Once in Chinatown, I noticed a Chinese bookshop above a shop. So I walked up the steps and into this rather dingy shop that is stacked from the floor to the ceiling mostly with Chinese comic books.
Those comic books - mainly wu xia, romantic stuff or translations from Japanese manga - were all bundled up and available for rent by the bundle. Stern notices abound warning people against casual reading; that would cost you $2 because for those who cannot afford to rent you can pay to read what you like at the shop!
How quaint! I imagine in shops like these poor but studious students and labourers can while away hours in the stories and (in winters, in central heating.)
Just as I was wondering how long the shop has been around, I spied a smallish framed piece of casual-looking calligraphy; it was an original autograph from Hu Shih, the 20th Century Chinese scholar and humanist.
As with many "youth intellectual" of his era, Hu Shih spent many years aboard in his formative years. Apparently he studied and researched in Columbia University, the ivy-league in New York city, and later, he returned as Chinese Ambassador to the US during the war years.
One of his great legacies was his role at Peking University where he was a prominent professor, publisher and eventually the Vice-Chancellor. In New York, he left another legacy as the co-founder in 1926, of the "China Institute of America" on East 65th Street. http://www.chinainstitute.org/
I was not sure whether he had been to the bookshop or had spent any time there, but he had addressed his calligraphy specifically to the "Dong Fang (Eastern) bookshop in New York". In a note by the calligraphy, it appeared that he gave wrote the calligraphy while recuperating from illness in Nanking.
Well, what did he write? He wrote:
勇敢的假设, 小心的求证
Translation: Be courageous in the assumptions;
Be cautious in demanding evidence.
What a wonderful glimpse of Chinese intellectual sentiment in early 20th century! How wonderful to find it in a bookshop full of comics.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
New Media in the White House
It is the 1000 pound elephant in the bedroom... no its on the bed! How is the internet going to change public policy, politics and government?
Ultimately, politics and government is all about the interaction and management of human relationships. If the changes driven by the internet on our interactions over the past fews years is any guide, I believe big changes are on the way on how politics and government will function. It will be a very interesting change to bear witness.
As much as the Obama campaign will be remembered for breaking the racial barrier, in the long run political analysts of the future will probably point to a breakthrough in its tech-savvy adoption of a proto-type online, distributed, network-powered grassroot organization.
Hidden in the story http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/20/obama_raised_half_a_billion_on.html of how the Obama campaign raised $500m online (out of $680m total) are these increadible figures:
- Obama's e-mail list contains upwards of 13 million addresses. (Four years ago, Sen. John F. Kerry had 3 million e-addresses on his list; former Vermont governor Howard Dean had 600,000.)
- Over the course of the campaign, aides sent more than 7,000 different messages, many of them targeted to specific donation levels (people who gave less than $200, for example, or those who gave more than $1,000). In total, more than 1 billion e-mails landed in inboxes.
- A million people signed up for Obama's text-messaging program. On the night Obama accepted the Democratic nomination at Invesco Field in Denver, more than 30,000 phones among the crowd of 75,000 were used to text in to join the program.
- On Election Day, every voter who'd signed up for alerts in battleground states got at least three text messages. Supporters on average received five to 20 text messages per month, depending on where they lived -- the program was divided by states, regions, zip codes and colleges -- and what kind of messages they had opted to receive.
- On MyBarackObama.com, or MyBO, Obama's own social network, 2 million profiles were created, 200,000 offline events were planned, about 400,000 blog posts were written and more than 35,000 volunteer groups were created -- at least 1,000 of them on Feb. 10, 2007, the day Obama announced his candidacy.
- Some 3 million phone calls were made in the final four days of the campaign using MyBO's virtual phone-banking platform. On their own MyBO fundraising pages, 70,000 people raised $30 million.
-The campaign set up a grassroots finance committee through which supporters were trained to collect small-dollar donations from their friends, relatives and co-workers.
- Obama has 5 million supporters in other social networks. On Facebook, where about 3.2 million signed up as his supporters. A group called Students for Barack Obama was created in July 2007. It was so effective at energizing college-age voters that senior aides made it an official part of the campaign the following spring. And Facebook users did vote: On Facebook's Election 2008 page, which listed an 800 number to call for voting problems, more than 5.4 million users clicked on an "I Voted" button to let their Facebook friends know that they made it to the polls. (Talk about online peer pressure.)
One interesting fact is that the chief of Obama campaign's "new media" division, a guy called Joe Rospars is 27 years old. One of the creators of MyBO is Chris Hughes, who was a co-founder of Facebook, is 24 years old. [On a seperate note, Obama's chief speechwriter Jon Favreux is also 27 years old, his chief of his massively successful field operations comprising 2m volunteers is Jon Carson a 33 years old]. I do not even remember what we were doing at age 24 or 27! The powers of youth in the Obama campaign is simply staggering. In 2008, we may be seeing the first wave of techno-entrepreneurs-innovators of the political/governing world.
The question is - is this a one-off? Will it remain at the campaign level? How well does it transfer to the business of government?
One sign is this announcement 2 days ago. Julius Genachowski who is the guru of Obama's new media operations has been appointed by the transition team to head a policy group, called" TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION & GOVERNMENT REFORM". Think about it, when have you heard anyone linking "technology and innovation" with "government reform"?
All I can say is: watch this space. Something very interesting may be going on.
*Update*
Many pundits were stumped when he appointed someone outside his inner circle - Ms. Ellen Moran, the Executive Director of Emily's list - as the White House Communications Director. That is normally a prominent White House post usually to reward the main communications /message aide of the winning campaign. In Obama's case, his communications cheif Robert Gibb became White House Spokesperson while campaign spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer was made Deputy WH Director of Communications instead. Pundits either did not have a view or mentioned something like he is rewarding Clinton-loyalists (Emily's list supported Clinton in the primaries before switching to Obama).
I don't think Obama operates with that kind of pure political calculation. We know he is a strategist not just political tactician. Instead, I see it as a move to transform the task of the White House Communications Office, to reach out beyond the congress, media and pundits - and in order to connect better with Obama's base of supporters i.e. those 10m email addresses he has.
When you think about it, Emily's List is a grassroot activist political organization (to support Pro-Choice female candidates to political office); mobilizing grassroot support is what they do. When Obama puts the managerial and organizational chief of that organization into the White House and gives her a budget and all the grassroot infrastructure the campiagn has built up including those 10m emails, it becomes obvious that Barack Obama intention is to build a Whie House operations that reaches out directly to his supporters and the public in general.
Ultimately, politics and government is all about the interaction and management of human relationships. If the changes driven by the internet on our interactions over the past fews years is any guide, I believe big changes are on the way on how politics and government will function. It will be a very interesting change to bear witness.
As much as the Obama campaign will be remembered for breaking the racial barrier, in the long run political analysts of the future will probably point to a breakthrough in its tech-savvy adoption of a proto-type online, distributed, network-powered grassroot organization.
Hidden in the story http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/20/obama_raised_half_a_billion_on.html of how the Obama campaign raised $500m online (out of $680m total) are these increadible figures:
- Obama's e-mail list contains upwards of 13 million addresses. (Four years ago, Sen. John F. Kerry had 3 million e-addresses on his list; former Vermont governor Howard Dean had 600,000.)
- Over the course of the campaign, aides sent more than 7,000 different messages, many of them targeted to specific donation levels (people who gave less than $200, for example, or those who gave more than $1,000). In total, more than 1 billion e-mails landed in inboxes.
- A million people signed up for Obama's text-messaging program. On the night Obama accepted the Democratic nomination at Invesco Field in Denver, more than 30,000 phones among the crowd of 75,000 were used to text in to join the program.
- On Election Day, every voter who'd signed up for alerts in battleground states got at least three text messages. Supporters on average received five to 20 text messages per month, depending on where they lived -- the program was divided by states, regions, zip codes and colleges -- and what kind of messages they had opted to receive.
- On MyBarackObama.com, or MyBO, Obama's own social network, 2 million profiles were created, 200,000 offline events were planned, about 400,000 blog posts were written and more than 35,000 volunteer groups were created -- at least 1,000 of them on Feb. 10, 2007, the day Obama announced his candidacy.
- Some 3 million phone calls were made in the final four days of the campaign using MyBO's virtual phone-banking platform. On their own MyBO fundraising pages, 70,000 people raised $30 million.
-The campaign set up a grassroots finance committee through which supporters were trained to collect small-dollar donations from their friends, relatives and co-workers.
- Obama has 5 million supporters in other social networks. On Facebook, where about 3.2 million signed up as his supporters. A group called Students for Barack Obama was created in July 2007. It was so effective at energizing college-age voters that senior aides made it an official part of the campaign the following spring. And Facebook users did vote: On Facebook's Election 2008 page, which listed an 800 number to call for voting problems, more than 5.4 million users clicked on an "I Voted" button to let their Facebook friends know that they made it to the polls. (Talk about online peer pressure.)
One interesting fact is that the chief of Obama campaign's "new media" division, a guy called Joe Rospars is 27 years old. One of the creators of MyBO is Chris Hughes, who was a co-founder of Facebook, is 24 years old. [On a seperate note, Obama's chief speechwriter Jon Favreux is also 27 years old, his chief of his massively successful field operations comprising 2m volunteers is Jon Carson a 33 years old]. I do not even remember what we were doing at age 24 or 27! The powers of youth in the Obama campaign is simply staggering. In 2008, we may be seeing the first wave of techno-entrepreneurs-innovators of the political/governing world.
The question is - is this a one-off? Will it remain at the campaign level? How well does it transfer to the business of government?
One sign is this announcement 2 days ago. Julius Genachowski who is the guru of Obama's new media operations has been appointed by the transition team to head a policy group, called" TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION & GOVERNMENT REFORM". Think about it, when have you heard anyone linking "technology and innovation" with "government reform"?
All I can say is: watch this space. Something very interesting may be going on.
*Update*
Many pundits were stumped when he appointed someone outside his inner circle - Ms. Ellen Moran, the Executive Director of Emily's list - as the White House Communications Director. That is normally a prominent White House post usually to reward the main communications /message aide of the winning campaign. In Obama's case, his communications cheif Robert Gibb became White House Spokesperson while campaign spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer was made Deputy WH Director of Communications instead. Pundits either did not have a view or mentioned something like he is rewarding Clinton-loyalists (Emily's list supported Clinton in the primaries before switching to Obama).
