungry for scandal.

For example, during the Presidential campaign of 1800, charges were made by Federalists in support of John Adams that Thomas Jefferson was trying to turn the country over to the French and that Jefferson was an atheist. In response, Democratic-Republicans charged that Adams was trying to return the country to the British.

It is hard to imagine anything more negative, or in the mode of slinging mud, considering both strong allies in the fight for independence in the American Revolutionary movement and are considered Founding Fathers of the United States.

One thing is certain; we have new ways to promulgate mudslinging through new media. We reach more people than ever before, spending vast sums of money.

The Effects of Negative Campaigning

Some studies suggest that negative campaign ads are more easily remembered, having a greater influence on voters attitudes and decisions; other research indicates the opposite. Some research suggests that candidates using negative ads are more likely to win; other research suggests the opposite.

There are also conflicting conclusions about how negative advertising affects voter turnout–some research concludes that negative campaigning depresses turnout, other findings suggest that negative campaigning enhances voter turnout.

The result is that candidates now run two campaigns: one highlighting their own virtues, and another villainizing their opponent.

Voters overwhelmingly state a dislike for negative campaigning. According to a recent bipartisan survey commission by the Project on Campaign Conduct, voters are not overjoyed with candidates and their tactics.

Of those surveyed:

o 59% believe that all or most candidates deliberately twist the truth.

o 39% believe that all or most candidates deliberately lie to voters.

o 43% believe that most or all candidates deliberately make unfair attacks on opponents.

o 67% say they can trust the government only some of the time or never.

o 87% are concerned about the level of personal attacks in todays campaigns.

Even though voters say they do not like negative ads, they are swayed by their messages. Voters may not even know that they are influenced by these ads, as sometimes, the message affects the voters on a subliminal level.

One consistency in modern elections is that politicians revert to negative ads when they are trailing in the polls. The further behind they fall, the more they invest in attacking their opponent with negative ads. On the other hand, a politician with a strong lead can stay above the fray and avoid reverting to negative ads; this stance can look to the populace like a sign of integrity. However, if staying above the fray is not working, the candidate will start their own negative campaign in retaliation.

Liken it to a championship boxing match. It is the final round and your corner is telling you that you are behind on points; your only hope is to score a knockout. You go out with everything you have hoping to get lucky and land a knockout punch. Meanwhile, your opponent only has to avoid getting knocked out to win the match.

Most commonly, the challenger initiates the negative ads, since they are typically at a disadvantage to an incumbents name recognition and campaign chest. It is easier for a challenger to sully the name of the incumbent than to gain recognition and credibility on their own.

Techniques of Negative Campaigning

Today, the most common and effective technique is running advertisements on an opponents personality, record, opinion, or anything else.

One famous such ad was the “Daisy Girl” campaign by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The ad implied that voting for Republican Barry Goldwater could lead to nuclear war. However, making such a bold attack on your opponent can backfire if the public feels the attack is overstated, unfair, or lacks merit.

More common negative campaign techniques include: painting your opponent as soft on crime, dishonest, or corrupt. Another technique is to show your opponent as inconsistent in their position – flip-flopping on the issues.

Dirty tricks are also used in negative political campaigns. A common example – a campaign may leak damaging information on their opponent to the media, rather than state the charges directly against the opponent. This protects the candidate from any potential backlash for releasing the information.

A more sinister trick is to feed your opponent with false information; if the opponent falls for the trick and uses the information, it will backfire once proven false, damaging both your opponents credibility and integrity. This may explain why you do not hear a candidate respond to a provocative news story; it is because they suspect it is bait for a trap.

A new tactic is the use of “push polls;” these are attacks in the form of telephone polls. The caller will ask a hypothetical question such as: “How would you react if Candidate X was revealed to be planning to invade Pakistan?” The call is designed to give the impression that Candidate X is actually planning to invade Pakistan.

Thanks in large part to negative advertising, many Americans take the approach to elections as voting for the “lesser-of-two-evils.” In effect, we are disillusioned with the candidates before they are even elected. There is already enough of this problem in politics without negative campaign advertising.

After obtaining a degree in political science, I embarked on a career in insurance and government. For the last 21 years, I have worked for local government and government associations. I have written articles, as well as manuals, assisting local government in effectively managing their activities and exposures. I have also provided training in these areas, been a frequent speaker at educational seminars, and acted as President of an association of governmental employees.

During this time, I continued an interest in the politics that is embedded in government and where politics is leading this nation in the Twenty First Century.

Rick Lawrence, June 6, 2009
Ricklawrence13@live.com
http://www.DemosResPublica.com