BREXIT and US Elections: The Specter of Donald Trump.

"In cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked 'twixt son and father". The immortal Bard's lines in King Lear capture best the Brexit shenanigans and the quote literally sums up the events leading to and after Brexit. While there is much that is yet to happen as a consequence of the vote to leave the EU, the vote and how it happened carries important lessons for the American voter in the upcoming US Presidential Election.

First, how did what was seen as unthinkable finally happen? Is the Brexit vote a reflection of a democratic upsurge where the commoners have said a resounding 'no' to the elite who, supposedly, operated like a cabal, unmindful of the interests and well being of common citizenry?

The Brexit vote, above all, as the German magazine Der Spiegel pointed out, illustrates the perils of direct democracy and the virtues of representative democracy. Democracy, with good reason, is still considered. The Economist magazine in a special set of articles on California argued that California's tradition of turning any policy proposal into a Ballot Initiative has made the state virtually ungovernable with nearly 80% of the state's revenues apportioned by commitments to outcomes of Ballot Initatives leaving little wiggle room for administrations to undertake discretionary expenditures. Thus one of the world's largest economies is stuck in a budgetary quagmire.

If votes on Civil Rights and desegregation were left to direct democracy we'd still be living in racist America. If Kennedy had taken a referendum on nuking Khrushchev's USSR he might have received an overwhelming yes and ended the world as we know it. If FDR had gone to the people to ask if the Hitler menace should be ended before subduing Japan he'd have been voted out of office. On the other hand it was representative democracy and the channels of pressure it exerted on elected officials that kept US out of what was seen as 'European war' for long and thus making the effort to destroy Hitler that much more difficult. Seeing a Churchill still lost in his dreams of maintaining an empire the British voter denied him a mandate for the reconstruction of war torn Britain. Representative Democracy, with all its shortcomings, provides the just balance between mobocracy and titular dictatorships.

'Don't trust the experts' was the mantra of the Brexit leaders. Expert after expert warned of the consequences of a Brexit and the repeated retort was always "do you know better than the collective will and what wisdom can rival the collective will of the people".

The so called experts have earned a justifiably bad rap especially in the aftermath of the 2008 financial that brought an economic super power to its knees. Ivy League economists provided the theoretical framework for what later came to destroy the American economy. When the GOP played with brinkmanship by refusing to raise America's debt ceiling and trigger a default by the world's richest economy and thus set in motion an economic apocalypse the ratings agencies warned Americans of impending doom. GOP legislators guffawed on TV on the incredulousness of the same ratings agencies that played a vital role in causing the greatest recession since the Great Depression putting themselves as arbiters of what is sensible. The disdain of the experts for the common voter is another recurrent theme that has much validity. Jonathan Gruber, a key expert and architect of Obama's signature legislation, 'The Affordable Care Act', told an audience that Americans were sold on the healthcare reform with promises of cost containment but in reality that was not at all goal and the goal was only to expand healthcare. Gruber, very damagingly confessed, that telling the truth and leveling with the voter would not have garnered the required public support.

Politicians who say one thing on the campaign trail only to govern differently in office is another popular complaint and the Brexit vote was seen as a resounding "no more" to such politicians. Obama campaigned so shrilly against NAFTA and trade pacts that the Canadians were alarmed that a president Obama would abrogate the treaty. Yes, before Trump and Sanders there was a Obama. Obama dispatched Austan Goolsbee, who later served as economist in Obama administration, in secrecy, to the Canadian embassy to assure them that he has no intention of ripping up the NAFTA. A revelation like that would've sunk Hillary Clinton's candidacy but America was in love with Obama. As President Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has negotiated a trade pact that would go down in American history as the largest trade pact.

All of the above can be rebutted.

From intellectuals who whitewashed the horrors of Communism to Ivy League economists who created the Financial crises they were all unmasked or exposed by other experts, not by the uninformed voter. Distrust of experts has now degenerated into crass anti-intellectualism. On this side of the Atlantic the supporters of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump hold it as a badge of honor to distrust experts and extend their distrust to open hostility to any expert who questions the rationale of the plans floated by their candidates. It is now par for the course to besmirch any non-compliant expert as 'part of the establishment', 'the system'. Left leaning economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman lamented how Sanders's supporters militantly threw mud at any economist disagreeing with Sanders's plans and most importantly the costs.

The Infamous lie

If voters don't want candidates to sugar coat it or tell lies then they should start getting educated and that means stepping out of echo chambers. The day after casting a Brexit vote the most searched term in google was "what is EU?" The average Britisher voted in a referendum without even knowing what the EU was. This is dangerous illiteracy. In a way Gruber is correct. Towns that depended on EU subsidies cheerfully voted to exit. A key promise by the Brexit leaders was that they'd divert millions of pounds, that they said is being sent to EU, to supporting Britain's NIH. Boris Johnson traveled and campaigned with a bus that had the promise painted on it in large, very large, letters. A day after the Brexit vote Nigel Farage openly accepted that there is no such diversion because the promise was, simply put, a lie. Experts had cried hoarse on that only to be ignored.Trump's promises of negotiating debt, threatening NATO allies to put up money, constructing a wall, barring Muslim immigrants, deporting a 11 million Hispanics are all cockamamie schemes that are mere fantasies and can cause immense harm to the economy.

If politicians changing once in office is a crime then the Brexit campaigners are equally guilty. Once they got what they wanted the Brexit leaders sheepishly walked back their key promises. "Stopping immigration", 'Not so fast'. "Dissociating from EU completely", 'Not so fast, we need access to the single market'. An incredulous TV anchor gave Nigel Farage a real 'What the F**k' look after he walked back each of those promises. And oh despite the eagerness to unhitch themselves from the EU the Brexit campaign really, to the consternation of the EC, wants to slow walk the divorce.The Guardian newspaper ran a column titled "A pyrrhic victory? Boris Johnson wakes up to the costs of Brexit".

Here's a message to the Bernie-or-bust voters who, taking their cue from a Hollywood actress and airhead, Susan Sarandon, think that a Trump presidency might usher in the revolution quicker, by virtue of destroying everything in his way, if Bernie does not get to the Oval office. This is lunacy. A Tory minister ridiculed the protest voters who voted for Brexit nonchalantly thinking that "it would be a vote for remain, he would be seen as having stood up for principle". Each vote counts and every voter should vote carefully. Thinking "I'll vote as protest and hope to God that somehow the sane verdict prevails and I'll be safe to brag about my principled protest vote". Remember Bernie supporters who shun Hillary, Gore lost Florida and the Presidency by a few hundred votes. Every vote counts. Vote your conscience, yes, but don't vote thinking somebody might hold his or her nose and vote for the less objectionable candidate and thus prevent Trump from entering the oval office while you get to cast a 'protest vote' that you can boast about over drinks at a pub.

Did doomsday arrive in England? Yes and no. Yes, the experts were correct. A market meltdown occurred and the pound crashed. Nearly 2 Trillion dollars in market capitalization was wiped out. The day after Brexit saw a very interesting and in some sense tragic role reversals. Post-Brexit the 'exit' cheer leaders were less than eager to take over the country and make good on their promises. On the other hand the 'remain' campaigners who had roped in the experts to predict doomsday were left fending off doomsday. Today Cameron and Obama are acting responsibly to contain the damage because unlike Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage they have a conscience and could not unconscionably sit back and chuckle "I told you so" because lives are affected. When Trump says he'll renegotiate US sovereign debt he betrays his idiocy that makes him think that US debt is like the debt of a realtor who has the luxury of telling his creditors "well I have no intention of paying in full but here's what I can pay". Even a suggestion by a US president that the US will not make good on it's debt will send seismic shock waves into the world market and destabilize the dollar as the global currency in which other countries hold their debt, all of which would make any candidate think twice before speaking but not for a bloviating idiot like Trump.

From LA Times article. The infamous poster showing Muslim immigrants.

Here is what the Brexit cheerleaders did achieve though. Britain was plagued by a rash of racist incidents fueled by xenophobia. When Trump and Farage talk in dog whistle terms about past glory they are voicing a 'white' rage against nations that are changing fast, demographically. Immigration was front and center in Brexit campaign. A notorious poster showed Syrians streaming into Britain by the thousands. Immigration from other EU countries, a freedom guaranteed by the single market, was another reason. It is no wonder that the Brexit vote pivoted on age with the youth voting to remain while the older voters going for the exit. The young college graduate needs access to opportunities across the borders and has less interest in protecting the British character. Also the Islamophobia that the Brexit campaigners unleashed was exactly like what Trump is doing. It'd do good to remember that the worst terrorist attacks on English soil were carried out by the Irish. Today the Muslim immigrant appears outlandish to the Brit and American but not too long ago the Irish, the Asian (especially Chinese) were seen likewise in America. Terrorism and immigration are indeed legitimate  concerns but demagoguery not only does disservice to the debate it perverts the debate. A curious irony in the Brexit vote and the Trump phenomenon is that both Johnson and Trump are the products of elite educational institutions.