I don't think Obama operates with that kind of pure political calculation. We know he is a strategist not just political tactician. Instead, I see it as a move to transform the task of the White House Communications Office, to reach out beyond the congress, media and pundits - and in order to connect better with Obama's base of supporters i.e. those 10m email addresses he has.
When you think about it, Emily's List is a grassroot activist political organization (to support Pro-Choice female candidates to political office); mobilizing grassroot support is what they do. When Obama puts the managerial and organizational chief of that organization into the White House and gives her a budget and all the grassroot infrastructure the campiagn has built up including those 10m emails, it becomes obvious that Barack Obama intention is to build a Whie House operations that reaches out directly to his supporters and the public in general.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Moments from My Metropolis - I.M. Pei
Let me start with some stories of my very few and very incidental encounters with the great Chinese-American architect, I.M. Pei (full name: Pei Ieoh-Ming贝聿铭).
It all began when I discovered that old Mr and Mrs Pei happen to be my neighbours. It was an exciting discovery personally because he is well-known in Asia and is someone much talked about between my late father and myself when I was growing up. We deliberately and consciously admired his work when we visited the Louvre, Bank of China (Hong Kong), Raffles City in Singapore; and later by myself, the East Wing of Washington DC's National Gallery, the Jacob Jarvits Center, Bank of China (Beijing), Four Seasons (New York).
Not one to be easily impressed by modern architecture, I have come to learn about the master's subtle manipulation of light, shadows, reflections and space with minimal use of shapes, motifs, colours or indeed any decorations. In the end, I realise that his style of architecture is less about the building but is instead about the space-enclosed - and how the space in turn play with the light or view from the outside as they turned into shadows and reflections inside.
If one consider the gardens of Suzhou and how the designers manipulate the space, the views from the strategically placed openings and the shadows from plants and rocks - but minimal colours; one get the sense of the origins of Pei's philosophy and sensibility in his design. He is a master in engaging you by doing less and hence making you notice more.
Well, the Peis live in their town house at No.11 Sutton Place (which is between E57th and E58th street) a mere 5 minutes walk from my apartment block which is on E54th street. It is a simple and neat looking townhouse no more than 25 feet wide and painted in various shades of gray. Although it pre-dates the modern era of Pei's signature styles, the house echos the clean lines and neutral shades one often find in his designs. A few simple metal sculptures are visible from the second floor window.
One time, Mewyee and I were walking nearby when we saw the tiny old man himself coming out of his house. He looked the same as in the photographs in a grey suit and his trademark glasses. A few paces behind him, his wife came out wearing a qi pao walking quickly after him. He walked out to the middle of the street to flag down a cab and off they went.
Some time later, in conversation with a random neighbour in a park next to Pei's home, the neighbour said they often see him about, sometimes sweeping leaves off the sidewalk. One time she claimed, she shared a bus ride from midtown with him. I.M.Pei riding on the bus!
When my daughters was in pre-school, we were amused to find that Pei's daughter, Li-Anne was the school's "onward schools" counsellor we had spoken with for information about getting into private schools. She was a corporate lawyer before leaving practice after she had children so as to have more flexibility with her time. Another parents in the same school, who is Chinese-American, was so excited when she found out, she came to us saying "Guess who is Li-Anne Pei's dad?! Its I.M Pei!!" To which her husband could not understand the excitement and asked, "who is I.M.Pei?"
Just last week, when I walked by the neighbourhood I saw Li-Anne coming out of her parent's house. I just said hi, but she didn't see/hear me because she was busy walking into the middle of the street to hail a cab.
It all began when I discovered that old Mr and Mrs Pei happen to be my neighbours. It was an exciting discovery personally because he is well-known in Asia and is someone much talked about between my late father and myself when I was growing up. We deliberately and consciously admired his work when we visited the Louvre, Bank of China (Hong Kong), Raffles City in Singapore; and later by myself, the East Wing of Washington DC's National Gallery, the Jacob Jarvits Center, Bank of China (Beijing), Four Seasons (New York).
Not one to be easily impressed by modern architecture, I have come to learn about the master's subtle manipulation of light, shadows, reflections and space with minimal use of shapes, motifs, colours or indeed any decorations. In the end, I realise that his style of architecture is less about the building but is instead about the space-enclosed - and how the space in turn play with the light or view from the outside as they turned into shadows and reflections inside.
If one consider the gardens of Suzhou and how the designers manipulate the space, the views from the strategically placed openings and the shadows from plants and rocks - but minimal colours; one get the sense of the origins of Pei's philosophy and sensibility in his design. He is a master in engaging you by doing less and hence making you notice more.
Well, the Peis live in their town house at No.11 Sutton Place (which is between E57th and E58th street) a mere 5 minutes walk from my apartment block which is on E54th street. It is a simple and neat looking townhouse no more than 25 feet wide and painted in various shades of gray. Although it pre-dates the modern era of Pei's signature styles, the house echos the clean lines and neutral shades one often find in his designs. A few simple metal sculptures are visible from the second floor window.
One time, Mewyee and I were walking nearby when we saw the tiny old man himself coming out of his house. He looked the same as in the photographs in a grey suit and his trademark glasses. A few paces behind him, his wife came out wearing a qi pao walking quickly after him. He walked out to the middle of the street to flag down a cab and off they went.
Some time later, in conversation with a random neighbour in a park next to Pei's home, the neighbour said they often see him about, sometimes sweeping leaves off the sidewalk. One time she claimed, she shared a bus ride from midtown with him. I.M.Pei riding on the bus!
When my daughters was in pre-school, we were amused to find that Pei's daughter, Li-Anne was the school's "onward schools" counsellor we had spoken with for information about getting into private schools. She was a corporate lawyer before leaving practice after she had children so as to have more flexibility with her time. Another parents in the same school, who is Chinese-American, was so excited when she found out, she came to us saying "Guess who is Li-Anne Pei's dad?! Its I.M Pei!!" To which her husband could not understand the excitement and asked, "who is I.M.Pei?"
Just last week, when I walked by the neighbourhood I saw Li-Anne coming out of her parent's house. I just said hi, but she didn't see/hear me because she was busy walking into the middle of the street to hail a cab.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Nationality and Nationalism
Hui, what a fantastic write-up. I truly enjoy reading your second installment of "moments from my metropolis".
As we marvel at our good fortune living in our respectively enlightened metropolis, we cannot but feel dumbfounded by the slow progress made in our home countries.
Instead of grousing on lack of progress in our home countries, I am diverting to another topic - that of - nationality and nationalism. Two news on naturalization provided the backdrop to this post.
One from mainland China. The mainland chartroom and blogosphere were recently filled with angry posting on Gong Li who recently took up Singaporean citizenship. You can imagine all the accusations against this once adored celebrity from the mildly betrayal of to the highly charged treason against her mother land.
What do we make out of taking up a new citizenship?
I ponder and then I am reminded by my recent reading of Mencius. One thing that Mencius strikes me is how liberal or rather how much more liberal he is compared to the modern days liberal doctrine.
Mencius advocates, in essence, free movement of peoples from one country to another, whether to live to toil the land as a farmer or to serve as an official in the court of the new lord. I think almost all sovereign countries today would not have endorsed especially the latter.
What is the fuss with these angry netizen? They should have asked not just - why my country has failed to retain her but also why my country cannot attract more talented foreigner be my compatriot?
Least that these angry netizen know - at about the same time over in Hong Kong, a German born Jew sworn in as a Chinese citizen and gave up his Canadian citizenship. He is Allan Zeman, a successful entrepreneur in his own right and who is better known as the Father of Lan Kwai Fong, the night life district in Hong Kong (disclosure: I lived there for 6 months).
Since 2004, he is the chairman of Ocean Park, a government owned theme park that rival the HK Disneyland (partially owned by HK government as well). His success in turnaround the Ocean Park (another disclosure: my sons favorite weekend hangout) has earned him the nickname of Mouse Killer in a 2007 Forbe's article.
What a paradox with a Jew becoming a Chinese and a Chinese becoming a Singaporean!
In the world we live in, almost all people obtain their nationality from jus solis or jus sanguinis which are fortuitous. An individual is never given a real choice and therefore my view is that the freedom of adopting a new nationality is very much a human right not to be denied if an individual conforms to the law of nationality in the adopted country.
Equally it is always legitimate to be stay patriotic to one country to effect the necessary change in government or to repel foreign occupation or to end civil strife. It is ultimately about freedom of choice and that create condition for competitive improvement in the society.
Extending Mencius's basic tenet that the ruler has to be benevolent to attract peoples to the farm the idle land and the intellectual to serve as the official into the modern context, one can say that no country earn an automatic allegiance from its citizen unless its government is good or benevolent in the Confucian terminology. This will encourage all countries striving to be benevolent/good government in competing for talent besides grooming its very own.
Nationalist sentiment on the question of nationality is always mindless when the very issue ought to be self introspection and respect for individual's exercise of liberty
Moments from My Metropolis - Thoughts on Racism and Social Progress from a Cosmopolitan City
KY's wonderful post on racial discrimination merits an echoing - a rejoinder - from across the seas than just a comment.
I have just finished reading Newsweek's wonderful seven-part fly-on-the-wall account of the 2008 Presidential Campaign [http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581]. And what struck me was - despite the negativity and hostility we saw - how sensitive and adverse all the candidates were in general to the perception of racism. Which is not to say there are no more racists or racial politics, but that social change in the US has reached a tipping point where racism is now so socially-unacceptable that any temptation to exploit it will quicky be overwhelmed by the backlash. This shows the powerful social consensus in the US against racism has expanded and matured since the Civil Rights movement a mere 45 years ago.
I marvelled at this wonderful evidence of social progress first made de jure than became de facto and then becoming a universal value. KY provided some excellent examples of enlightened leadership that tries to make the ideals and aspirations of social progress tangible first through legislation which hopefully will create the condition for such progress to take root. Social progress takes time, but I am hopeful of a growing cross-cultural consensus throughout the world that is making racism less and less socially acceptable - and hence less politically attractive which then creates a virtuous cycle by creating a more conducive climate for racial tolerance. I believe this is how social progress happenned and (mostly) pushed slavery, child labour and polygamy to the margins of any society that considers itself civilized. Wither the societies and political systems that stand against the forces of enlightened global social consensus.
One of the joys of living in New York City for the past 34 months has been the daily experience of a tolerant, diverse and cosmopolitan society. I have come to admire the fact that here diversity comes naturally. Deliberately, I observe my children, ages 7 and 5 1/2, for their world-view and I must say (so far) they do not differentiate any of their friends by race. Although being in the UN International School - where every class may be a mix of more than 20 nationalities when those of both parents are counted - they are very aware of the different nationalities but interestingly, racial or national "labels" were hardly ever considered. To Ning, her friend Sara is just her friend Sara - and not an ethically Indian of the muslim religion who is South African by nationality. I find this notion of seeing people as individuals and not as labels a very refreshing and positive experience.
