Tom chacha: Or how I learned to start worrying and fear Mr. Jindal

I have an unabiding suspicion of Mr. Jindal. The press tells me I (as an Indian American and a race-conscious American) should be behind him. He’s a voice of a post-race America, so they say. Recent developments have Mr. Jindal listed as a likely nominee for the Vice Presidency. (Find him in Mr. McCain’s VP hunting weekend party with Mr. Romney and Mr. Charlie Crist.) Counter balanced against Senator McCain, the erstwhile maverick Congressman, he will provide the GOP a race and age balanced ticket. Senator McCain is theoretically a voice of diligent public service, doling out his body and heart to the American electorate. (And perhaps most of all his soul to the current regime.) Given Senator Obama’s near assured nomination to the Democratic ticket, Mr. Jindal is fait accompli.

Mr. Jindal is an intellectually irreproachable individual. A Rhodes Scholar, an alumnus of Brown University, he appears to be of the best and brightest in this era. India Abroad agrees. After a brief flirtation with the private sector vis-a-vis McKinsey and a consulting engagment with Mittal, he has been diligent in dedication to the state of Louisiana. From a resume’s perspective, he is hard man to impugn. Even on matters of fiscal policy (I plan to discuss Louisiana’s changes to sales tax and income tax), he is at best debatable.

I am personally embarking on an intended life in public service. I am proudly of Indian and Eastern heritage. I should be excited. I am not. Instead, his mere existence conjures the earliest debates within the African American community of empowerment and engaging in the government. Instead, he conjures comparisons to Clarence Thomas and the debates of Messrs. DuBois and Washington. Instead, he reminds me of how a genetic claim to identity does not signify anything of meaning.

I am intending to voice an opposition here, and for the next several weeks, of why and how Mr. Jindal is not a valuable voice for the Indian American community. If, as I predict, Mr. Jindal secures the VP nomination, I fear that the Indian-American (and perhaps Asian-American) vote may tilt towards him in anticipation of the advances he will afford to people of those backgrounds. I expect he will be, at best, our Clarence Thomas. A voice reflecting the majority values with little benefit to the community he “represents”. A voice that will help not at all with crucial issues of economics, social justice, and morality.

I plan to deal with many aspects of his platform, but let this be an introduction. On matters of immigration he is wrong-headed and against the welfare of the Indian American community. (More to the point, this also hurts the American economy which depends on immigrants for crucial research and development. Link: http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=LA&VIPID=1165&retired=1. Note that this link is from an anti-immigration organization.)

His opinions on freedom of religion are, at best, problematic. As a pro-religious person, I will not question his desire to convert to Catholicism. That is a personal matter of faith. However, his subsequent voting and political record reflect an unabashedly dogmatic and anti-ecumenical value system. For the hundreds of thousands of Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains living in these United States, this should be a serious concern. For those that care, he supports “Intelligent Design”, a bulwark for the Christian right to oppose “secular values”. This bulwark also provides quasi-enshrinement of Christian values at the expense of others. We should note that Mr. Jindal has not spoken out on behalf of Hindu, Jain, Sikh, or Muslim values. At present, his only religious concerns are specified within the Christian (and perhaps Judeo-Christian) spheres.

I have avoided (and will discuss separately) Mr. Jindal’s failings on pragmatic issues of environmentalism, reproductive choice, homosexual rights, the war on terrorism, and the divisive rifts between India and Pakistan. Intelligent Indian-Americans of different persuasions may find themselves on opposing ends of each issue.

For the record, Mr. Jindal is entirely opposed to abortion in every case including rape and incest. (Admittedly ahimsa-based values may make Indians support this position.) He is also opposed to same-sex marriage and hate crime laws to protect homosexuals. He is demonstrably behind the Global War on Terror and all of its underlying elements. On the matter of India and Pakistan (and, to me, the crucial matter of brokering a long term peace strategy), he appears to not have any leadership credentials. Finally, he has marched lock-step on most of the current administration’s oil-harvesting strategies.

But I am fairly confident that most Indian Americans should be pro-immigration and for the expression of all religions (and the avoidance of enshrining any one.) To feel otherwise in our context would, ipso facto, be entirely hypocritical.

Call this a teaser, but I will hope to attack the value of this candidate for us now and in the future. (For the liberals reading, I’ll leave with this final note: Rush Limbaugh declares Mr. Jindal as the next Ronald Reagan. The definition of damning by faint praise or an endorsement from the devil, I will leave you to decide.)