British author Frederick Forsyth cheerfully told America's public radio station NPR that for all the doomsday predictions UK will be just fine and that the youngsters of today do not know of a time when Britain was doing just fine, alone. Forsyth is a hypocrite. He, more than any common Britisher, enjoys the fruits of a globalized world market. His books sell across borders and he signs movie deals. 'Day of the Jackal' was a Anglo-French production while 'Odessa File' was an Anglo-German production. What Forsyth enjoys he has now denied to the graduates of England. Shame on you Forsyth.

The treason that the Bard alluded to finally came to the fore when the "exit" cheer leaders suddenly found themselves facing victory and a PM who resigned. Michael Gove undermined Boris Johnson, who was widely seen to be a solo-in to 10 Downing street if the 'exit' campaign won, and was finally undermined himself. Meanwhile the labor party too erupted into full blown revolt over how ineffectually Jeremy Corbyn campaigned on behalf of the 'remain' camp and thus lost the war for unity.

The American electorate is divided along racial, educational, income and age more than ever before. And the lines are hardening pretty fast. It is fashionable for Americans to lament that their legislators don't compromise but when it comes to electing those who compromise it is the American voter who cheers purists like Sanders or a pretend purist like Trump.

What is the message for Hillary Clinton and Obama from Brexit? It is foolish to rubbish the Brexit vote as merely the revolt of the uninformed voter and xenophobia. The first principle of democracy is to respect the choice of a people. Globalization and technology have completely changed our lives but they also have upended lives by destroying vast swathes of jobs in the economy. There is real palpable anxiety amongst voters, especially those without a college degree. Obama is paying the price for his demagoguery on trade because now when he wants to pass a historic trade pact he's running into demons he had unleashed. A positive case to be made for globalization and trade. Governments need to find effective ways of ensuring that it's citizenry have a stake in the economy and not feel left behind. Obama is rising to the task of unmasking the danger Trump poses to the republic. Clinton is yet to find her voice. Clinton's trust deficit with voters is an impediment for her.

                                           Obama on Donald Trump: "Where does this stop"

Recent appearances by Obama show a marked trait in how he speaks. Obama takes long pauses, pregnant pauses, in between sentences and they seem to indicate that he thinks the danger of Trump's racism is real and grave and at the same time he's incredulous that many in the GOP are not standing up against it. On the other hand Trump doesn't know what a pause is when speaking. Clinton doesn't pause between sentences because she's delivering canned responses that she thinks she needs to say in order to appear presidential.

As voters head to the polls in November they need to do their homework, they need to question their candidates, question their own assumptions and then vote with sincerity. This election is a war for the heart and soul of America. Will America show the world that it takes more than a billionaire demagogue to destroy America?

A Guardian columnist, in a column titled 'There are liars and there's Boris Johnson and Michael Gove", quoted the lines of Rudyard Kipling:

I could not dig; I dared not rob: 
Therefore I lied to please the mob. 
Now all my lies are proved untrue 
And I must face the men I slew. 
What tale shall serve me here among 
Mine angry and defrauded young?

We could as well close with the foreboding lines of the Irish poet W.B. Yeats from his 'Second Coming'

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
.............
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

References:

1. A pyrrhic victory? Boris Johnson wakes up to the costs of Brexit http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/a-pyrrhic-victory-boris-johnson-wakes-up-to-the-costs-of-brexit
2. 'Voters in one fading port town wonder whether they were misled on Brexit' https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/voters-in-one-fading-port-town-wonder-if-they-were-misled-on-brexit/2016/06/26/fb0971de-3a42-11e6-af02-1df55f0c77ff_story.html
3. British steel town that got millions from the EU, but voted to leave anyway http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-britain-eu-subsidies-20160701-snap-story.html
4. 'After Brexit vote, U.K. sees a wave of hate crimes and racist abuse' http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/06/29/484038396/after-brexit-vote-u-k-sees-a-wave-of-hate-crimes-and-racist-abuse

India's Donald Trump, Aravindan Neelakandan, and Tragedy in Orlando

Even as the nation was barely coming to terms with an unfolding tragedy in Orlando, where a Muslim man shot dead 49 at a night club frequented by gays, Donald Trump tweeted self-congratulatory notes about being correct on terrorism. India's own Donald Trump, Aravindan Neelakandan, was not to be left behind. Neelakandan wrote a hate filled screed that is shameful, bigoted and plain nonsense, dangerous nonsense.

On June 12th Omar Mateen walked into 'Pulse', a gay nightclub, and mowed down 49 victims with a semi-automatic gun. Several are in grave condition in hospitals around Orlando. Mateen was shot and killed by a SWAT team. Donald Trump, a shameful bigoted nominee of the Republican party, trafficked innuendos that included alluding to Mateen being an immigrant, Mateen was born in US. America. To America's credit, Trump's innuendos are inviting a backlash.

It is complete idiocy to act as if Mateen, a Muslim, was singularly homophobic due to his religion. America has its fair share of homophobia that has nothing to do with Islam. Violence against homosexuals has a sordid history in America. From Matthew Shepard (1998) to Tyler Clementi (2010) gays have paid a very tragic price for their sexuality. Notably, Shepard was killed by Christians, Clementi was driven to suicide by Asians, a Chinese and a Tamil Hindu, at Rutgers University.

Aravindan Neelakandan (Photo Courtesy https://bharatabharati.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/aravindan-neelakandan.jpg)

Trump and many Americans, and Neelakandan, are screaming 'terrorism', 'radical islam' for what Mateen did. Yes, it is terrorism. But what do we call the massacre of blacks in a church by white supremacist Dylan Roof? Why is the latter only grudgingly called 'racism' or more politely 'gun violence' but not terrorism? Yes, the duo of San Bernardino who killed office goers are terrorists. But what do we call a guy who opens fire on movie goers in a theater? America has a gun problem. To pretend that a guy who attributes his killing to a religion is somehow more dangerous than others is dodging a key problem. Sure, let's not dodge radicalization but let's not dodge other sicknesses too that result in such loss of life.

If Mateen's homophobia is to be blamed on radical Islam, or just Islam, what do we call the Evangelicals of America who froth at their mouth against marriage equality? Incidentally, homosexuality remains criminalized in Aravindan Neelakandan's India.

Neelakandan's Islamophobia turns him into an apologist for even the LTTE, a murderous terrorist organization that was known for ruthless assassinations with complete disregard for human life. In order to satisfy the itch of his Islamophobia Neelakandan nonchalantly states that LTTE even while carrying out assassinations takes care to "minimize human losses"with "meticulously planned attacks". This viper which spews hatred argues that if only the attack against Rajeev Gandhi had gone according to plan only Rajiv and the suicide bomber would've died. This is nonsense. The assassin had a belt bomb that used ball bearings and projectiles designed to kill not just the intended victim but anybody in the radius so effectively that Rajiv could not have escaped death. The LTTE stood exposed as a murderous outfit when it used the very people that it was supposed to liberate as human shields and even started shooting at the same people when they sought to escape to the safety of the Sri Lankan troops. Why am I surprised at the mendacity of Neelakandan, after all, he swears by the organization that was an inspiration to the assassin of Gandhi.

Neelakandan details gruesome acts by terrorists, including a pregnant woman being shot dead. He happily forgets that Hindus in Gujarat unleashed equally murderous and similar grotesque deeds against Muslims. While he plays psychologist diagnosing that even if one escapes a terrorist attack the "trauma" of the killers eyes that singled you out for your faith will leave an indelible mark, he cooly forgets that it was a marauding band of Hindu politicians who embarked on an unprecedented genocide in nowhere but the very capital of the nation against hapless individuals whose only fault was that they were Sikhs. We would do well to remember that one of the worst airline related tragedies was courtesy the Sikhs in Canada. Hindu policemen murdered in cold blood youth, whose only mistake was that they were Muslim, in Hashimpura and not a single one was convicted. Thousands of Muslims were massacred in Nellie and the report is still classified secret. When Muslims perpetrate terror attacks the perpetrators, and many times several innocents too, face the iron hand of Indian law but more often than not when it is Muslims who have faced attacks the Indian state, both Congress and BJP governments, have done little to bring the guilty to book.

The murder of Kashmiri Pandits, by Muslim Kashmiri separatists, is indeed a blood soaked chapter in the history of Kashmir. While Neelakandan weeps for them he happily forgets how Muslims evacuated villages as the juggernaut of Advani's Rath Yatra rolled inexorably towards Ayodhya.