Being in a diverse environment means being different no longer means being a curiousity, so ironically children are more relaxed about their own cultures. During the recent UN Day, my daughters carry both the Bruneian and Malaysian flags - and they both wore a Chinese dress (although for some reason, this year she also wants to carry a Chinese umbrella). And her friend Claire (center, last row) who is American, decided she would wear a Moroccan dress and everyone thought it was interesting. The picture below is my younger daughter Hue's class where you can see at the back row, the flags of Western Samoa and Fiji among others.
Sometimes they ask, why do we have to go to Chinese school on Saturdays? And I would say, because you are Chinese - and same goes for Jeremy who also goes to Chinese school, Julie and Aram who goes to Korean school because they are Korean and Beyan who goes to Russian school because she is Russian etc. So quite ironically, diversity can also be characterised as something they have in common with their classmates.
Well, what happens outside the UN school? I enjoy the fact that in my time here, I have not been conscious of being seen in a racial light - I said "conscious" because I do not know what goes on in their minds. In casual small talk, which is a common social interaction in the US be it on the bus, in the lift, at the cafe - I am still yet to be asked (or presumed) about my race except in Chinatown where people automatically speak Chinese to me. Only in more lengthy conversations people ask where you are from i.e. which I assume to be nationality as opposed to ethnicity.
On the streets you (over)hear all kinds of languages - English, Spanish, French, Russian, German, Chinese, Korean - and I notice people either don't hear or they don't care because no one (except me) paid any attention. In my neighbourhood, there are all kinds of restaurants, French, Jewish, Turkish, Chinese, Japanese, Indian etc. I have a feeling that generally, people treat the mix of races like having a choice of restaurants in the neighbourhood - as "different cultures" rather than "different people" that add to the richness of society - to be explored or disregarded - without any personal reaction whether to approve or disapprove, like or dislike, neither to be affirmed or threatened by their presence.
My good friend Nasri came to visit last week; first time he came to the US and to New York. And I tried to take a fresh look at my city through his observant eyes and keen and curious mind. First he said, on three occasions when told people actually knew about Brunei. Second, he wonders about the racial mix in New York because he was expecting to see more Caucasians [40% white, 25% Latino, 25% blacks, 10% various-mostly-Asian; although on a working day in Manhattan its more like 60% white, 15% Latino, 15% blacks, 10 various mostly-Asian. 3x more people come to work in Manhattan than living there]. Thirdly, on a bus, as he observed the mix of people boarding the bus, he remarked to me how the racial diversity is observed throughout the city as opposed to enclaved.
I feel those are quite astute observations of a open and cosmopolitan environment; but I also had to remind him New York is not representative of all-of-America (for the record, NYC voted 85% for Obama) but more like a prototype "world city" that places like Hong Kong and Singapore openly aspire to be Asia's very own. I have to confess that living in the midst of all these made me more hopeful for the world.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Post Racial Society and Race Discrimination Law
Obama is often described as a post-racial President (elect). What matter more however is a post-racial society.
In that respect, many parts of America especially the traditional blue states have reached, if not close to, that status.
Prejudice takes a long time to eradicate. America history can testify to that. America took more than a century from the Civil War to the Civil Right movement to remedy its once racially exploitative and divisive society.
The issue is not how long it takes but rather whether it is done to eradicate racism which is arguably one of the men's greatest threat with maximum hatred with a minimum of reason.
Hitherto, the choice of public policy dealing with a society comprising of different races have been either one of assimilation/integration, accommodation, discrimination, segregation or outright inaction. All decent countries have abandoned the wide variety in favor of accommodation with equality.
My attention is drawn to two pieces of racial discrimination legislation recently passed in Asia.
One was passed by my city, Hong Kong, on July 10, 2008. The Post-handover Hong Kong doesn't practise any institutionalized racism however it must be admitted that just like all other societies there are sections of the Hong Kong society that are still possessing racial prejudice. The complaints are often related to employment and education opportunity available to the ethnic minority in Hong Kong. There are also complaint related to the provision of goods and service.
The Race Discrimination Ordinance is enacted to outlaw any discrimination, harassment, victimization and vilification on the ground of race in the areas of , among other, employment, education, provision of goods, facilities, services and premises, election and appointment to public bodies, membership and access to clubs.
The significance of this legislation in the context of Hong Kong is that we are talking of a society that is 95% Chinese that recognize the evil of racism.
The other one which is more interesting comes from Indonesia.
The law passed on October 28, 2008 treats racial discrimination as serious crime. The Anti-Discrimination Act imposes imprisonment as minimum sentence to deter people from committing racial discrimination. For leaders of public institution found guilty of adopting discriminatory policies, the law introduces a jail term one-third more severe than usually meted out.
This is a rare achievement by a country that was besieged with bloody race riot with reported mass killing and rape as recently as in 1997. Success can actually come quickly with enlightened leaders.
Eradicating racism through legislation doesn't necessarily guarantee its success but legislation is always useful to define the parameter of acceptable behaviour. Enforced by early childhood education and concerted civic education and publicity, the new and the reborn generations of the society can surely rid of racism. The issue is for the society concerned to take the first step in that direction.
Sadly, many SEA countries, Brunei, Myanmar, Malaysia and Singapore included have not ratified the International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination. If this baby step is not taken, these societies is surely in need of treatment.
Hopefully with Indonesia making giant strides in human right, these neighboring countries can quickly learn the meaning of equal right for all, special privilege for none.
In that respect, many parts of America especially the traditional blue states have reached, if not close to, that status.
Prejudice takes a long time to eradicate. America history can testify to that. America took more than a century from the Civil War to the Civil Right movement to remedy its once racially exploitative and divisive society.
The issue is not how long it takes but rather whether it is done to eradicate racism which is arguably one of the men's greatest threat with maximum hatred with a minimum of reason.
Hitherto, the choice of public policy dealing with a society comprising of different races have been either one of assimilation/integration, accommodation, discrimination, segregation or outright inaction. All decent countries have abandoned the wide variety in favor of accommodation with equality.
My attention is drawn to two pieces of racial discrimination legislation recently passed in Asia.
One was passed by my city, Hong Kong, on July 10, 2008. The Post-handover Hong Kong doesn't practise any institutionalized racism however it must be admitted that just like all other societies there are sections of the Hong Kong society that are still possessing racial prejudice. The complaints are often related to employment and education opportunity available to the ethnic minority in Hong Kong. There are also complaint related to the provision of goods and service.
The Race Discrimination Ordinance is enacted to outlaw any discrimination, harassment, victimization and vilification on the ground of race in the areas of , among other, employment, education, provision of goods, facilities, services and premises, election and appointment to public bodies, membership and access to clubs.
The significance of this legislation in the context of Hong Kong is that we are talking of a society that is 95% Chinese that recognize the evil of racism.
The other one which is more interesting comes from Indonesia.
The law passed on October 28, 2008 treats racial discrimination as serious crime. The Anti-Discrimination Act imposes imprisonment as minimum sentence to deter people from committing racial discrimination. For leaders of public institution found guilty of adopting discriminatory policies, the law introduces a jail term one-third more severe than usually meted out.
This is a rare achievement by a country that was besieged with bloody race riot with reported mass killing and rape as recently as in 1997. Success can actually come quickly with enlightened leaders.
Eradicating racism through legislation doesn't necessarily guarantee its success but legislation is always useful to define the parameter of acceptable behaviour. Enforced by early childhood education and concerted civic education and publicity, the new and the reborn generations of the society can surely rid of racism. The issue is for the society concerned to take the first step in that direction.
Sadly, many SEA countries, Brunei, Myanmar, Malaysia and Singapore included have not ratified the International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination. If this baby step is not taken, these societies is surely in need of treatment.
Hopefully with Indonesia making giant strides in human right, these neighboring countries can quickly learn the meaning of equal right for all, special privilege for none.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Reservation against the Fourth Republic Theory
Very interesting thesis.
On the US, that is an intesting way of deconstructing the patterns of history in hindsight. Regardless of my reservations of this approach, I am as guilty of any of trying to make sense of history this way.
Many philosophies including Chinese believe in historical cycles (and 72 is actually one Buddhist cycle). On the other hand, I also believe in quantum mechanical concept of society progressing in increments until it has to readjust with a big step up/down to find a new equilibrium or energy level. Although I disagree with Mr Lind's limitations to physical and material energies.
My main reservation with this thesis is that it tries to interprete the past - in hindsight - to project to the future. That approach (reductionism) is not usually the most convincing form of scholarship.
My second reservation is that this essentially look at the "trailing" instead of the leading "indicators". In short, big adjustments in government changes to catch up with changes in the people and society; and not the other way round. To revisit our earlier discussion, the best ways to see the differences between the various "republics" is to see them as major amendments to the "social contract", otherwise governemnt would lose its purpose and legitimacy.
Mr Lind is a bit too concerned about making clear demarcations between each 72 year cycles. My view is that each cycle is like different parts of a tree: each is the beginning and each is the end; if there are no roots there would be no trunk; if there are no trunk there would be no branches; and we never ask where each should begin or end?
If we had no Bush, we would probably have no Obama; no Lincoln without slavery; no reconstruction without civil war; no Jefferson without his intellectual rivalry with Hamilton (who by the way would have been President if he didnt die in a pistol duel age 44); no FDR without the depression; no economic recovery without WW2; no civil rights without widespread education in the post-war economy and so on.
So I see most things as a natural progression. Leaders do not cause transformations but transfprmations need leaders - great leaders - to give the nation strength and vision so as to step up to progress instead of falling back to the worse in human nature. Obama involked Lincoln and called this "the better angels of our nature".
All of 3 previous republics were born in times of great challenge. But they should not be confused with transformation itself because I see troubled times not as cause of transformation as triggers. The spark is needed for the fire but they cannot replace the firewood. The revolutionary war and chaos that characterized the early year of the USA; the Civil War which cost the greatest casualties of any war in the history of the USA even more than WW2 although the population was way smaller; the great depression when 20% of banks went bust and joblessness hit 25%. The challenges we are seeing now may rival all that, we simply do not know yet. I certainly hope not.