The Democratic Primary, Part I: Why Hilary Clinton is like Kurt Warner

If you asked me who I admired most in politics in 1992, it was easy. It was easy: Hilary Rodham Clinton. (Yes, I was a geek at 11.) Everything about her attitude to life and politics was admirable. Despite coming from privilege, she appeared to have a built-in belief that such privilege was tied to an obligation to others. Her (failed) attempt on resolving the health care crisis of America was noble in the most classic dimensions: she fought giant adversaries, they assailed her character and credentials, and she lost. Yet, in losing, it seemed to set the stage for a longer battle. It was a greater awakening in many millions of people (and particularly in young women who saw that even the role of “housewife” could be a grander position than known before.) But, something happened to the Clintons in 1994. Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution of that year browbeat them badly. They wouldn’t be the same, but we didn’t know it then.

Bill Clinton’s presidency, from then forth was a compromised one. Liberal democrats made excuses: he worked within the boundaries of the nation’s zeitgeist. He was setting groundwork for crucial liberal initiatives. And things were admittedly good on a grand scale: he presided over unprecedented growth. Crime was down. Gun control was improved via the Brady Bill. Supreme Court appointees were at least relatively strong. But, this came with gutting of social safety nets, ridiculous pandering to the far right (e.g. the Defense of Marriage Act), and ham-fisted foreign policy. Study this deeply and you see that the Clinton family was waiting for the next punch.

To avoid their early vulnerabilities, they focused in a remarkable way on campaign financing. (Note: I did not say reform.) They brought in money from all sorts of places (particularly China) and their policies would begin to follow the money. For a feminist gadfly super-babe and a rags-to-riches folk hero, this was a strange departure. But again, the left rallied and apologized. They even implicated the right for the Lewinsky affair (overlooking the fact that Clinton was undoubtedly reckless in this matter.)

But Hilary fans were still hopeful. We thought she’d walk out and come back to us, the same old wonderful woman as she was in 1992.

Which brings me to Kurt Warner. In 1999, a marginal NFL prospect out of Northern Iowa jumped into the NFL landscape. He wasn’t meant to be the starter, much less a significant NFL player. Trent Green was brought to the Saint Louis Rams as a significant signing. The team was on the rise, but certainly not considered a top-flight contender. Then Trent went down with a major injury. And Kurt Warner became a folk hero. He redefined the NFL passing game in the late 90s. The Greatest Show on Turf was a bell-weather of offenses, he broke numerous passing records, and won a Superbowl ring and two MVP titles. Then in 2001, the Patriots defeated him in his second appearance. In doing so, Kurt Warner was injured, rattled, and never the same.

(Yes, I equated Newt Gingrich with the New England Patriots.)

After that game, Kurt would continue to play, but with a timid passing style. He was always aware of the rush, turned the ball over frequently, and could not rekindle the magic of his first seasons no matter how hard he tried. Football experts were puzzled. This wizard of passing who could once pinpoint-drop a pass onto a receiver’s shoulder 40 yards away couldn’t find his men. Dr. Z thought he “felt the rush.” Somehow he was rattled like never before. Saint Louis tried and tried, max-protecting him more, giving him better balance with a rush attack. Nothing worked. Eventually they cut him and he moved to New York. It was a stop gap for Eli Manning. Then Arizona. But the fans (I’m definitely one) still hoped. Could he revive somewhere? How does that magic go away? How do you go from 40+ TDs, two MVPs, and a passing touch only rivaled by Brady and Manning in this era to a journeyman?

Eventually, you get stuck with simple conclusions: He got scared. He got old. He couldn’t fight anymore.

And that takes me back, finally to Hilary Clinton. Let me re-set the stage because history often gets away from us. She came in on the same election as W. Many people knew he’d need a strong legislative opposition. Many hard Democrats anticipated she’d be a key part of the antagonistic voice. But she never showed up to play. She was uninterested in contesting the farcical election. When Russ Feingold withered as a dissenting voice, she was silent on the Patriot Act. She signed on for the Iraq War every time. As opposition mounted from her own party, she straddled the fence. The whole time, her eyes were on the prize. She wouldn’t be blindsided ever again.