Hinduism is "inherently pluralist, democratic and inherently secular" claims Neelakandan. This is absolute myth. No religion is inherently pluralist or democratic or secular. Pluralism and secularism, the corner stones of a liberal nation-state, are modern ideas that were enshrined in Indian constitution by not just Nehru but including other men who were far greater than Neelakandan, or me.The women and children who were burned in Keezhvenmani will completely disagree with Neelakandan's Goebbelsian propaganda. Neelakandan claims that the RSS, a neo-nazi organization, supports decriminilazing homosexuality and extends his fantasy claim to assert that even those who disagree with that sexuality "concede that it is a personal matter" and then chides Islam as being uncomfortable with such pluralism. Narendra Modi, Neelakandan's political idol, rules with a brute majority in the Parliament, pray, why has he not then moved a legislation to decriminalize homosexuality in India? How many rallies or agitations has RSS undertaken to further the cause of LGBT community? Compare that to how many times RSS supporters and office holders speak about Hindu causes.

Supporting Israel is another bogey for the Hindutva brigade. While I support Israel I'd say that it is hideous to whitewash what happened to Palestinians over the decades. I wish Palestinians had had better leaders but that said the tears shed by Neelakandan for Israel are just crocodile tears. Reducing the hatred of Palestinians towards Israel as "more to do with the theological hatred Islamism bears towards Jews than land issues" is sheer mendacity.

An interesting news that caught my eye recently was Hindus in India praying for the election of Donald Trump as America's president because they believe that Trump will defend America from what they consider as the menace of Islam. The Hindutva far right, of whom quite a few live in US too, is cheering Trump without realizing that the bigotry and xenophobia that Trump is unleashing will affect Indians too. America, I hope, will defeat Trump.

The hypocrisies of the Hindutva group in US needs mention. Neelakandan's co-author of a recently published book is a US resident and complete supporter of everything he dishes out. Recently she had shared on her Facebook page an anti-Islamic rant by a white American asking why should America accommodate the beliefs of Muslim immigrants. I asked her does she, a Hindu and therefore a minority in US, realize that she expects US to accommodate her beliefs? Indians take immense pride when the White House celebrates Diwali and even schools in Hindu majority neighborhoods in US declare Diwali a holiday. Corporations now celebrate Diwali and one should see Hindu workers turn out in all their finery and lecture to wide eyed Americans about the greatness of Indian culture.

Despite all the Trump related noise there is hope in America. The Lt. Governor of Utah, a deeply conservative state, gave a moving speech in the wake of the Orlando shooting. He recounted how growing up in a small town he used to mock gays in his school days and apologized for not having known better. People like Spencer Cox and Barack Obama, yes I mean that, will leave America a better place. I know there are sensible people in India too and they fight the good fight against the Neelakandans who are trying to destroy India. May the will of good people prevail over the hate mongers.

References:

1. Orlando Tragedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
2. Neelakandan's article http://swarajyamag.com/world/at-the-heart-of-jihadi-terror-hatred-for-pluralism#.V16yH0z4HjE.facebook
3. Matthew Shepard -- Gay student beaten, tortured and left to die for being gay -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
4. Tyler Clementi -- Gay student at Rutgers University, committed suicide after being outed by a Chinese and an Indian student -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi
5. Utah governor's apology for mistreating gays in school days http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/15/482207689/watch-utah-lt-governor-apologizes-for-past-attitude-toward-gay-people

Defeating Donald Trump is a Moral imperative.

"His imagination should not be married to power". With words of rare eloquence and passion Mitt Romney summed up why Donald Trump's candidacy threatens the bedrock of American democracy. Defeating Trump is not a political choice but a moral imperative and here's why.

Every election year we hear that this is the most important election of our lifetime but 2016 election is, without a doubt, the election of our lifetimes. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are riding a wave of discontentment fueled by voters anger against the so-called 'establishment' and 'status-quo'. Trump and Sanders are easily interchangeable but for the mendacity and racism that undergirds Trump's candidacy. Sanders and Trump's positions on trade and foreign policy, two of America's most important pillars, are absolutely alike. They both have stoked a resentment towards establishment candidates and the parties themselves that seek to be standard bearers of. Both have literally hijacked the parties they seek to represent. Yet, it is Trump who literally threatens the heart and soul of America and therefore defeating him is a moral choice.

"He tells it like it is" say his supporters. Nothing is further from truth. Trump says what voters want to hear and without filters. Trump has made a virtue of being politically incorrect and his voters swoon with admiration that he's tearing up the playbook. When he was booed at a debate Trump sneered, with contempt dancing on his lips, "all lobbyists and supporters of Jeb". He was right. Tickets for being in debate audiences were often sold to lobbyists, campaigns and volunteers. What no candidate would've had the chutzpah to state bluntly Trump gladly stated and dismissed unfavorable audience reaction. Like many things with Trump he is correct once and wrong many times over. His 'tell it like it is' was less about stating inconvenient truths and more about flinging offensive accusations, blatant racism and sexism.

Trump launched his candidacy by informing America that Mexicans are rapists and vowed that he'd deport millions of illegal immigrants. In a country where the politically correct term for an illegal immigrant is 'undocumented immigrant' Trump's offensive became refreshing candor. While it is liberalism run amuck to object calling an illegal immigrant by the word "illegal" it is beyond indecency to call a people as 'rapists'. It is naked bigotry and accepting it because he serves it alongside with a dish of boldness is exactly the stupidity that'll unmake a great country. What is worse Trump cites the controversial programs of the Eisenhower era to support the feasibility of deporting millions. That program was unmitigated humanitarian disaster and America, at large, will simply not tolerate it today. China has a wall that was built to fend of invaders and therefore building a wall will be panacea to America's immigration mess says Trump and, to the lusty cheer of his supporters, he adds that he'll make "Mexico to pay for the wall". Pressed on how he'd make Mexico pay for it Trump cites the trade deficits with Mexico as a leverage. Damn the consequences of a trade war.

Both Sanders and Trump rail against trade agreements like NAFTA as having robbed America's jobs. Trump in addition rants that American negotiators, unlike him, the author of 'The art of the deal', were weak and every other country practically took advantage of US. When I watched a documentary of Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev at Reykjavik I wondered if Obama, famously aloof, would ever do such a thing. The trans-pacific-pact is a grand achievement that serves important economic and strategic goals of US. Trump said that China, which is not a part of the deal, had the better part of the deal. Why bother with knowing the details when empty sloganeering with dollops of outrage is all the electorate needs?

Why should America , asked Trump, defend South Korea and Japan while their cars, not American cars, take the lion's share of American car buying. Both Sanders and Trump conveniently forget that Japanese cars, more expensive than American cars, are the choice of American consumers who benefit from better quality vehicles being available. A little realized fact is that Hondas and Nissans are now mostly made in America. And, they are sold in America by the same rights that GM enjoys in selling in China and India.

Trump shocked foreign policy orthodoxy when he suggested that South Korea and Japan acquire nuclear weapons of their own. A nuclear arms race in South Asia is the last thing the world needs. After apoplectic reactions ricocheted across the world Trump gave an incoherent back track.

Sanders and Trump rail against NATO, the most successful military alliance in human history. Yes, it has been a long standing complaint that Europe takes a free ride on American military expenditure but no one in their sane mind has suggested, precisely when Russia and China are threatening global peace, torpedoing the grand military alliance.

Building a wall, tearing up NAFTA, withdrawing from NATO would all be acceptable nonsense and even an artless blunt way of speaking about issues in an attention grabbing way. All of that while enough to disqualify him for the Presidency what make him dangerous is his non-policy related vitriol. Policy related insanity can be stopped by Congress and other institutions but the democratic institutions of any country, including a 200 year old republic, are no match to racist rhetoric.

ISIS is beheading hostages so it is OK to waterboard them or kill their families said Trump. When CIA chief said that his organization will not follow any illegal order even if it is the commander-in-chief issuing them Trump blustered that as President he has the right to issue any order. I was reminded of Richard Nixon's "when the President does it, it is not illegal".

I was watching Oliver Stone's largely fictional 'Nixon' and it dawned on me that Donald Trump is more dangerous than Richard Nixon.

A sickening refrain I hear from his supporters is that he'll be more presidential once he gets the nomination or the presidency. We're told by his admirers that all this vulgarity and pugnacity is for show and that unbeknownst to us there is a gentleman to boot within Trump's persona that is waiting to taking front seat once he sits at the Oval office. This is absolute cockamamie bullshit and Nixon was proof of it.

Richard Nixon believed and practiced slash and burn politics. Nixon, the president, it turned out, was no different from Nixon the candidate. Speaking of his democratic opponent, a lady, Nixon said "she's pink down to her underwear". In office Nixon referred to Indira Gandhi, a leader he loathed, will even worse epithets. Trump wants to make it easy to sue for libel and give the First Amendment a knock. Richard Nixon's henchmen cast the press as enemies and went at the press with gusto. Race baiting was par for the course for Richard Nixon and Trump follows suit. In office Nixon was no different.

During the heated presidential race of 2008 rumors flew about Sarah Palin's youngest child and about the pregnancy of her teenage daughter. Obama unequivocally said "family is off limits". When a supporter spoke of Obama as a Muslim McCain objected and said "No" to the supporter. Campaigns have played nasty about families but never before has it been done directly by the candidate himself. In fact candidates go to great lengths to distance themselves from the troops who malign opponents, just to appear presidential. Hypocritical as it may seem we little realize that the sense of shame that makes candidates behave so is the last remaining defense against a president become the attack dog himself.