But that does not mean transformation is not at hand. One certainly hope that progress in humanity means people can be collectively aware of new realities to demand and persevere through change without needing a cataclysmic trigger to "force change". Here I find evidence in Mr Lind's lumping together of FDR's New Deal with the Civil Rights Movement (which ws given impetus by JFK's election, MLK's moral leadership and LBJ's decisive action) which is slightly incongrous because these are two different transformations of society. Although it should also be remembered that together with the Civil Rights Movement, the 60s also expanded the New Deal with LBJ's Great Society programmes. Hence, I would actually argue that a matured nation (especially one founded on liberal ideals), a developed economy (especially a free market system) and a progressive political system (especially a representative democracy) would be more capable of self-improvement and moving itself forward in smaller steps but more frequently.
I surprised myself and it still pleasantly surprised me at the amount of admiration, respect and goodwill at Obama's election all over the world. It certainly connected in a deep and profound way to the "better angels" that so many people had - not only with the US - but also with humanity and the world. Put simply, so many people woke up on Nov 5th feeling that the world is a better place than before. I believe as the days go on, this will continue to quietly stir up hidden hope, buried dreams and forgotten purpose in so many people around the world, making them feel strong and believe in themselves their children and the future. Pundits are moving now to "fearing" about the expectations Obama now has to meet. But I do not sense that because Obama's message is about self-belief, empowerment, a new sense of respect and the power of the possible. His way is not to deliver anything single handedly. His way is to show the way and create the opportunity for each individual to make their own steps - large and small - to make progress.
As for China, I think thats another posting :)
On the US, that is an intesting way of deconstructing the patterns of history in hindsight. Regardless of my reservations of this approach, I am as guilty of any of trying to make sense of history this way.
Many philosophies including Chinese believe in historical cycles (and 72 is actually one Buddhist cycle). On the other hand, I also believe in quantum mechanical concept of society progressing in increments until it has to readjust with a big step up/down to find a new equilibrium or energy level. Although I disagree with Mr Lind's limitations to physical and material energies.
My main reservation with this thesis is that it tries to interprete the past - in hindsight - to project to the future. That approach (reductionism) is not usually the most convincing form of scholarship.
My second reservation is that this essentially look at the "trailing" instead of the leading "indicators". In short, big adjustments in government changes to catch up with changes in the people and society; and not the other way round. To revisit our earlier discussion, the best ways to see the differences between the various "republics" is to see them as major amendments to the "social contract", otherwise governemnt would lose its purpose and legitimacy.
Mr Lind is a bit too concerned about making clear demarcations between each 72 year cycles. My view is that each cycle is like different parts of a tree: each is the beginning and each is the end; if there are no roots there would be no trunk; if there are no trunk there would be no branches; and we never ask where each should begin or end?
If we had no Bush, we would probably have no Obama; no Lincoln without slavery; no reconstruction without civil war; no Jefferson without his intellectual rivalry with Hamilton (who by the way would have been President if he didnt die in a pistol duel age 44); no FDR without the depression; no economic recovery without WW2; no civil rights without widespread education in the post-war economy and so on.
So I see most things as a natural progression. Leaders do not cause transformations but transfprmations need leaders - great leaders - to give the nation strength and vision so as to step up to progress instead of falling back to the worse in human nature. Obama involked Lincoln and called this "the better angels of our nature".
All of 3 previous republics were born in times of great challenge. But they should not be confused with transformation itself because I see troubled times not as cause of transformation as triggers. The spark is needed for the fire but they cannot replace the firewood. The revolutionary war and chaos that characterized the early year of the USA; the Civil War which cost the greatest casualties of any war in the history of the USA even more than WW2 although the population was way smaller; the great depression when 20% of banks went bust and joblessness hit 25%. The challenges we are seeing now may rival all that, we simply do not know yet. I certainly hope not.
But that does not mean transformation is not at hand. One certainly hope that progress in humanity means people can be collectively aware of new realities to demand and persevere through change without needing a cataclysmic trigger to "force change". Here I find evidence in Mr Lind's lumping together of FDR's New Deal with the Civil Rights Movement (which ws given impetus by JFK's election, MLK's moral leadership and LBJ's decisive action) which is slightly incongrous because these are two different transformations of society. Although it should also be remembered that together with the Civil Rights Movement, the 60s also expanded the New Deal with LBJ's Great Society programmes. Hence, I would actually argue that a matured nation (especially one founded on liberal ideals), a developed economy (especially a free market system) and a progressive political system (especially a representative democracy) would be more capable of self-improvement and moving itself forward in smaller steps but more frequently.
I surprised myself and it still pleasantly surprised me at the amount of admiration, respect and goodwill at Obama's election all over the world. It certainly connected in a deep and profound way to the "better angels" that so many people had - not only with the US - but also with humanity and the world. Put simply, so many people woke up on Nov 5th feeling that the world is a better place than before. I believe as the days go on, this will continue to quietly stir up hidden hope, buried dreams and forgotten purpose in so many people around the world, making them feel strong and believe in themselves their children and the future. Pundits are moving now to "fearing" about the expectations Obama now has to meet. But I do not sense that because Obama's message is about self-belief, empowerment, a new sense of respect and the power of the possible. His way is not to deliver anything single handedly. His way is to show the way and create the opportunity for each individual to make their own steps - large and small - to make progress.
As for China, I think thats another posting :)
The Third Republic of the PRC
Micheal Lind offers a theory of dividing the USA into 3 republics, each roughly lasted 72 years which in turn is sub-divided into two periods each lasting 36 years alternate between a period of state centralization and decentralization.
The First Republic starts from 1788-1860 following the American Revolution. The Second Republic from 1860-1932 is founded by Abraham Lincoln that is marked by the Civil War and Reconstruction. The Third Republic began from 1932 - 2004 (too arbitrary) witness the New Deal and the Civil Right era.
Following the theory, the writer postulate that Obama will be the founder of the Fourth Republic of the United States.
I have previously offered, in similar vein but in a much simplistic and amateurish theory, that PRC is about to step into the third stage of development next year.
Unlike the Lind's theory, there is no Hamiltonian expansion and Jacksonian backlash simply for reason that PRC is too young, just 59 years old unlike the USA which is a double centurion.
Taking heed from the article below, maybe it will be more sophisticated to call it the Third Republic of the PRC to postulate my speculation of a politically reformed PRC.
My model is premised upon the Chinese concept of "sixty year cycle year" [甲子年] to disect the PRC in her first 60 years from 1949-2009. Each period lasted 30 years.
The First Republic was founded by Mao Zedong and lasted from 1949 to 1978. PRC is founded through the peasant revolution and ended by the crazy cultural revolution (officially ended in 1976). The Republic lasted for two more years under Hua Guofeng, Mao's annointed succesor until the return to power of Deng Xiaoping in late 1978. This is the revolutionary China
It follows that the Second Republic was founded by Deng Xiaoping who initiated the reform and liberation that transform the PRC into the factory of the world that we know of today.
Following my theory, the Second Republic shall be succeeded by the Third Republic next year. It is too early to speculate if Hu Jintao is the founder of the Third Republic as he has more than a year to politically reform the country.
After Obama's victory, I am now also a hopemonger, this time for a liberal and democratic China.
********************************************
Obama and the dawn of the Fourth Republic
His victory really may mark the beginning of a new era in American history.
By Michael Lind
Nov. 7, 2008 WASHINGTON -- The election of Barack Obama to the presidency may signal more than the end of an era of Republican presidential dominance and conservative ideology. It may mark the beginning of a Fourth Republic of the United States.
In the past generation Bruce Ackerman, Theodore Lowi and I, in different ways, have used the idea of "republics" to understand American history. Since the French Revolution, France has been governed by five republics (plus two empires, a directory and a fascist dictatorship). Since the American Revolution, we Americans have been governed by several republics as well. But because we, like the British, pay lip service to formal continuity more than do the French, we pretend that we have been living under the same government since the federal Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1787-88. Our successive American republics from the 18th century to the 21st have been informal and unofficial.
As I see it, to date there have been three American republics, each lasting 72 years (give or take a few years). The First Republic of the United States, assembled following the American Revolution, lasted from 1788 to 1860. The Second Republic, assembled following the Civil War and Reconstruction (that is, the Second American Revolution) lasted from 1860 to 1932. And the Third American Republic, assembled during the New Deal and the civil rights eras (the Third American Revolution), lasted from 1932 until 2004.
Yes, you read that correctly -- 2004, not 2008. A case can be made that the new era actually began four years ago. True, Bush, a relic of the waning years of the previous era, was reelected. But immediately after his reelection, the American people repudiated his foreign policy and his domestic policy, including Social Security privatization. In 2006 the Democrats swept the Republicans out of Congress, and in 2008 they have recaptured the White House.
To be sure, every shift in partisan control of government does not amount to the founding of a new republic. Obama did not win a landslide or have long coattails. His coalition is a slightly larger version of the Democratic Party that was forged in the partisan realignment of 1968-72. And the public is still divided among liberals, moderates and conservatives much as it has been for a decade or two. But my scenario does not depend on Obama's election or even on Democratic control of Congress. The Fourth Republic might have gotten off to a start -- a bad start, but a start -- under Republican auspices.
Policy shifts, more than public opinion polls or election results, suggest that a truly transformative moment may be upon us. The first three American republics display a remarkably similar pattern. Their 72-year life span is divided into two 36-year periods (again, give or take a year -- this is not astrology). During the first 36-year period of a republic, ambitious nation-builders in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton strengthen the powers of the federal government and promote economic modernization. During the second 36-year phase of a republic, there is a Jeffersonian backlash, in favor of small government, small business and an older way of life. During the backlash era, Jeffersonians manage to modify, but never undo, the structure created by the Hamiltonians in the previous era.
We see this pattern of Hamiltonian nation-building and Jeffersonian backlash in the First, Second and Third Republics of the United States. Between 1788 and 1824, the ideas of the centralizing, nation-building Federalist Party of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton succeeded. Although Jefferson and his small-government allies controlled the White House and Congress for much of this period, in practice they implemented a streamlined, cheaper version of the Federalist plan for America. Jefferson's Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, for example, supported a program of infrastructure and industrialization not all that different from Alexander Hamilton's. And Jefferson himself, contradicting his small-government philosophy, exercised sweeping powers as president, purchasing the Louisiana Territory from France on his own initiative and promoting a federal embargo on U.S. exports to Britain and France. The first Jeffersonian backlash came later, under Andrew Jackson and his allies between 1824 and 1860.