The problem, of course, with a compromised Hilary is that she becomes a completely flavorless politician. Other than the diversity she brings as a woman, she offered no real variation from any other career politician. The woman who once wrote “It Takes a Village” offered no clear picture on how she would re-invigorate the left’s core values. Even on the crucial issues of choice and women’s rights, she has not been a significant champion. Yes, she gets good rankings from NARAL and NOW, but what new legislation came for women? The CHIP legislation was perhaps her only serious fight on behalf of single-mothers. And there, she failed.

In a nutshell, that is the failing of Senator Clinton: in trying to avoid being hit from the right, she lost all the magic of her powers for the left. It was a Faustian bargain and she got nothing for it.

So, why this analogy? Simply, a president is equivalent to a quarterback.  They can take many forms: game changers, risk takers, game managers, confident, poised, reliable. If I could get the Kurt Warner of 1999 on my team, I’d take that in a heartbeat. Same goes for HRC of 1992.  But, today they are damaged goods and will at best be a manager of the game. If you get them in, they may do ok. But you’ll always feel like they should have been better, that they should do more.

America in the new, flattened world

The coolest Indian in the American public eye (take that “Bobby” and Sanjay) has a great cover story in Newsweek on America in the new age.  (Link:http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380/)

It’s more succinct and useful than anything in Thomas Friedman’s dry, long, and not insightful book. Key points:

- the notion of the world as more dangerous is flawed. Life for humans is increasingly less “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. It’s obvious if you think about it, but a good reminder.

- America is entering a new age of decreasing relative power. But as the pie expands, the individual welfare does not need to decline.

- America has unique features that will allow us to potentially overcome our biggest obstacles. Chiefly: limited aristocratic heritage and a strong history of leveraging immigrants for the welfare of society.

- Our key imperatives going forward are to return to a better immigration policy, delegate leadership to other nations, and be mindful that new regional powers are better allies than much of the “Old World.”

If you feel like you know globalization in and out, my apologies. Otherwise, get to this article soon.

Two things that stuck out to me:
1) Zakaria’s model might argue that other institutions beyond business, banking, and education may have new models going forward. What will public service look like?
2) Africa is sorely in need of its Brazil. And South Africa is a poor qualifier because of geography and its history. As Africa has approximately 10% of the world’s population in its borders, the risks of implosive crises like the Second Congo War are very high. The upside of a stable set of nations in the region is even higher.

(PS: the final pot shot about the metric system was out of line. Feet, inches, pounds, and fahrenheit are simply better.

And…

We’re back! I’ve been grossly remiss in updating this blog, but not for lack of trying. Like many bloggers, I let my reach exceed my grasp. (At least it’s consistent with my themes.) I started, and did not complete 8 posts that easily could have gone live. On the suggestion of several people, I’m going to aim for a regular update schedule: 4 posts in the week with an option for more. Later this morning, I’ll have three posts on politics. Topics to come, shortly:

How Hilary Clinton is like Kurt Warner

Why Bobby Jindhal’s candidacy is not exciting for Indian people

Sex scandals in America: analysis, timeline, and advice to future philanderers

An analysis of the history of child labor in the world

Regulation of labor worldwide: where the markets fail

The name says it all…

About the title: first of all, I love wordplay and messages with multiple meanings. So, the name “greater awakening” applies loosely to my relentless theological bent (and a mockery of the current state of religious thought in the US), my hope for unleashing some greater and stronger potential in myself, and last but not least, a key line in Jackson Browne’s “The Pretender“. And that roughly informs what this blog is about: learning to do what I love, opening my eyes spiritually, and avoiding the destiny of the Pretender. Yes, I probably pay too much attention to pop music lyrics.

(That last bit also connects this blog to my brother’s blog, “Fitful Dreams“. Our common love for Jackson Browne is one of many similarities. That we disagree with the meaning of the song so much underscores the difference. )

New beginnings…

A prologue of sorts: Even though I’ve been writing heavily over the past two years, this is my first stab at long term blogging. Why write now? My life is changing in many interesting ways and I feel obligated to put it down, for posterity if nothing else.

My life is changing. My life has changed. Some of the changes I’ve experienced were thrust upon me, some I imposed. And change is an interesting theme that I’ll probably address repeatedly. Serious change takes energy, freedom, and determination. In my mind, I’ve been quite slow to change. And yet, in four years I will be able to say I finally had reconstructed my life and my pursuits based on the passions that I hold most dear. I’m just glad that I am genuinely stepping out on that path. Stay tuned. I think the writing will get better.