When a Super PAC released half-naked photos of Trump's wife Trump, after threatening to 'spill the beans' on Ted Cruz's wife, retaliated by sending tweet of an unflattering photo of Ted Cruz's wife alongside a stunning photo of his wife. All lines of decency has been breached by Trump. To add to it all, he, without any evidence, accused the Ted Cruz campaign of having coordinated with the Super PAC, a federal crime, to release those photos of his wife from a photoshoot she did in her days as a model. Accusing an opponent of federal crime and then disgracing his wife for her looks shows that Trump, in pursuit of the office, will not only slash burn but practically adopt a Hannibal like scorched earth policy.

Let us assume for a moment that Trump indeed becomes presidential after getting the nomination should we then forget and forgive these transgressions. Absolutely no. If we did that we'd have only condoned the attitude of unleashing a spectrum of despicable behaviors in the pursuit of office. A victory does not and never should it validate abandoning principles in it's pursuit. Never in human history has anyone achieved victory dishonorably only to behave honorably in office. Dishonorable candidates have been worse in office. Richard Nixon is a stark reminder of that.

Both Sanders and Trump are proving to be sore losers when it comes to how they talk of possibly losing the nomination thanks to the labyrinthine rules of the primary processes in each party. While the primary processes of each party can do with some reforms it is churlish when candidates complain of the process when they lose. Sanders's supporters, equally mercenary like and very willfully blind to logic like Trump voters, threaten revolting against the nominee if it's not their candidate. A key difference is that Trump, unlike Sanders, is openly threatening violence at the convention. Whatever the merits in Trump's complaints be, threatening violence unless he gets his way is a dangerous attitude that even Nixon did not show.

The 1960 election was a nail biting close one and charges of voter fraud against JFK, especially in Chicago, flew thick and fast and yet, even Richard Nixon, shied away from contesting the election. While Al Gore tried every constitutional method to change the verdict in Florida there came a point where even he yielded in the larger interest of the nation. To both Nixon and Gore the country was above party and the presidency was above satisfying personal ambition. Don't expect such grace from Trump. He'd rather leave the country dismembered than subjugate his volcanic ego. This is not portrayal of strong leadership but dangerously naked megalomania.

Politicians have always had contentious and even confrontational relationships with journalists and media houses. During a campaign stop in 2000 Bush was overheard on an open microphone, which he did not know was open, referring to New York Times journalist Adam Clymer unflatteringly and Dick Cheney agreeing. What they'd say behind closed doors Trump will do on twitter for all world to see. Trump's conduct of hurling abuses at Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly has been the most interesting sub-plot of this election. From accusing that her tough questioning of him during a debate was because she was menstruating ('she has blood coming out of her wherever')to ranting that he's overrated he has made it a personal crusade between himself and her. Again, that Bush would be careful to say something in what he thought was a private moment and not in public is not hypocrisy or being weak. Spouting off whatever crosses one's mind in a moment is not how ordinary citizens conduct themselves in their daily lives with their spouses, colleagues and kids, let alone presidents or candidates running for the highest office of the land. Now, think about whether Richard Nixon said anything close to Trump's tweets about Washington Post or Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

Who was the last American presidential candidate who talked on a debate stage about the size of his hands and that of his genitals? Who was the last candidate who relished giving his opponents offensive nicknames? Lying Ted. Low energy Jeb. Short Marco. Crooked Hillary. Would we condone our kids behaving like that? Why should we accept from a presidential candidate what we would not accept from our kids? We teach our kids that being a bully is not being strong. How do we accept schoolyard taunts from a candidate? Today it is his political opponents and tomorrow it very well could be Angela Merkel or David Cameron. Presidents and Prime Ministers speak colorfully of their counterparts in private meetings but when such comments are leaked a full blown damage control will be unleashed. Again, and again, by obliterating what people do in private and in full public glare and by promoting it as 'telling it like it is' we are promoting a bully.

The Trump rhetoric is seeping into the public conscience and already reports are coming out that school kids are adopting his rhetoric. In Wisconsin, a Fox news report says, at a high school girls soccer match "a group of students yelled 'Donald Trump' and 'Build the wall' at rival Latino players". The report says that similar incidents occurred in high school basketball games in Indiana and Iowa. The report adds that an analysis by Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks racial incidents, showed that 'of 5000 comments from teacher across the country' a staggering '1000 of them mentioned Trump as a factor in spreading racial and religious tension'.

Trump nonchalantly cites FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor as precedence for treating Muslim-Americans differently. Are Americans concerned about terrorists using refugees as cover to infiltrate? Of course, yes. But to pander to fear and to fuel it by proposing an embargo on Muslims is sheer bigotry. In a moment of sweet irony now even democrats, including Obama, are citing how George Bush conducted himself very carefully after 9/11 and went to great lengths to show that America is not at war with Islam. Muslims serve in US military and CIA and Muslim neighborhoods in US have cooperated with FBI is combating terror.

I recently visited Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and saw a moving exhibit about letters that Japanese-American fathers wrote to their sons who joined the all-Nisei 100th infantry battalion. A father wrote, "do your best for your country (America). Die if you must. Live, if you can, but whatever you do, do not bring haji (shame) to the family. Your country, the honor of your family comes first". Let us remember that the most famous and longest running incidents of espionage in FBI and CIA were carried out by white Americans.

Mitt Romney was hounded all through 2008 for being the CEO of Bain Capital, a private equity firm that specialized in Leveraged Buy Outs. He was pilloried endlessly for the layoffs at firms that Bain took over. Romney always nervously explained how he created jobs 'net-net'. Private equity firms are literally the last resort of failing firms and therefore in the inevitable restructuring that follows. Watching a passionate and eloquent  Romney making the case for why Trump should not be elected many muttered "we'd not be here if only he had shown such passion and eloquence in getting himself elected". Where Romney was shy to explain the virtues of private equity Trump supplied bombast and bravado when asked to explain the bankruptcies of his firms. Trump thumped his chest and said that as businessman he was smart to use the available legal options for shutting down non-profitable businesses. The audience cheered as he added that having used the loopholes he's knowledgeable to fix American economy. Oy vey, why not elect Bernie Madoff and the long list of corporate crooks? America, with good reason does not 'elect' CEOs and with even better reasons does not 'select' CEOs to be Presidents.

Romney himself unwittingly provides the best evidence of the dangers of accommodating a little evil in the hope that it is just objectionable and nothing serious. Trump endorsed Romney in 2012 for the presidency. At that time Trump was notorious for what is called 'birther' nonsense, questioning that Obama was not qualified to be president because he was not, contrary to all evidence, a natural born US citizen. When such basic indecency is tolerated as a passing fad we should not be surprised when it mutates into something monstrous as mendacity without limits. Trump hit back at Romney saying that if he had asked Romney to "drop down" on his knees for that endorsement in 2012 Romney would've gladly done so.

The United States Holocaust Memorial quote's a text from Pastor Martin Neimoller to illustrate the dangers of accommodating evil because it is directed at somebody else.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me"

If Romney had repudiated Trump when he was insulting the President of the United States as unqualified he could've occupied an unsullied moral pedestal from which if he had issued his condemnations they would've had a unrivaled moral strength.

I vividly remember how Lal Krishna Advani stoked the fires of religious separatism in pursuit of political office. In office as Deputy Prime Minister Advani's conduct was irreproachable but the Frankenstein's monster he had unleashed continues reverberate and create tremors in the Indian polity. Nixon created the EPA, the darling of today's leftists; wanted to implement universal healthcare, an obsession for Sanders today; created history by opening relationships with China and yet he's rated as the worst president in US history for the many wrongs he inflicted on humanity and democracy and all his wrongs stemmed from Nixon's own twisted megalomania married to power. America and the world can ill afford another Richard Nixon.

Donald Trump may become the nominee of the Republican Party or even, god forbid, the President but he'd have done so without my vote. I owe this to my conscience and to my daughter.

Donald Trump's Candidacy and America's Intellectual Decline

How did Donald Trump, a bloviating billionaire, become a viable candidate for the US presidency in a country that boasts of the American Philosophical Society and The Metaphysical Club? The candidacy of Donald Trump was born on the day Bill Clinton decided to court the youth vote by appearing on MTV and answering whether he preferred boxers or briefs. Democrats are chortling that Trump resembles the GOP and preening intellectuals are tittering that Trump will lead GOP to an electoral rout not seen since the days of FDR. Trump is not the product of GOP and nor is he a problem for the GOP. Trump is a creation of America's intellectual decline and resembles America, not just one or the other party. All that remains is for a 21st century Richard Hofstadter to reprise a retelling of 'Anti-Intellectualism in America'.