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 triggered the secession of the South, the Civil War and Reconstruction -- the Second American Revolution and the founding of the Second Republic of the United States. During and after the Civil War, Lincoln's Republican Party remade the United States. In addition to crushing the South and freeing the slaves, the Republicans nationalized the banking system, promoted U.S. industry through high tariffs, carpeted the continent with federally subsidized railroads and used the sale of federal lands to pay for state colleges. From 1896, the Jeffersonian backlash against the system created by the Lincoln Republicans was led by Southern and Western agrarian populists and middle-class Progressives in the Northeast who, for different reasons, were alienated from the new order. While they achieved some reforms, the Jeffersonians failed to modify the essential features of the Lincoln-to-Hoover Second Republic.
The Third Republic of the United States was built by New Deal Democrats and liberal Republicans between 1932 and 1968. During the initial Hamiltonian phase, even more power was centralized in the federal government, which carried out national economic regulation, built power plants and electric grids, highways and airports, created Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, and used federal power to dismantle racial segregation. Inevitably the period of Hamiltonian reform was followed by a Jeffersonian backlash that lasted from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. Once again, populists and libertarians emphasizing different parts of the Jeffersonian legacy tinkered with the new order but failed to overturn it. Under Reagan and the second Bush, the right managed to cut income taxes and capital gains taxes. But their failure to shrink the size of post-New Deal government meant that their tax cuts, instead of inspiring less spending, merely produced enormous deficits.
George W. Bush was not only the final president of the Jeffersonian backlash period of Roosevelt's Third Republic, but the last president of the 1932-2004 Third Republic itself. The final president of a republic tends to be a failed, despised figure. The First Republic, which began with George Washington, ended with James Buchanan, a hapless president who refused to act as the South seceded after Lincoln's election. The Second Republic, which began with Abraham Lincoln, ended with the well-meaning but reviled and ineffectual Herbert Hoover. The Third Republic, founded by Franklin Roosevelt, came to a miserable end under the pathetic George W. Bush.
The election of 2004 was a fluke, like the election of 1824. The Jacksonian era -- that is, the Jeffersonian backlash period of the 1788-1860 First Republic -- began in 1824, even though John Quincy Adams became president after losing the popular vote to Andrew Jackson. (Jackson won the next two elections.) Likewise, the Fourth Republic arguably began in 2004, the narrow reelection of George W. Bush notwithstanding. 2008 is Year Four of the Fourth American Revolution.
If this analysis is right, what causes these cycles of reform and backlash in American politics? I believe they are linked indirectly to stages of technological and economic development. Lincoln's Second American Republic marked a transition from an agrarian economy to one based on the technologies of the first industrial revolution -- coal-fired steam engines and railroads.
Roosevelt's Third American Republic was built with the tools of the second industrial revolution -- electricity and internal combustion engines. It remains to be seen what energy sources -- nuclear? Solar? Clean coal? -- and what technologies -- nanotechnology? Photonics? Biotech-- will be the basis of the next American economy. (Note: I'm talking about the material, real-world manufacturing and utility economy, not the illusory "information economy" beloved of globalization enthusiasts in the 1990s, who pretended that deindustrialization by outsourcing was a higher state of industrialism.)
Naturally, the Americans alive during the founding of new American republics have other issues on their minds. The Civil War was fought over slavery, not steam engines, and the New Deal, for all of FDR's commitment to nationwide electrical power fed by hydroelectric dam projects, was animated by a vision of social justice. The broad outlines of technological and economic change merely provide the frame for the picture; the details depend on the groups that emerge victorious in political battles.
That is why it is too early to predict the outline of the Fourth American Republic. Its shape depends on the outcomes of the debates and struggles of the next generation. But it is possible to speculate about its life span. If the pattern of history holds, the Fourth Republic of the United States will last for roughly 72 years, from 2004 (or, if you like, 2008) to 2076. And if the pattern of the past holds, we will see a period of Hamiltonian centralization and reform between now and 2040, followed by an approximately 36-year long Jeffersonian backlash motivated by ideals of libertarianism and decentralization.
And even if I am right that the new era began four years ago, historians are likely to identify the first president of the Fourth Republic of the United States as Barack Obama, not George W. Bush. Obama may join Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the short list of American presidents who, thanks both to their own leadership and the fortuitous timing of their elections, presided over the refounding of the United States. Yes, he can.
The First Republic starts from 1788-1860 following the American Revolution. The Second Republic from 1860-1932 is founded by Abraham Lincoln that is marked by the Civil War and Reconstruction. The Third Republic began from 1932 - 2004 (too arbitrary) witness the New Deal and the Civil Right era.
Following the theory, the writer postulate that Obama will be the founder of the Fourth Republic of the United States.
I have previously offered, in similar vein but in a much simplistic and amateurish theory, that PRC is about to step into the third stage of development next year.
Unlike the Lind's theory, there is no Hamiltonian expansion and Jacksonian backlash simply for reason that PRC is too young, just 59 years old unlike the USA which is a double centurion.
Taking heed from the article below, maybe it will be more sophisticated to call it the Third Republic of the PRC to postulate my speculation of a politically reformed PRC.
My model is premised upon the Chinese concept of "sixty year cycle year" [甲子年] to disect the PRC in her first 60 years from 1949-2009. Each period lasted 30 years.
The First Republic was founded by Mao Zedong and lasted from 1949 to 1978. PRC is founded through the peasant revolution and ended by the crazy cultural revolution (officially ended in 1976). The Republic lasted for two more years under Hua Guofeng, Mao's annointed succesor until the return to power of Deng Xiaoping in late 1978. This is the revolutionary China
It follows that the Second Republic was founded by Deng Xiaoping who initiated the reform and liberation that transform the PRC into the factory of the world that we know of today.
Following my theory, the Second Republic shall be succeeded by the Third Republic next year. It is too early to speculate if Hu Jintao is the founder of the Third Republic as he has more than a year to politically reform the country.
After Obama's victory, I am now also a hopemonger, this time for a liberal and democratic China.
********************************************
Obama and the dawn of the Fourth Republic
His victory really may mark the beginning of a new era in American history.
By Michael Lind
Nov. 7, 2008 WASHINGTON -- The election of Barack Obama to the presidency may signal more than the end of an era of Republican presidential dominance and conservative ideology. It may mark the beginning of a Fourth Republic of the United States.
In the past generation Bruce Ackerman, Theodore Lowi and I, in different ways, have used the idea of "republics" to understand American history. Since the French Revolution, France has been governed by five republics (plus two empires, a directory and a fascist dictatorship). Since the American Revolution, we Americans have been governed by several republics as well. But because we, like the British, pay lip service to formal continuity more than do the French, we pretend that we have been living under the same government since the federal Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1787-88. Our successive American republics from the 18th century to the 21st have been informal and unofficial.
As I see it, to date there have been three American republics, each lasting 72 years (give or take a few years). The First Republic of the United States, assembled following the American Revolution, lasted from 1788 to 1860. The Second Republic, assembled following the Civil War and Reconstruction (that is, the Second American Revolution) lasted from 1860 to 1932. And the Third American Republic, assembled during the New Deal and the civil rights eras (the Third American Revolution), lasted from 1932 until 2004.
Yes, you read that correctly -- 2004, not 2008. A case can be made that the new era actually began four years ago. True, Bush, a relic of the waning years of the previous era, was reelected. But immediately after his reelection, the American people repudiated his foreign policy and his domestic policy, including Social Security privatization. In 2006 the Democrats swept the Republicans out of Congress, and in 2008 they have recaptured the White House.
To be sure, every shift in partisan control of government does not amount to the founding of a new republic. Obama did not win a landslide or have long coattails. His coalition is a slightly larger version of the Democratic Party that was forged in the partisan realignment of 1968-72. And the public is still divided among liberals, moderates and conservatives much as it has been for a decade or two. But my scenario does not depend on Obama's election or even on Democratic control of Congress. The Fourth Republic might have gotten off to a start -- a bad start, but a start -- under Republican auspices.
Policy shifts, more than public opinion polls or election results, suggest that a truly transformative moment may be upon us. The first three American republics display a remarkably similar pattern. Their 72-year life span is divided into two 36-year periods (again, give or take a year -- this is not astrology). During the first 36-year period of a republic, ambitious nation-builders in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton strengthen the powers of the federal government and promote economic modernization. During the second 36-year phase of a republic, there is a Jeffersonian backlash, in favor of small government, small business and an older way of life. During the backlash era, Jeffersonians manage to modify, but never undo, the structure created by the Hamiltonians in the previous era.
We see this pattern of Hamiltonian nation-building and Jeffersonian backlash in the First, Second and Third Republics of the United States. Between 1788 and 1824, the ideas of the centralizing, nation-building Federalist Party of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton succeeded. Although Jefferson and his small-government allies controlled the White House and Congress for much of this period, in practice they implemented a streamlined, cheaper version of the Federalist plan for America. Jefferson's Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, for example, supported a program of infrastructure and industrialization not all that different from Alexander Hamilton's. And Jefferson himself, contradicting his small-government philosophy, exercised sweeping powers as president, purchasing the Louisiana Territory from France on his own initiative and promoting a federal embargo on U.S. exports to Britain and France. The first Jeffersonian backlash came later, under Andrew Jackson and his allies between 1824 and 1860.
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 triggered the secession of the South, the Civil War and Reconstruction -- the Second American Revolution and the founding of the Second Republic of the United States. During and after the Civil War, Lincoln's Republican Party remade the United States. In addition to crushing the South and freeing the slaves, the Republicans nationalized the banking system, promoted U.S. industry through high tariffs, carpeted the continent with federally subsidized railroads and used the sale of federal lands to pay for state colleges. From 1896, the Jeffersonian backlash against the system created by the Lincoln Republicans was led by Southern and Western agrarian populists and middle-class Progressives in the Northeast who, for different reasons, were alienated from the new order. While they achieved some reforms, the Jeffersonians failed to modify the essential features of the Lincoln-to-Hoover Second Republic.
The Third Republic of the United States was built by New Deal Democrats and liberal Republicans between 1932 and 1968. During the initial Hamiltonian phase, even more power was centralized in the federal government, which carried out national economic regulation, built power plants and electric grids, highways and airports, created Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, and used federal power to dismantle racial segregation. Inevitably the period of Hamiltonian reform was followed by a Jeffersonian backlash that lasted from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. Once again, populists and libertarians emphasizing different parts of the Jeffersonian legacy tinkered with the new order but failed to overturn it. Under Reagan and the second Bush, the right managed to cut income taxes and capital gains taxes. But their failure to shrink the size of post-New Deal government meant that their tax cuts, instead of inspiring less spending, merely produced enormous deficits.