Benjamin Franklin established the American Philosophical Society in 1743 and the Metaphysical Club was first established by Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1872. Both were supposed to foster vigorous intellectual debate and provide the nascent country with intellectual inputs. Thomas Jefferson was instrumental in establishing the Library of Congress and felt that legislators should've access to a library to read and enlighten themselves before legislating. Donald Trump is incapable of any intellectual thought or vision and yet he is a serious candidate for a national party. How did this happen?

Donald Trump

The coarsening of debate and an all pervading shallowness in conversation are both the contributions of a social media fueled 24 hour news cycle. There was a time when Milton Friedman, no less, ran a series of shows dedicated to very serious discussion on economics with guests like Thomas Sowell. Friedman's show 'Free to choose' was legendary in dethroning liberal economics with feisty, lively and deeply intellectual debate on how 'progressive policies' where anything but progressive. And then there was William F. Buckley Jr's 'Firing Line' with wit, verve and intellectualism. Buckley's on-air vitriolic feud with Gore Vidal had all the fireworks that one would expect when ideological apostles of clashing world views joust intellectually. It is a sad decline that in today's America what makes for controversy is a woman moderator being berated vulgarly by an air-headed billionaire.

Newt Gingrich acidly told financial journalist Mario Bartiromo, during a debate where she moderated, in 2011 that nobody in the news media asked "one single intelligent question to the 'Occupy Wall Street' crowd". The 'Occupy' movement was a rag tag motley crowd with a collective IQ on economics that was almost zero. Yet, the media lionized them without any serious intellectual scrutiny of their addled ideas or idiotic policy prescriptions. Is the connection between media leaving 'Occupy' crowd unchallenged and the rise of Trump as a candidate, a tenuous or far fetched one? No. Not at all. When one kind of vacuous demagoguery is accepted in the name of challenging 'the establishment' it is impossible to prevent another demagogue doing the same.

When highly respected and very professional anchor John King, CNN, opens a presidential debate with a question on the private life of a candidate and get's singed on live-TV by the sharp tongued candidate we can understand why the media is the favorite punching bag for the extremes in both left and right. Newt Gingrich went on to win the South Carolina primary solely because of that on-air explosion. This is the same media that gave Barack Obama an unprecedented latitude because of his historic candidacy. At one debate Hillary Clinton mocked the media for its softball questions to Barack Obama. She asked "why don't you give him a pillow".

A sickening feature of the rise of the Trump candidacy is the role of the media. On the one hand anchors breathlessly comment on how the man adds nothing to the debate, how he is a problem for a party that's trying to reach out to minorities and then goes to the same man for interviews because, as he rightly brags, he's a 'ratings machine'. Trump has been invited by CNN's Wolf Blitzer to comment on serious issues so many times in the past as if he had anything to contribute. The media created Trump and is now acting like the GOP created him. Only Huffington Post had the guts to say it'll stop covering Trump as a candidate for the presidency but will feature him in the entertainment section.

The rise of Huffington Post as a news portal is the best summary of America's intellectual decline. The Huffington Post is nothing but a web aggregator and does no original journalism, lives off the journalistic efforts of other news organizations, and makes more money than them. How does one intelligently talk of the roots of the 2008 financial crisis in a country where Huffington Post exists?

The media circus during the 2008 heated primaries featuring Obama and Clinton showed the shallowness of the debate. Supporters and partisans from each camp were invited on primary nights and other times to pow-wow on-air by networks. Pray, since when did mud fights by partisan hacks become worthy of being labeled political debate? Yet, no anchor challenged Barack Obama on serious issues like campaign finance. As a long shot candidate Obama had signed a pledge that if elected as nominee he'd take public financing for the general election. Then, nominee Obama, rolling in cash, refused to do just that despite being reminded of the pledge by a far underfunded opponent. Nobody in the media sought to pin him on the hypocrisy. And Obama gleefully dished out policies that everyone loved to hear but nobody thought he'd seriously implement. Obama talked tough on appointing lobbyists until he appointed one. He pontificated loftily on how he'd bring about health care reform with discussions on live TV until he discovered the virtues of backroom deals. He railed and ranted against NAFTA and then slyly sent his economic adviser to the Canadian embassy to assuage fears that he might tear up NAFTA. Now, the same guy is trying to sign the largest trade deal.  Is it any wonder then that the people have little or no faith in the media? Faced with double speaking politicians it is no wonder that a guy who speaks his mind, however offensively, catches the imagination of the people and is rewarded for being gutsy.

If Mitt Romney had had half the guts of Donald Trump he'd be sitting in the Oval office today. Romney was repeatedly cornered in debates by his opponents and moderators for how his firm 'Bain Capital' conducted business. He was repeatedly asked to explain job losses at firms his company bought over and he was tarnished as 'vulture capitalist'. What many conceded in private and what was true was that the nature of his business was exactly that. Private Equity firms are called in as a last resort by a hemorrhaging firm to restructure and become viable. This naturally involves layoffs. Asked about lenders losing money when his companies declared bankruptcy Trump cheerfully told the moderator "look, these lenders are not small time investors". He essentially said "they know what game they are playing". That was ballsy. The audience  loved it. Romney, a far more honorable business man than Trump, never embraced a muscular argument in favor of capitalism and thus yielded the ground to Obama, a demagogue, who understood nothing of economics. On this one score I wish Romney had been like Trump.

It is sickening to a see a parade of self-righteousness by the Democratic party against Trump's misogyny. Apparently its not ok to be offensive about women and minorities only when its the GOP doing it. Washington DC mayor, African-American, railed against how Asian shops are dirty and there was no furore of disapproval. A South Carolina union had a pinata beating contest where the piñata was the GOP governor Nikki Haley's face. Nikki Haley, a woman of Indian origin, is the governor of SC. Liberal comedian Bill Maher happily heaped patently offensive comments about vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin without attracting even a finger wagging let alone a tsunami of condemnation. Then there was Barack Obama telling Hillary Clinton, without looking at her, "you are likable enough Hillary" and then called a lady reporter "sweetie". And then there is Bill Clinton, he of the "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" fame.

When the Democratic party candidates pontificate on Trump's demagoguery its rich with hypocrisy. The basic rule of politics is anything goes. Throwing the kitchen sink at the opponent is par for the course. When GOP congressman Paul Ryan presented proposals to overhaul entitlement programs the Democrats released an ad showing him pushing an old woman off a mountain cliff.

Yes, Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants being rapists, is not just false but patently offends any decent person. But, again, Trump's demagoguery strikes a chord in a sympathetic audience, but, at its root is the Democratic demagoguery that nobody becomes rich except by defrauding somebody else. Democrats made it fashionable to tell a majority of America that a minority is responsible for all their troubles and lack of progress in life. To the democrats the culprits were the so called rich people. To the Trump voter it is the illegal immigrant. Across the world, in every country, immigration always raises concern about destabilizing local labor market. This is economic reality. There are sound economic arguments in favor of immigration but sound economic arguments are not only shunned by the Democrats but actively discredited so when they are indignant at Trump feeding into a frenzy they are being facetious and hypocritical. Also the cynicism of the GOP voter on immigration is not entirely without basis. Democrats always gleefully point out that it was Reagan who actually allowed an Amnesty program for illegal immigrants. True. Reagan signed on to an amnesty program when the number of illegal immigrants were 3 million. The other part of the bargain was to secure the border and that never happened and the result is today there are 14 million illegal immigrants. Also, let's face it, the Democratic party loves this problem only because they see a vote bank in that demographics.

For those offended by the vulgar remarks of Donald Trump here's another unpleasant fact of why such rhetoric could appeal to a voter. The illegal immigrant lobby has become a political force that is brazen in its demands and the brazenness is not just in 'demanding' citizenship but has reached such ludicrous levels where it is considered politically incorrect to even call them "illegal immigrant". The political correctness brigade informs us that we should refer to them as "undocumented immigrant". Is it any wonder that when Trump rails against political correctness there are people willing to applaud him. And by the way Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist and another Democratic candidate, practically echoes Trump's desire to seal the borders and put a stop to immigration. So much for the GOP being the party opposed to immigration. Actually GOP loves immigration, albeit, the legal kind, the kind that is not a hostage to the Democratic party.

There was a time when Leonard Bernstein conducted classes on classical music for children in New York City and that was broadcast. Then there was Jacob Bronowski lecturing the world on the intellectual "Ascent of man". Today we are left with following Kim Kardashian's nude posterior breaking the internet. And then we blame Trump for having audacity to consider himself a candidate for the highest office in the land.

Donald Trump is a product of the intellectual swamp that is America today. Trump is a reflection of the decline of intellectualism in all walks of life in America. Trump is not GOP's problem he is America's problem. Trump does not embody GOP, he embodies America and for that every American should be ashamed.

America's Broken Political System

I read Jeffrey Archer's novel 'First among equals' as a schoolboy. I was fascinated by the two party system, the debates, the shadow ministry etc. After 14 years in USA I still would say that fascination is almost intact albeit a bit jaded.

The world's richest and ancient democratic country has a broken political system. At more than 250 years old USA is an ancient democracy that is still functioning based on rules drawn up in the 18th century. That does lot of credit to the prescience of the founding fathers. And the system is now broken. The last presidential election saw both candidates raise and spend a billion dollars each. If we include congressional races the figure reaches an astronomical 6 Billion dollars. That does not bode well for a democracy.

The Bush V Gore election was America's most shameful moment in modern political history. That the worlds most mature and richest democracy was deciding its President in the Supreme Court remains a shame. The world came to know of America's convoluted electoral college system for presidential elections.

The electoral college was devised for a different era with different fears in mind. The founders, as much as they were democratic in outlook, feared mobocracy more. The electoral college was devised to be a cooling chamber. Members of the electoral college can actually vote any way they want and not according to how their state voted. Strangely that has not happened to the extent that the ayaram-gaya-ram culture of India.

Democratic presidential candidates today have a great advantage because two of the largest states, NY and CA, are decidedly democratic thus contributing a large chunk of electoral college votes. Then add MA, NJ, IL etc. The votes for the republican candidate in a state like NY and CA are totally wasted. Likewise democratic votes in Texas. It is time to scrap the electoral college and go for a direct election where every voter feels his vote counts for something.

The two party system is a blessing and a curse. Coming from India where coalitions are stitched in naked bartering I do like the two party system. The two party system however stifles diversity of ideological shades within the party. It is common for primary candidates to not just hew to party lines but make a fetish of how far they can swing to the right (as in the case of GOP) or to the left (as in the case of Democrats). Centrist candidates are labeled 'weasels' pushed out.

Joe Lieberman (D), senator from CT, was defeated in the 2004 primaries because he was seen as too hawkish by an increasingly left wing Democratic primary voters. Lieberman ran as independent and snubbed the Democratic primary voters by winning. When Sarah Palin, a dilettante posing as revolutionary, stirred trouble for GOP candidate Lisa Murkowski the latter ran as independent. And according to Alaska rules her name could not be on the ballot rather for an independent the name haS to be written down on the ballot by voters. Imagine voters writing a name like "Murkowski'. She then included the spelling of her name as a chant in her election rallies. She won. But look at the mess that a democracy like the US is when it comes to elections.

The electoral rules governing primaries and how a voter can take part is not uniform. In fact primaries are held according to a myriad rules resulting in wildly varying forms. We have open primaries where a republican can take part in a democratic primary and vice versa, then there are closed primaries where only respective party voters can voters, there are 'beauty contests' where the primary does not count, then there is the famous Texas two-step which is a primary and a caucus combined together and finally the hopelessly outdated caucuses themselves.

In 2008 Barack Obama stormed to a historic victory in Iowa caucuses where Hillary finished a humiliating third. Hillary went on to lose almost all the caucusing sates. She later grumbled that the structure of a caucus is inherently unfavorable to her voters. Caucuses with its speeches and confabulations are long drawn out where Hillary's voters, mostly seniors, could not compete with the youth driven energetic voter base of Obama.  Obama in turn lost many large states by decisive margins to Hillary. Obama lost CA, MA, PA, NY. In the notorious Texas 2 step Obama won the caucus and Hillary won the primary.

The Democrats awarded delegates by representative percentage in each primary. Hence Hillary did not have any big advantage after winning NY and CA on super tuesday. Obama has to thank Jesse Jackson for that. Due that method it was a long drawn bitter fight to accumulate the required delegates to clinch the nomination. In 2012 GOP made that mistake and Romney lost precious time.

Now add to the woes USA's outdated election machinery. Even India has gone completely electronic. America hung its head in shame during the Florida recount fiasco. The word 'hanging chad' became a joke.

The primary system for non-presidential elections is equally muddled and its not dynamic. A primary is meant for a party to choose whom they think is best suited to represent their philosophy. I agree that independents should not be allowed to vote in a party primary. However an independent voter must be afforded some mechanism to ensure who he/she thinks is best to be contesting. An independent voter is now relegated to be able to influence outcome only during the general election where he has to choose between two options that were selected by others.

The debates are a sham. Presidential debates are governed by agreements that two parties agree to. The agreement is based on what powerful lawyers argue on behalf of each candidate. The debate formats are so scripted that there is no spontaneity. The time is so restrictive that one hears only recycled talking points. The debates during primary season are a joke. In Presidential primary debates there are 10 or even more candidates in the initial stage. Its a pickle for TV companies to be restrictive. If they are too restrictive and exclude candidates who perform poor in opinion polls then it would be a disservice to a candidate like John Huntsman. If the TV companies are lenient then we get Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Michelle Bachmann.

Money and American elections are a vexing topic. Until the Supreme court ruled in the much maligned Citizens United Vs FEC corporate spending was highly regulated. We should note that only corporate spending was regulated. Unions had a free hand in not just raising cash but also in the more important contribution of foot soldiers. Unions favor democrats by a whopping margin. In 2008 unions outspent all the cash spent all corporations put together. Thanks to US Supreme court ruling the playing field was opened for all to spend.

Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich remained in contention against Romney only because they each had a billionaire backing them up. Though Romney was winning primaries Santorum and Gingrich, with no broad based fund raising success, remained an irritant because their patrons had deep pockets.

I am all for regulating campaign spending but it should be done without favor to unions. Incidentally we should note that in 2008 facing a vastly underfunded opponent Barack Obama broke his promise to accept state funding, and thereby the restrictions that come with it. Obama is the first candidate to refuse state funding since the rules were put in place in the aftermath of Watergate.

If elections are a mess then governing is even worse. Gridlock in Washington DC is a topic that gives many the headache. When the US was formed the small states feared being steam rolled by the large states in the Congress because the number of representatives is proportional to population. A compromise was stuck. The senate, the upper body in the bicameral legislature, would have just 2 senators from each state irrespective of size. Hence Delaware and California have 2 senators each. Senators have sweeping powers to hold up bills, deny presidential appointees confirmations etc. Many house bills die in the senate. That is good and bad.

Congressional districts are highly gerrymandered. Today the number of congressional seats that can be called swing seats is far dwindling. Thats bad for democracy.

Do I despair for American democracy? Not yet. An erstwhile friend, a member of Tamil Sangams, incensed by my many criticisms of Tamil society and India asked me "what about a senate candidate in US who made despicable comments on rape". Her question was "why don't you condemn those as eagerly as you condemn failings in India". I told her that this blog was already work in progress. But to answer her question that candidate (actually two, Rick Atkins and Richard Mourdock, both GOP) lost their leading positions and were trumped in the hustings thanks to their barbaric remark. What more can I ask of a democracy?

As a student of philosophy and history I am not a big enthusiast of philosopher kings. Ordinary men make mistakes but if the system weeds them out and continuously reforms itself I am ok with it. This is the system which converted Robert Byrd, a KKK member, into a great senator.

As much as Washington DC is gridlocked the local governments are vibrant and that is the hope for America's resiliency. As the Economist magazine pointed out, America is being re-invented at the local level.

The 24 hour news cycle is also contributing to the vitiated political climate. Richard Mourdock, GOP senate candidate, said on CNN "compromise is when they (Dems) agree with us". Sarah Palin crowed, mindful that it will be replayed in TV a lot, "we are not the party of no. We are the party of hell no". Obama for his part loved to scold everyone he thinks is his opponent on national live TV.

Urgent reforms are needed to make America a more vibrant democracy. Reform the presidential election, campaign finance, lobbying, gerrymandering, filibuster rules and transparency in legislations.

Clinton's Economy: Myths and Realities.

During the 2000 Presidential campaign Al Gore, trying to define himself as his 'own man', distanced from Bill Clinton and rarely invited Clinton to the campaign trail. Time columnist Lance Morrow wrote, "while Salieri campaigns, the Mozart sits in the Oval office". Obama after sparring with both Clintons in 2008 vowing a new era and basking in his own new found rock star status had no need of the fabled campaigner. What a difference 4 years makes. 

In 2012 the Mozart was called out by this year's Salieri to campaign. Clinton, the party soldier, appeared on prime time at the Democratic National Convention and showed the world why he still is the only Mozart in town. A day after accepting the nomination Obama gushed, at a campaign stop, "I got an email suggesting that I appoint Bill Clinton as the Secretary of 'explaining stuff'". The crowd roared in approval seeing the supposedly silver tongued orator realize that giving a speech littered with pabulums and rhetoric is no match for the master-explainer.

Bill Clinton laid out the case for Obama often reminding America about the sunny years of the Clinton era. Like any politician Clinton took credit for the years that are still referred to as the longest economic expansion in US history. If somebody can make the word 'arithmetic' become a punch-line only Clinton could. Clinton detailed his years of balancing the budget, working across the aisle, delivering prosperity, surplus budgets and more. 