George W. Bush was not only the final president of the Jeffersonian backlash period of Roosevelt's Third Republic, but the last president of the 1932-2004 Third Republic itself. The final president of a republic tends to be a failed, despised figure. The First Republic, which began with George Washington, ended with James Buchanan, a hapless president who refused to act as the South seceded after Lincoln's election. The Second Republic, which began with Abraham Lincoln, ended with the well-meaning but reviled and ineffectual Herbert Hoover. The Third Republic, founded by Franklin Roosevelt, came to a miserable end under the pathetic George W. Bush.
The election of 2004 was a fluke, like the election of 1824. The Jacksonian era -- that is, the Jeffersonian backlash period of the 1788-1860 First Republic -- began in 1824, even though John Quincy Adams became president after losing the popular vote to Andrew Jackson. (Jackson won the next two elections.) Likewise, the Fourth Republic arguably began in 2004, the narrow reelection of George W. Bush notwithstanding. 2008 is Year Four of the Fourth American Revolution.
If this analysis is right, what causes these cycles of reform and backlash in American politics? I believe they are linked indirectly to stages of technological and economic development. Lincoln's Second American Republic marked a transition from an agrarian economy to one based on the technologies of the first industrial revolution -- coal-fired steam engines and railroads.
Roosevelt's Third American Republic was built with the tools of the second industrial revolution -- electricity and internal combustion engines. It remains to be seen what energy sources -- nuclear? Solar? Clean coal? -- and what technologies -- nanotechnology? Photonics? Biotech-- will be the basis of the next American economy. (Note: I'm talking about the material, real-world manufacturing and utility economy, not the illusory "information economy" beloved of globalization enthusiasts in the 1990s, who pretended that deindustrialization by outsourcing was a higher state of industrialism.)
Naturally, the Americans alive during the founding of new American republics have other issues on their minds. The Civil War was fought over slavery, not steam engines, and the New Deal, for all of FDR's commitment to nationwide electrical power fed by hydroelectric dam projects, was animated by a vision of social justice. The broad outlines of technological and economic change merely provide the frame for the picture; the details depend on the groups that emerge victorious in political battles.
That is why it is too early to predict the outline of the Fourth American Republic. Its shape depends on the outcomes of the debates and struggles of the next generation. But it is possible to speculate about its life span. If the pattern of history holds, the Fourth Republic of the United States will last for roughly 72 years, from 2004 (or, if you like, 2008) to 2076. And if the pattern of the past holds, we will see a period of Hamiltonian centralization and reform between now and 2040, followed by an approximately 36-year long Jeffersonian backlash motivated by ideals of libertarianism and decentralization.
And even if I am right that the new era began four years ago, historians are likely to identify the first president of the Fourth Republic of the United States as Barack Obama, not George W. Bush. Obama may join Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the short list of American presidents who, thanks both to their own leadership and the fortuitous timing of their elections, presided over the refounding of the United States. Yes, he can.
Is 7.2%* winning margin huge?
KH correctly points that Obama creates and not just competes.
Most agree that Obama assembled and ran the best political campaign in history after he took on the two most established political force in America politics - the Clintons and the GOP that ruled America in the last 28 years.
I will offer my five cent worth of analysis attributing his success to his earlier experience.
As a lawyer, he masters the rules, churning out large number of early voters against McCain (that gave him victory at least in NC).
As a community organizer, he creates the largest political volunteer corp and raises the largest political donation through very early use of the best technology available.
As a basketball player, he takes the game to the opponent by executing the 50 states strategy.
As a self-made political entrepreneur, his no drama campaign organization personify his very own self-discipline (one commentator liken him to Putin's self discipline in a complimentary way).
To top them all, he speaks like Abraham Lincoln/JFK (recall "a more perfect union", "a world that stands as one", his 2004& 2008 DNC speeches), that mesmerize hundred of thousands included folks like us who are non-americans.
It is always easy to attribute reasons for success post-facto.
There are aspects in which the success is partly influenced by the fortuitous circumstances. I concede fortune does favor those who are best prepared. In this case, it is Obama.
To be fair to McCain, losing by 6.9% margin is very respectable considering the financial meltdown beginning from Sept. He did himself no favor by conceding two own goals - one on selecting Palin and the other on his poor handling of the crisis. (Popular vote margin for Bush 2.4% (2004) and -0.5% (2000) ; Clinton 8.5% (1996) and 5.3% (1992); Bush Sr. 7.8% (1988); Reagan 18.2% (1984) and 9.7% (1980).
Playing the devil advocate, I am wondering had Palin not on the ticket or the meltdown beginning with Lehman come two months later, will Obama still win with what is now known as the best political campaign team in history?
One answer is that I am reminded that American is a center right country (seen from the ban on gay marriage from California to Florida) and Barack Obama is a center left candidate.
I will be glad to learn of other perspective.
*The winning margin has been revised fourth time since Nov 4 from the original 6.4%.
Most agree that Obama assembled and ran the best political campaign in history after he took on the two most established political force in America politics - the Clintons and the GOP that ruled America in the last 28 years.
I will offer my five cent worth of analysis attributing his success to his earlier experience.
As a lawyer, he masters the rules, churning out large number of early voters against McCain (that gave him victory at least in NC).
As a community organizer, he creates the largest political volunteer corp and raises the largest political donation through very early use of the best technology available.
As a basketball player, he takes the game to the opponent by executing the 50 states strategy.
As a self-made political entrepreneur, his no drama campaign organization personify his very own self-discipline (one commentator liken him to Putin's self discipline in a complimentary way).
To top them all, he speaks like Abraham Lincoln/JFK (recall "a more perfect union", "a world that stands as one", his 2004& 2008 DNC speeches), that mesmerize hundred of thousands included folks like us who are non-americans.
It is always easy to attribute reasons for success post-facto.
There are aspects in which the success is partly influenced by the fortuitous circumstances. I concede fortune does favor those who are best prepared. In this case, it is Obama.
To be fair to McCain, losing by 6.9% margin is very respectable considering the financial meltdown beginning from Sept. He did himself no favor by conceding two own goals - one on selecting Palin and the other on his poor handling of the crisis. (Popular vote margin for Bush 2.4% (2004) and -0.5% (2000) ; Clinton 8.5% (1996) and 5.3% (1992); Bush Sr. 7.8% (1988); Reagan 18.2% (1984) and 9.7% (1980).
Playing the devil advocate, I am wondering had Palin not on the ticket or the meltdown beginning with Lehman come two months later, will Obama still win with what is now known as the best political campaign team in history?
One answer is that I am reminded that American is a center right country (seen from the ban on gay marriage from California to Florida) and Barack Obama is a center left candidate.
I will be glad to learn of other perspective.
*The winning margin has been revised fourth time since Nov 4 from the original 6.4%.
Spirit of Democracy 4/11/2008
Here is a short homage to the spirit of democracy as demonstrated on Nov 4:
"Senator Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face.
I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited." Sen. McCain. 4 Nov 2008
When we woke up on Wednesday 5 Nov 2008, as I dressed my daughter Ning, I had Sen. McCain to thank for being able to tell her about graciousness in defeat. More than victory, this is the mark of statesmanship and the democratic spirit. It reminded me of something my father said after Reagan defeated Carter in 1980, when I was merely a year older then than Ning is now. He said the best thing about Western countries is that people are always behave like a gentlemen; even when they lose they always shake hands and congratulate the winner. I remember that.
And from President-elect Obama himself, here are my favourite excerpts (bold added on my favourite emphasis):
"What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change."
"And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too."
"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, ..... our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope."
".... one that’s on my mind tonight’s about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.
And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.
Yes we can. America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment."
What struck me the most was that last part,...what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
"Senator Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face.
I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited." Sen. McCain. 4 Nov 2008
When we woke up on Wednesday 5 Nov 2008, as I dressed my daughter Ning, I had Sen. McCain to thank for being able to tell her about graciousness in defeat. More than victory, this is the mark of statesmanship and the democratic spirit. It reminded me of something my father said after Reagan defeated Carter in 1980, when I was merely a year older then than Ning is now. He said the best thing about Western countries is that people are always behave like a gentlemen; even when they lose they always shake hands and congratulate the winner. I remember that.
And from President-elect Obama himself, here are my favourite excerpts (bold added on my favourite emphasis):
"What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change."
"And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too."
"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, ..... our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope."
".... one that’s on my mind tonight’s about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.
And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.
Yes we can. America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment."
What struck me the most was that last part,...what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Create Not Just Compete
Now that you reminded me my posting was from July, I dug it up and reviewed it again: http://tanky18.blogspot.com/2008/07/polls-and-predictions.html and I am glad not to find any embarassing bloopers in hindsight.
The list of battleground states I listed went almost wholly to Obama - except MO which he missed by a few thousand votes - and in almost the same order that I had speculated from the July polls. Although in hindsight OH weakened somewhat in Aug/Sep and then took some time before moving back; VA moved decisively in September and stayed there; likewise for FL although the less decisively but I was well-surprised by NC which eventually joined IN in the touch-and-go-for-Obama category.
Observing the campaign over the final 2 months, it seemed eerie that whenever Obama decide to spend sometime in Sep-Oct, he end up moving the state into his category. My preferred explanation is that they have a better feel for the ground by virtue of having a bigger field presence on the ground. So they have an direct sense of what is possible from talking to thousands of real people rather than relying on polls. I would add that theory as a further tactical advantage to the Obama campaign from investing in the biggest and the best ground operation in US history.
I wonder if you read this link I sent to you earlier of a first hand account of an Obama field operation. http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/546# I was truly inspired by how many people the Obama campaign have inspired on the personal level simply by working on the campaign and experiencing the sheer power of their organizational culture: Respect, Empower, Include. From that posting I got a glimpse of the sense of awe people felt when they uncover their own hidden abilities and talents. The gift of a well-run organization with such as strongly positive organizational culture is they helped to lift-up "ordinary" people by giving them enough faith/self-belief to discover just how extraordinarily gifted they really are. For many people, it is a big break to be told, "you are good, now see if you can upgrade and do this..." These simple acts of faith in others are gifts that will last a lifetime and be passed on to their family and children. It is not enough just to say, "yes we can". I believe the Obama campaign walk-the-talk that every day by believing in and empowering people.
The pundits will be dissecting the Obama campaign for years to come, but here is what I believe are the real reasons they won: (i) they invested in the campaign infrastructure, (ii) build-up their people not just with skills but with real leadership training, and (iii) find and create opportunity not just competing in a zero-sum game. This has been consistent since Obama's first meeting with his team in 2007, he laid down his principles: respect everyone, include and empower as much as possible and "no drama". As managers, we have to take our hats off to what he created.