Amidst campaign rhetoric as always truth is the first casualty. Clinton roared into office on a landslide coasting on the mantra "its the economy, stupid". Unemployment was at 7.5% in 1992 (today it is 7.8% and Clinton wants a second term to the guy at the helm unlike what he said in 1992!!!). When Clinton left office unemployment was at 4.7%, up 0.7% during the same year, 2000, as the nation was sliding into recession. Clinton often boasts about the 20 million jobs created in his tenure and the budget surplus that he left. Both are true, but only on the surface.

Economist Raghuram Rajan taught me, in his book 'Fault Lines' on the 2008 financial crises, an important principle about any analysis of an event. He said it is important to look at not just the event but its associated events. He said look for 'in ceteris paribus", i.e. 'all things remaining same'. Clinton made it a virtue that he raised taxes on the so called wealthy that helped address deficit and the rest followed. Can Obama do the same 'in ceteris paribus'?

Clinton's 1992 budget deal, recounted in detail by Bob Woodward in 'Agenda', is remarkable for how much the debate remains the same. Clinton's address of Feb 17th 1992 is classic Obama. But the similarity is only on the rhetoric. By the time the address was turned into a bill and voted Clinton had moved to the center. Clinton abandoned the middle class tax cut he campaigned on. The price he extracted for that was taxing the rich. The movement to the center abandoned spending the revenue raised by that tax on pet liberal causes. This is where Obama fails. Obama can never be Bill Clinton. Woodward acknowledges that Clinton's tax helped address the deficit.

But is that all? No. Look at the world in 1992. USSR had imploded. Eastern Europe was redrawn. Germany, Europe's powerhouse of production, was spending billions of dollars in the unification and was also dealing with the political turmoil arising out of that. India and China were not yet BRIC. India, in 1991, had been compelled to reform its pathetic economy due to a balance of payment crises. It took Deng Xio Ping well into 90's to reform China's economy. Add to the above the 1997 Asian crises that America managed to dodge making Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers as 'Person's of the year" by Time. 

Into that picture try to fit in the internet revolution. Today there is a hue and cry over raising taxes on dividend income. Time, in it's cover story of 1982 titled 'America's risk takers' with Steve Jobs on the cover.

The TIME cover story is telling in details:

                 In 1969 Congress increased from 25% to 49% :he maximum tax on long-term capital gains—the profit made by an investor on the sale of stocks, real estate and other property.

The effect was devastating. The amount of money that Americans were willing to gamble on a long-shot business dropped sharply. In 1969, $171 million was amassed in venture capital. By 1975 the amount had fallen to just $10 million.

                In 1978, however, Congress rolled back the capital gains tax rate to 28%. With the potential payoff increased, investors were again willing to take a risk. Last year $1.3 billion in venture funds was accumulated, more than 100 times the amount of only six years earlier.

Add on the Y2K economy. America was importing talent by allowing H1B's by the thousands and unemployment was still going down. At its lowest, unemployment would be 4%. A full 1% below what is considered full employment. Talk about an over heated economy.

The Dow was soaring with everyone asking 'how high is high'. The one really great achievement by Clinton in this period was signing NAFTA. Much of the work for NAFTA was done by the previous Bush administration. Clinton enlisted Bush to campaign for NAFTA with Congress. Obama rattled Canada by vowing to re-negotiate NAFTA and scolded both Clintons on the campaign trail for NAFTA. Again, Obama is no Bill Clinton. Yes, Obama has signed a free trade pact with Mexico and South Korea but the work for that was done by George W Bush administration.

Into this heady cocktail lets add the surging housing market. Alan Greenspan battling unemployment early on kept interest rates too low for too long. The housing market just exploded beyond belief. Clinton and subsequently Bush campaigned for the 'American dream'. Clinton ignored calls to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Bush Jr's attempt to rein them in was rebuffed by a Democratic congress. Many economists later would point to the low interest regime during Greenspan era as sowing the seeds for a crises that brought American economy to its knees. 

Clinton took credit for an economy that was starting to get better even during the days of George H.W.Bush. Of course Clinton did make some hard choices like the tax bill he passed. However Clinton's signature achievement, 'ending welfare as we know it' was largely the result of a republican congress.

Bush Jr inherited a recession that was entirely due to Clinton era policies. The dot com bust was due to what Alan Greenspan memorably labeled 'irrational exuberance'. Bush, unlike Obama, did not blame his predecessor at every speech. 

Liberals love to talk about de-regulation as the sinister evil that created the 2008 financial crises. Most point to the repeal of Glass-Steagall act that separated investment banks from commercial banks. It was Bill Clinton who signed that repeal. (Never mind that Bear Sterns and Lehman bankruptcies had nothing to do with that repeal). It was Clinton's economic tag team of Larry Summers and Robert Rubin that warned off Brooksley Born who wanted to regulate the burgeoning derivatives market. The implosion of the derivatives market would be at the center of the financial crises a decade later. 

Oh, about that working across the aisle. Clinton's economic plan in 1992 recieved zero republican votes. The GOP's intransigence was only part of the story. Woodward recounts that Democratic legislators were warned 'not to work' with GOP to craft any compromise. And who would forget the infamous Newt Gingrich led government shutdown. Clinton made it habit to co-opt GOP ideas and do what came to be called 'Clinton's triangulation'. Obama derided that triangulation in 2008 proving that he can never be Bill Clinton. 

Clinton, to sum, takes too much credit for unique circumstances where US was the unassailed economic super power by a mile. At the same time Clinton and his admirers turn a complete blind eye to the fact that it was Clinton's administration that has much to answer for the financial crises. 

America and the world in 2012 are only faintly similar to 1992. The Euro area is collapsing, China and India are having challenges. It may not be 1992, but if only Obama was Clinton, at least the good sides, America would roar ahead, again. Alas, that will not be the case.

GOP And Romney Will Defeat Romney.

In the aftermath of 2008 presidential election the Republican party lay in complete disarray and in tatters. George Bush bears a lot of responsibility for destroying the GOP brand. McCain drove the last nail into the coffin of GOP's image as the party of ideas with his selection of Sarah Palin. For nearly 4 years thereafter until the day she announced that she will not be a presidential candidate Sarah Palin remained as a poster-girl for populism run amuck and her shadow on the GOP completely destroyed any semblance of intellectual rigor in the party of ideas. Seeing Obama demolish the Clinton dynasty, 'without raising his voice', many republicans resigned themselves to writing off 2012 and only talked of 2016. There was no hope for a GOP nominee in 2012 seen from 2008. But things changed.

In the heat of healthcare reform debate the tea-party insurrection breathed new vigor into the GOP. The bail out of Detroit and Wall Street added flavor to the debate on the role of government in the economy and lives of citizenry. The tea-party led GOP delivered a crushing blow to Obama in the mid-term elections. Under Obama the Democrats lost more seats in the Congress than the previous rout in 1993 under Bill Clinton. The tea-party also cleaned house in the GOP. Some of it was not pretty and sowed the seeds for Obama's own resurrection for 2012.

Sarah Palin and the tea party are largely responsible for the caricature of air-heads that the GOP became. With the fight for controlling the senate in balance the tea party defeated GOP's establishment favorite and veteran Mike Castle in an upset primary in Delaware that launched Christine O'Donnell into limelight. O'Donnell had confessed to having indulged in witchcraft in her youth, wondered if church-state separation was in the constitution, released an ad that declared 'I am not a witch, I am you". She was trounced and GOP was left with a stigma.

When Michelle Obama campaigned against obesity, an epidemic that costs the US economy billions of dollars, Sarah Palin asked school kids to eat cookies and resist 'government intervention in their lives'. Libertarianism was tarnished by the fathomless depths of Palin's vacuity . When Palin spoke of Obama's death panels in the health care reform bill Krauthammer wrote "let's have a serious discussion and lets begin by asking Sarah Palin to get out of the room". Explaining how GOP would stop Obama's agenda Palin crowed "we are not the party of no. We are the party of 'Hell!! NO!" The tea-party congressmen wore it as a badge of honor that they were elected to be uncompromising. When US faced the debt ceiling many tea-partiers went on TV to announce pompously "a US default will not be catastrophic". Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann proclaimed that it will be a good idea to 'default'. Blogger and talking head Erik Erikson counseled GOP on CNN to 'hold the line'. Bob Woodward in his latest book chides both the President and GOP speaker John Boehner for not leading in debt ceiling talks. Obama came in for a rare direct rebuke from Mr Woodward. But the idea of uncompromising, devil may care attitude of GOP is stuck in the minds of the voters.

The GOP candidates for presidency were an exercise of how low can the party really go.

A former Federal reserve member Mr Herman Cain made a caricature of himself with his 9-9-9 plan that he parroted even for a question like if the sun was too hot. Cain was swept out in a barrage of rumors of sexual affairs

Michelle Bachmann was in a league of herself.She used to crow 'I want to make Barack Obama a one-term-president' in all debates. She bowed out after the Iowa primary after tarnishing GOP as the anti-science party by expounding her loony theory that vaccines cause autism.