This is what I wrote to Linda on Oct 16, 2008 (hey, thats your birthday!):
"We have a ring side seat as the US goes through an interesting time. Often it is described as a 'difficult' time - which i am sure is true for many, one of great dislocation, suffering and challenges. But looking back in history such times (1930s, 1960s, 1970s, early 1990s) are also periods when a lot of creativity is unleashed, new paths explored, society are reminded to renew its purpose.
May be its good people make do with less, use more public transport, buy a smaller car or live in a smaller house, spend time on activities that don't cost money, that not every bright young thing goes to work for Wall Street or a hedge fund..etc etc. May be the next few years will be a time when people explore perviously ignored forms of abundance.
At least in the US, I believe 2008 will be remembered and not just passed by, not just for the financial crisis but also the presidential election which is reengaging a lot of people to think about the kind of society they want to see. The Obama run is inspiring a lot of pent up idealism and passion and he has built a vast volunteer network of young people built on empowerment, leadership training and harnessing the internet...as a management system I am learning a lot."
The idea of "create not compete" is a poweful one.
If you recall Obama's race with HRC. He won because only he paid attention to the smaller states which caucus during the 4 weeks after Super Tuesday. It is not mutually exclusive. Yes, he also competed in every state but he created his own opportunity by expanding the map to find delegates in new places.
Again, when he started to invest attention in IN, VA, CO, NV, NC, GA, SD, MT many people thought he was throwing money away, but in the end he won 5 of those worth 53 electoral votes or more than FL+OH. Why? because he believes in creating new opportunity in places where the barriers to entry are low(er) and people are more likely to appreciate his attention; instead of just competing for votes in FL, PA and OH. Besides, he successfully forced his opponent to expend resources fighting a 7 headed dragon. By October, Obama had created 7 different pathways to winning [Kerry states + IA + NM + any one of (CO/VA/OH/FL/IN/NC/MO)] and it was next to impossible to pour resources into closing the gap in any one of them without letting others slip away.
Another example is creating new voting base. In addition to registering new voters late 2007, they explored the opportunities in early voting. The Obama campaign took advantage of new rules on early voting to run up votes among groups that historically are less-likely to vote, the sporadic voters. These are usually racial minorities or people in shift/low-skill work where they normally could not affort to take time off to vote. As far as the Obama campaign's concerned, for at least two whole weeks "every day is voting day" and every day they keep getting people to vote even if it takes more than one try. I believe that is how they pushed NC and FL over the top; and drove up the margins in NV, CO and OH. In fact, back in early October the Obama campaign moved their top people to FL (and shifted their attention slightly away from OH) because as they explained it, they already had enough voters in FL and all they had to do was turn them out.
Finally, Pollster.com had this chart:
This chart shows the final polls estimate by Pollster.com (using their algoritam base on public polling results) and compared with the actual results (as of today, 6 Nov because some ballot counting are still going on).
See the places where Obama over-performed compared to the polls: NM, NV, IN, OH, FL, PA (but not NC and VA - but well within polling margin for error), they tend to be in places where the Obama campaign invested heavily in field operations and early voting.
And especially with NV, NM, PA (but not CO although that too is within margin of error), the effect is that he built up a "cushion of winning margin" such that even if the national polls come to a tie, i.e. assuming instead of winning the popular vote by 6.1% it was a tie and assuming that means we take 6% off the winning margin for every state, he would still end up winning the presidency with 278 electoral votes.
Now that is the power of a "create not just compete" strategy.
The list of battleground states I listed went almost wholly to Obama - except MO which he missed by a few thousand votes - and in almost the same order that I had speculated from the July polls. Although in hindsight OH weakened somewhat in Aug/Sep and then took some time before moving back; VA moved decisively in September and stayed there; likewise for FL although the less decisively but I was well-surprised by NC which eventually joined IN in the touch-and-go-for-Obama category.
Observing the campaign over the final 2 months, it seemed eerie that whenever Obama decide to spend sometime in Sep-Oct, he end up moving the state into his category. My preferred explanation is that they have a better feel for the ground by virtue of having a bigger field presence on the ground. So they have an direct sense of what is possible from talking to thousands of real people rather than relying on polls. I would add that theory as a further tactical advantage to the Obama campaign from investing in the biggest and the best ground operation in US history.
I wonder if you read this link I sent to you earlier of a first hand account of an Obama field operation. http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/546# I was truly inspired by how many people the Obama campaign have inspired on the personal level simply by working on the campaign and experiencing the sheer power of their organizational culture: Respect, Empower, Include. From that posting I got a glimpse of the sense of awe people felt when they uncover their own hidden abilities and talents. The gift of a well-run organization with such as strongly positive organizational culture is they helped to lift-up "ordinary" people by giving them enough faith/self-belief to discover just how extraordinarily gifted they really are. For many people, it is a big break to be told, "you are good, now see if you can upgrade and do this..." These simple acts of faith in others are gifts that will last a lifetime and be passed on to their family and children. It is not enough just to say, "yes we can". I believe the Obama campaign walk-the-talk that every day by believing in and empowering people.
The pundits will be dissecting the Obama campaign for years to come, but here is what I believe are the real reasons they won: (i) they invested in the campaign infrastructure, (ii) build-up their people not just with skills but with real leadership training, and (iii) find and create opportunity not just competing in a zero-sum game. This has been consistent since Obama's first meeting with his team in 2007, he laid down his principles: respect everyone, include and empower as much as possible and "no drama". As managers, we have to take our hats off to what he created.
This is what I wrote to Linda on Oct 16, 2008 (hey, thats your birthday!):
"We have a ring side seat as the US goes through an interesting time. Often it is described as a 'difficult' time - which i am sure is true for many, one of great dislocation, suffering and challenges. But looking back in history such times (1930s, 1960s, 1970s, early 1990s) are also periods when a lot of creativity is unleashed, new paths explored, society are reminded to renew its purpose.
May be its good people make do with less, use more public transport, buy a smaller car or live in a smaller house, spend time on activities that don't cost money, that not every bright young thing goes to work for Wall Street or a hedge fund..etc etc. May be the next few years will be a time when people explore perviously ignored forms of abundance.
At least in the US, I believe 2008 will be remembered and not just passed by, not just for the financial crisis but also the presidential election which is reengaging a lot of people to think about the kind of society they want to see. The Obama run is inspiring a lot of pent up idealism and passion and he has built a vast volunteer network of young people built on empowerment, leadership training and harnessing the internet...as a management system I am learning a lot."
The idea of "create not compete" is a poweful one.
If you recall Obama's race with HRC. He won because only he paid attention to the smaller states which caucus during the 4 weeks after Super Tuesday. It is not mutually exclusive. Yes, he also competed in every state but he created his own opportunity by expanding the map to find delegates in new places.
Again, when he started to invest attention in IN, VA, CO, NV, NC, GA, SD, MT many people thought he was throwing money away, but in the end he won 5 of those worth 53 electoral votes or more than FL+OH. Why? because he believes in creating new opportunity in places where the barriers to entry are low(er) and people are more likely to appreciate his attention; instead of just competing for votes in FL, PA and OH. Besides, he successfully forced his opponent to expend resources fighting a 7 headed dragon. By October, Obama had created 7 different pathways to winning [Kerry states + IA + NM + any one of (CO/VA/OH/FL/IN/NC/MO)] and it was next to impossible to pour resources into closing the gap in any one of them without letting others slip away.
Another example is creating new voting base. In addition to registering new voters late 2007, they explored the opportunities in early voting. The Obama campaign took advantage of new rules on early voting to run up votes among groups that historically are less-likely to vote, the sporadic voters. These are usually racial minorities or people in shift/low-skill work where they normally could not affort to take time off to vote. As far as the Obama campaign's concerned, for at least two whole weeks "every day is voting day" and every day they keep getting people to vote even if it takes more than one try. I believe that is how they pushed NC and FL over the top; and drove up the margins in NV, CO and OH. In fact, back in early October the Obama campaign moved their top people to FL (and shifted their attention slightly away from OH) because as they explained it, they already had enough voters in FL and all they had to do was turn them out.
Finally, Pollster.com had this chart:
This chart shows the final polls estimate by Pollster.com (using their algoritam base on public polling results) and compared with the actual results (as of today, 6 Nov because some ballot counting are still going on).
See the places where Obama over-performed compared to the polls: NM, NV, IN, OH, FL, PA (but not NC and VA - but well within polling margin for error), they tend to be in places where the Obama campaign invested heavily in field operations and early voting.
And especially with NV, NM, PA (but not CO although that too is within margin of error), the effect is that he built up a "cushion of winning margin" such that even if the national polls come to a tie, i.e. assuming instead of winning the popular vote by 6.1% it was a tie and assuming that means we take 6% off the winning margin for every state, he would still end up winning the presidency with 278 electoral votes.
Now that is the power of a "create not just compete" strategy.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A Great Moment
What a moment! What a journey and what a man!
Thank goodness for Barack Obama!
Last night, so many of the ideals I cherish gained a new and brighter meaning. Meritocracy, equality, democracy, opportunity, imagination, grace, purpose, dreams, possibility, America ... they all mean so much more...and so much more differently today than yesterday.
And I have rarely been so moved by a great speech as the one Obama delivered at Grant Park, Chicago. It was powerful not with oratory but with strength and purpose. I am glad Bro, you have posted it already.
Last night, so many of the ideals I cherish gained a new and brighter meaning. Meritocracy, equality, democracy, opportunity, imagination, grace, purpose, dreams, possibility, America ... they all mean so much more...and so much more differently today than yesterday.
And I have rarely been so moved by a great speech as the one Obama delivered at Grant Park, Chicago. It was powerful not with oratory but with strength and purpose. I am glad Bro, you have posted it already.
When he said, "a new dawn of America's leadership", I think of the Obama logo. Yes, its always been about a new dawn.
It is a testament to the maturity of the American nation that finally, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, to judge a man not by the colour of his skin but by the contents of his charater. And it is a powerful testament that like probably nowhere else in this world, this is a place where people do not see the world as it is, but as what it can be. A lifelong admirer of America, I am a new admirer of America today, in its ability to progress and change.
It is a testament to the maturity of the American nation that finally, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, to judge a man not by the colour of his skin but by the contents of his charater. And it is a powerful testament that like probably nowhere else in this world, this is a place where people do not see the world as it is, but as what it can be. A lifelong admirer of America, I am a new admirer of America today, in its ability to progress and change.