Then there was the 'oops' heard around the world from one-time favorite Texas governor Rick Perry who forgot what departments that he wanted to abolish and said 'oops'. Rick Perry flamed out after it became known he had 'mandated' HPV for girls in school and more importantly he had allowed illegal aliens who came to USA as kids to study in Texas universities paying the much lower in-state tuition fee if they had gone to school there. Latino's had loved that but in a republican primary that humane gesture became apostasy.

Rick Santorum, with degrees in Law, declared Obama to be a 'snob' for wanting kids to get a degree and for good measured reminded voters of the cave man with his harping on social values. Rick Santorum stepped down after it looked like he would lose in his home state PA to Romney.

Newt Gingrich won South Carolina only because he skewered John King of CNN who asked Gingrich at a debate before the primary about the charges Gingrich's wife made on ABC that he wanted an 'open marriage'. When Newt Gingrich appeared to demolish Romney, after a victory at South Carolina, the GOP establishment watched in horror. Former GOP nominee Bob Dole wrote a stinging op-ed on why Gingrich as nominee will be disaster.Then there was the pseudo revolutionary Ron Paul who attracted a Obama like following amongst the youth with his outlandish ideas of ending the Federal reserve and having an isolationist foreign policy. Ron Paul's use of libertarianism was often a fig leaf for either muddled outdated ideas or plain racism. Each month saw the rise and later, fall of a that month's not-Romney candidate.

Finally Romney became the nominee by default.

Mitt Romney is not an instinctive politician, much less a conservative in his bones. Romney remains Romney's first nemesis. When Rick Perry needled him about illegal aliens working in his home once upon a time, Romney blurted "we had sub contracted the work. When we found out that illegals were employed we told the contractor 'for Pete's sake I am running for office I cannot have illegals working on my property". At another debate Romney challenged Perry to a $10,000 bet. When asked whether he, like his father, would release ten years of tax returns Romney gave the most awkward guffaw to say "maybe". Romney threw the kitchen sink at Gingrich to win Florida and having won he told America the next morning "I am not concerned about the poor they have a safety net, the rich are doing just fine its the middle class I am worried about". The impish anchor pressed him if he did not care about the poor and Romney said "if the net has holes I will fix it". Conservative commentators went into a fit of rage. That no-one but the very weakest should rely on any safety net but be productive individuals is the conservative orthodoxy.

Romney is a very successful businessman but his success rate as politician is pathetic. Reacting to Romney's claims about not spending his life in the government Gingrich snarled "that not just baloney but pious baloney". Romney had chosen not to run for re-election as governor but instead run for president in 2008 because his ratings were falling in MA. Previously Romney had lost a senate race. His 2008 bid ended very quickly.

Life is unfair. Obama learned that fundraising conference calls, supposed to be private and with supposedly friendly people, need not be so. An attendee recorded Obama saying that people sometimes vote against their economic interests because they 'cling to their guns and religion'. When the tape surfaced Obama had by then become the darling of the media and had an unassailable lead in the delegate count in the primaries. Romney, like an GOP candidate, is not the darling of any media save Fox news. A surreptitiously recorded video of Romney at a fund raiser is dominating the news now.

Analyzing how he can win the election Romney told a group of very rich fund raisers that 47% of Americans who pay no tax (actually they pay payroll tax but just not Federal income tax) are 'dependent' on the government and feel 'victimized' and 'entitled' and that his message of 'tax cuts' will not resonate with them and therefore he would not pay attention to courting them. The complete put down of a large swathe of America left everyone speechless and many seething with rage. Peggy Noonan, speech writer to Reagan, wrote a stinging op-ed in Wall Street Journal. Romney, to be fair, was sizing up the problem of how he can win the election. The CEO was looking to see how he can reach 51% vote. He was looking at a problem and was presenting possible solutions. That an American Presidential candidate is looking to win just 1% above the 50% mark is itself pathetic and it is beyond speechless to see him write of 47% of the electorate. Ironically amongst that 47% are a large percentage of seniors who live on Social security and mostly vote GOP!!!! The guy does not even  know who his voters are.

A man running for the Presidency is politically dimwitted to have offshore accounts in Sweden. Its not illegal but it clearly shows that he is running for the presidency as an after thought and is not running with his heart and soul in it. Responding to a heckler at a rally Romney yelled back "if you want free stuff go vote for the other guy". In a GOP primary that sounded good but it showed a deeply flawed candidate.

Romney is a very, very rich man. Despite both Obama's and his GOP opponents's propagandaAmericans, by and large, do not begrudge him that. It is Romney's utter failure to convince Americans that he will be President of all Americans that will defeat him.

When Romney harps on his credentials as problem solver and as CEO it often comes across as "I'll fix the problem and if it requires patchwork solution I'll take it". It also translates into "I've no core belief that I'll go to mattresses for". When Obama repeatedly scolded the Clinton era for the acrimonious debates Bill Clinton responded "we fought the fights that had to be fought". No CEO does that. And thats why CEO's do not become politicians. The Presidency is much larger than anything anybody could cite as experience. Romney's total silence on how he governed as governor of MA and perpetual harping on his ability as CEO can only carry him so far. Romney actually governed more from the center than this right wing version of Romney that he is presenting himself to be. Romney became the laughing stock of conservatives when he said that he was 'severely conservative' as governor. 'Severely conservative. What's that?" chortled conservative talking heads.

The GOP convention also highlighted another problem. The GOP does not have a Bill Clinton they only keep talking of Ronald Reagan who left office 24 years back. There is no elder statesman in GOP who can rally the base and make the case for the incumbent to the undecided.

When the camera panned across the audience in Tampa the GOP crowd was almost exclusively caucasian though they paraded a popular woman Hispanic governor, a wildly popular Hispanic senators, two Indian-American governors, an Afro-American congressman etc the crowd did not reflect that diversity. The GOP has a demography problem that was accentuated by Romney's strident rhetoric against Hispanics who form the largest group of illegal aliens in USA. Susannah Martinez, Hispanic republican governor of New Mexico mocked Romney's 'self deportation' idea 'self-deportation? what's that?" Jeb Bush warned against such rhetoric and cautioned that the nominee cannot win unless they can match George Bush's the Latino vote share. Romney pretended he never heard it. The only way Romney could get the nomination in 2012 was by rooting for some extreme right wing positions in order to convince primary voters of his 'conservatism'.

While Obama was giving away free contraceptives for women (paid by the much hated insurance companies) Rush Limbaugh smeared a university girl student, Sandra Fluke, with an obscene epithet. Whatever her policies might be she did not deserve that. Romney, afraid to antagonize Rush Limbaugh, soft pedaled his condemnation saying "I would not choose those words". To be fair Obama is equally silent when his supporter Bill Maher heaps despicable caricatures of Sarah Palin but then the media, his lap dogs, give Obama a pass. The democrats unleashed a propaganda about GOP's 'war on women'. Adding fuel to that was GOP senate candidate Todd Akin's comment that in a 'legitimate rape' the woman's body has 'ways to shut that whole thing off'. The GOP became apoplectic and asked Akin to withdraw. Akin is still staying in the race. Making matters worse is Paul Ryan's sponsoring of an anti-abortion bill with Akin that refused the three most common exceptions to abortion, 'rape, incest and life of mother'. Virginia state legislature considered passing a bill, encouraged by its GOP governor, to compel women to undergo a physical probe examination to see and hear a heartbeat prior to going in for abortion. All of this snow balled making the GOP look like a party of old caucasian misogynists.

In a week when US embassies were attacked, in what is now called a 'planned attack', and an ambassador was killed in an embassy that was not protected very well despite being in war ravaged Bengazhi we find that Obama is doing no explaining but it is Romney who is being pilloried for his rush to blame Obama. When Romney scolded the Obama administration the attacks were still underway and it would be a few hours before ambassador Richard Stevens would be killed. Romney could have exercised restraint and appeared 'presidential' by not seeking to upstage the commander in chief. But he acted like a schoolboy. That said, again the national media ignores the more important issues to focus on Romney. Then came the 47% talk and now nobody talks of Obama's foreign policy that is in tatters. Killing Osama bin laden is not foreign policy.

I've donated to Mitt Romney and I'll vote for him. But I do not see him winning and actually I am beginning to wonder if he can be a better president. So why should I not vote for Obama? Just yesterday an old taping of Obama was unearthed where Obama declared unambiguously ''I believe in redistribution". I'd any day take Mitt Romney over Karl Marx. By the way Andrea Mitchell of NBC said that the reason NBC is not airing that clip of Obama is because they have not authenticated it. I bet if it was a Romney video NBC would have it on a day long loop.

Romney is not Bill Clinton to get elected despite a string of women claiming, and proving, that he is an adulterer.There is still slim hope for Romney though. The upcoming debates are his last chance. Today the topics for the first debate were announced, they are, healthcare, role of government and governing. If Romney does not ace it then its all over. And the reasons for his defeat will be the GOP and himself. The gods are smiling on Obama now.