It was 232 years since the Declaration of Independence, 221 years since the US Constitution was adopted, 145 years since Lincoln signed the Emancipation Declaration abolishing slavery and only 45 years ago when Martin Luther King, Jr. made his "I have a dream speech" and racial segregation was widespread. If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today he would only be 79 years old. To witness this amount of progress within a person's lifetime is truely breathtaking. This simple calculation calls into question where other nations have been during this same time? What progress have been made towards unity and equality? How much effort has our own nations made against division and prejudice? And what can be done to do better by simply doing the right thing?
I felt lucky to be witnessing change - for the better - and there will be more but it will depend on no one but each and every one of us doing the right thing.
At this point, I have a confession to make. I have been an mega-election junkie. It may not be apparent from the blog because I consciously avoided writing about it so as not to jinx it! My daily diet was 538.com, Politico, The Page, Stumper, Swampland, RCP, Huffington Post and Pollster. Now I can recite the electoral votes of Nebraska (5, 3 of which distributed by congressional seats), demographic patterns of certain swing counties and battleground states, and all the pathways for each candidate to win. It is going to be interesting figuring out what next for this hobby.
Finally, I could not resist referring to a posting I made earlier estimating the effects of Obama's ground game to be worth between 2 % and 5 %; the results in NC, FL, OH and IN showed that to be quite true, especially NC and IN. NV, CO, NM, VA, OH and FL was won by increasing voter registration. NC and IN on that as well as turnout. Obama wins not just by inspiration but also prespiration: for 2 years he meticulously built, inspired and trained an army of volunteers (estimated to be 1.5m people) to develop his support bit by bit in these states. Obama shows a new way: you create your own opportunity not just compete. That is a fine lesson for us all.
The Three Links towards Peace
Taiwan and the mainland signed agreements on Nov 4 to pave ways for completing the outstanding two out of the so-called three links - trade, transport and postal - that was banned by the KMT government after losing the civil war.
Under the agreements, both sides across the Strait agree to full direct flight, direct cargo flight, direct shipping, direct postal and also to establish cross-strait cooperation on the latest concern on the food safety.
Bravo to both sides for making this happen.
The next thing is to call for an official truce and followed by the grand slam political settlement.
My fear is that some Pan-Green supporters may turn extremist and resort to terrorism to destabilize the cross-strait relationship. The security forces and intelligence agencies of both sides got to be cautious.
In Hong Kong, some newspapers are lamenting about the losses to Hong Kong following the historic deal. Currently, most of the flights and postal link are via Hong Kong. These papers are just microscopic.
Under the agreements, both sides across the Strait agree to full direct flight, direct cargo flight, direct shipping, direct postal and also to establish cross-strait cooperation on the latest concern on the food safety.
Bravo to both sides for making this happen.
The next thing is to call for an official truce and followed by the grand slam political settlement.
My fear is that some Pan-Green supporters may turn extremist and resort to terrorism to destabilize the cross-strait relationship. The security forces and intelligence agencies of both sides got to be cautious.
In Hong Kong, some newspapers are lamenting about the losses to Hong Kong following the historic deal. Currently, most of the flights and postal link are via Hong Kong. These papers are just microscopic.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Obama's Victory - A Day to Rejoice
At 12.20 pm Nov 5, 2008, Hong Kong time, John McCain gave his concession speech.
At 1 pm, Barack Obama stepped up with his loving family to a huge crowd at Grant Park to give his acceptance speech.
This is a perfect ending of a beginning.
I noticed Obama wearing a red tie (Biden's blue), surely more than a symbol to call for an United States beyond what he often said a divided nation of the blue states and the red states.
Just heard Obama saying America wins not by sheer force or wealth but by democracy, liberty, opportunity and the unyielding hope. So apt, so true, so much to be admired and so inspiring!
***********************************
Obama's acceptance speech
Hello, Chicago.
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.
It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.
We are, and always will be, the United States of America.
It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America.
A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Sen. McCain.
Sen. McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.
I congratulate him; I congratulate Gov. Palin for all that they've achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart, and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next first lady Michelle Obama.
Sasha and Malia I love you both more than you can imagine. And you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the new White House.
And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight. I know that my debt to them is beyond measure.
To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.
And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe, the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best -- the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America.
To my chief strategist David Axelrod who's been a partner with me every step of the way.
To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.
I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.
It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.
It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.
This is your victory.
And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me.
You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.
Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.
There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education.
There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.
I promise you, we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.
But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.
It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.
Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.
In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.
Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.
Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.
As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.
That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people
who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.
And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.
Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see?
What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.
This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of
Monday, November 3, 2008
ROC's Hereditary Office Holder dies
Kung Teh-cheng, the Confucius's 77th direct lineal descendant passed away at 88 years old on Oct 28, 2008.
Kung held a hereditary office with a mouthful of a title in Chinese, 「大成至聖先師奉祀官」, or simply the Sacrificial Official to Confucius, leading the annual official ceremony honoring the sage on his birthday in the Republic of China.
This is the only public office inheritable in the ROC created in 1935 to replace the imperial peerage of Duke Yansheng, 「衍聖公」, first created by the Sung's Dynasty in 1055.
The imperial peerage was bestowed to the eldest male of Confucius's direct lineage. The tradition is honored ever since the Sung Dynasty and continue into the modern form by the ROC.
Though the office is more symbolical than substantial, more ritual than actual, being an advocate of meritocracy and also a proponent for the separation of state and religion (Confucianism is sometimes mistaken for a religion), I would humbly suggest that this office should cease without a single dint of disrespect to Confucius and his descendants.
As I am gradually developing my identify as a liberal Confucianist, I am nevertheles of the view that China should remain secular and meritocratic.
The rationale of the imperial peerage is very much centered at the ruling class' patronage of Confucianism as an imperial doctrine justifying and ordering the state and the society. There was, I suppose, as much similar consideration when this hereditary office was created by the KMT government under Generalismo Chiang in 1935.
The role of this office is more appropriately belonged to the Kung's family, clan and/or his followers in the form of an NGO outside the government domain. It is inappropriate to sanction this office in the republican era into a hereditary public office.
In my opinion, it is legitimate and I am in support for the government to promote the teaching of Confucius including creating Confucius Academy everywhere like the PRC or honoring Confucius by declaring a public holiday as the Confucius Day.
前考試院長、孔子77代嫡孫 孔德成病逝
(2008/10/29 00:03)
生活中心／台北報導
前考試院長、大成至聖先師奉祀官孔德成，28日上午10點50分，因為心臟衰竭，安詳辭世台北新店慈濟醫院，享年89歲。靈堂暫設慈濟醫院地下二樓助念堂。
中國宋代獨尊儒術，自宋仁宗至和二年起，孔子家族嫡長孫世襲「衍聖公」爵位，以彰顯孔子德教，弘揚儒家精神；國民政府時期，民國24年1月18日將「衍聖公」改為「大成至聖先師奉祀官」，明令孔德成擔任奉祀官並宣誓就職，迄今已73年。
這也是我國目前僅存的世襲特任官。 內政部表示，奉祀官的設立具有傳承孔孟道統，發揚儒家思想之重要意義，主要任務為出席祭孔釋奠典禮，擔任奉祀官職務。
孔德成民國9年生，曾任教台大、輔大和東吳等校研究所，擔任考試院長9年，畢生致力於儒學之倡導與傳承，3年前，因為行動不便，未再出席祭孔大典。2008年台北孔廟祭孔大典，由他的秘書鄭毅明出席代為上香。
另由其長孫、孔子第79代嫡孫孔垂長擔任孔廟「崇聖祠」主祭官。
Kung held a hereditary office with a mouthful of a title in Chinese, 「大成至聖先師奉祀官」, or simply the Sacrificial Official to Confucius, leading the annual official ceremony honoring the sage on his birthday in the Republic of China.
This is the only public office inheritable in the ROC created in 1935 to replace the imperial peerage of Duke Yansheng, 「衍聖公」, first created by the Sung's Dynasty in 1055.
The imperial peerage was bestowed to the eldest male of Confucius's direct lineage. The tradition is honored ever since the Sung Dynasty and continue into the modern form by the ROC.
Though the office is more symbolical than substantial, more ritual than actual, being an advocate of meritocracy and also a proponent for the separation of state and religion (Confucianism is sometimes mistaken for a religion), I would humbly suggest that this office should cease without a single dint of disrespect to Confucius and his descendants.
As I am gradually developing my identify as a liberal Confucianist, I am nevertheles of the view that China should remain secular and meritocratic.
The rationale of the imperial peerage is very much centered at the ruling class' patronage of Confucianism as an imperial doctrine justifying and ordering the state and the society. There was, I suppose, as much similar consideration when this hereditary office was created by the KMT government under Generalismo Chiang in 1935.
The role of this office is more appropriately belonged to the Kung's family, clan and/or his followers in the form of an NGO outside the government domain. It is inappropriate to sanction this office in the republican era into a hereditary public office.
In my opinion, it is legitimate and I am in support for the government to promote the teaching of Confucius including creating Confucius Academy everywhere like the PRC or honoring Confucius by declaring a public holiday as the Confucius Day.
前考試院長、孔子77代嫡孫 孔德成病逝
(2008/10/29 00:03)
生活中心／台北報導
前考試院長、大成至聖先師奉祀官孔德成，28日上午10點50分，因為心臟衰竭，安詳辭世台北新店慈濟醫院，享年89歲。靈堂暫設慈濟醫院地下二樓助念堂。
中國宋代獨尊儒術，自宋仁宗至和二年起，孔子家族嫡長孫世襲「衍聖公」爵位，以彰顯孔子德教，弘揚儒家精神；國民政府時期，民國24年1月18日將「衍聖公」改為「大成至聖先師奉祀官」，明令孔德成擔任奉祀官並宣誓就職，迄今已73年。
這也是我國目前僅存的世襲特任官。 內政部表示，奉祀官的設立具有傳承孔孟道統，發揚儒家思想之重要意義，主要任務為出席祭孔釋奠典禮，擔任奉祀官職務。
孔德成民國9年生，曾任教台大、輔大和東吳等校研究所，擔任考試院長9年，畢生致力於儒學之倡導與傳承，3年前，因為行動不便，未再出席祭孔大典。2008年台北孔廟祭孔大典，由他的秘書鄭毅明出席代為上香。
另由其長孫、孔子第79代嫡孫孔垂長擔任孔廟「崇聖祠」主祭官。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)