In the early 1960s the eminent technocrat Henry Kissinger was said to have almost single-handedly pioneered the doctrine of détente on the premise of a “mutually-assured destruction” in the event of a nuclear war. This doctrine, adopted by several U.S. administrations, would go on to characterise the geo-politics of much of the Cold War era. Entire organisations, combat systems, and approaches to waging war were designed on the basis of a world dominated largely by technologically advanced military powers — big and highly-visible targets around which entire “strategic initiatives” (such as Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” program) could be formulated.
And then the Soviet Union collapsed.
Just like that, what was seen as the biggest threat to the safety and security of the “free world” was gone.
Funny how things turn out.
Do we feel any safer or more secure today?
=====
Interesting comments following my article Triumphing over “evil”. As expected, my re-introduction of the whole debate around whether there is a deterministic relationship between the nation’s prosperity and the character of the sitting president (detailed in my seminal article Who cares if Gloria is President after 2010?) focused much of the discussion around a few interesting but sadly all-too-familiar points:
:D The search for “one good President” and whether or not voters will (or even can) recognise one when they “see” one.
Two challenges are at work here: (a) discerning one bozo from another during election campaigns, and (b) defining how “good” a president needs to be.
The earlier one (Item ‘a’) is easy as Filipino society is still at the bottom rung of the scale of sophistication applied in the evaluation and selection of its leaders. Specifically, the national “debate” around the crop of candidates in just about every election is utterly devoid of any focus on platform, ideology, and development issues.
The latter one (Item ‘b’) highlights the knee-jerk reaction to scrounge around for evidence that presidents actually matter to the average peasant (so far all evidence presented come across as, well, flaccid). They may actually do of course, that is when the difference between presidents is stark — such as possibly in how the Philippines plunged back into the Dark Ages under President Estrada after a period of prosperity under President Ramos.
Clearly, the call of the popular vote did not go far in the way of delivering any form of real “collective wisdom” — not in the sense of how “majority rule” is supposed to in “theory”. Indeed, while Ramos won the presidency by a very slim margin in 1992, Estrada was a clear people’s choice in 1998. History then shows how Ramos went on to preside over prosperous times while Estrada drank, drawled, and waddled through economically “challenging” times.
Stupid voters at work?
Not even. More like clueless in every sense of the word. All this highlights the reality that there is no real collective wisdom in the “popular vote”. There is only an aggregated opinion shoehorned into multiple-choice questionnaires on pieces of paper that go on to determine who among the “lesser evils” gets to rule.
:D “Patalsikin na! Now na!”
More specifically, the ouster of President Arroyo is the current silver bullet Filipinos have latched on to as our “hope” for a brighter future.
Let’s again use the comparison between the Ramos and Estrada administrations. The transition of power from Ramos to Estrada in 1998 followed the “currency crisis” of 1997 which pretty much undid much of what was achieved in the early 1990′s boom. Ramos may have exhibited an ability to subdue or appease troublemakers during his term but then again one can argue that troublemaking back then was out-of-fashion given the general prosperity of the time. Estrada for his part was unlucky enough to have presided over the period that was beset by the aftermath of the 1997 financial collapse — a convenient excuse by any measure. But then his inherent character as an all-around bozo among bozos brought troublemaking back in vogue, much the same way as the questionable legitimacy of the Arroyo administration further inflamed our predisposition towards ocho-ocho politics.
The bottomline considering all that’s been said above is quite simple:
In the Philippines, there is hardly any correlation between sitting Presidents and our prospects for prosperity.
There are just too many variables at work to make a convincing assertion that this bozo will make Juan de la Cruz happy and/or that bozo will make him sad. One need look no further than the landscape of economic opportunities for the Average Pinoy Schmoe — call centres and nursing diploma mills sprouting up everywhere and an economy of which 10% of “added value” is accounted for by the remittances of overseas foreign workers (OFW’s). All this indicates how an immense chunk of Filipinos’ fortunes are tied up with factors external to our society.
Yet here we are making the primary foci of our deficited attention a sitting president, the moronic politics spun around the issue of her “legitimacy”, and the rekindling the fire of “revolution” with what is really a let’s-see-what-happens initiative.
=====
When President Ferdinand Marcos was deposed in the original People Power “Revolution” of 1986, the biggest excuse for the country’s impoverishment at the time was finally gone.
Funny how things turn out.
The Philippines is as impoverished as it ever was.
Yet the “weapons” used in “fights” that characterised the late 1970s to late 1980s in the Philippines are still being wielded today — on “battlefields” that have significantly changed over the quarter of a century since they last proved to be effective.
What exactly are these antiquated “weapons” that our “activists” and “revolutionaries” continue to foolishly arm themselves with? The sad “People Power” that aspires to shout down sitting Presidents? An appeal to see incumbent regimes as “evil”? Men and women in robes swinging rosary beads in “prayer”?
All of these “weapons” are premised around one big obsolete idea:
Sitting Presidents are singularly responsible for the fortunes and misfortunes of Philippine society.
Just like the disappearance of the old Soviet bogeyman that held “world peace” hostage for fourty years called for development of a new approach to assuring the security of the “free world”, it’s time Filipinos re-think the obsolete concepts being pitched to them by self-described “activists” and “revolutionaries”.
The vast nuclear and mechanised arsenal of the United States and the Soviet Union had proved utterly useless in the drawn out guerrilla wars that mired these conventional powers in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. While the most advanced “deterrence” systems scanned the skies for ICBMs, two civilian planes were turned into deadly missiles, striking a city that represented the heart of the American Dream. Guerilla armies and terrorist groups organised loosely into “cells” have presented a new form of resilience that continually thwart the logistics and intelligence of the conventional powers.
In the same manner, President Arroyo has proven to be resilient while her “enemies” have exposed themselves as Old Farts still beholden to antiquated thinking while wielding “weapons” that belong in a museum.
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 1% [?]
First, why should you even presume that people cannot see what a good president is when they see one?
Second, why the need to refer to previous articles written by the same author as if all these ‘works’ are not categorized as nothing but ‘seminal’ or mere ‘conjectures’ anyway?
Third, readers are taken to another dizzy spell from the vicious ‘roller coaster ride’ or linguistic rigmarole. For god’s sake, we are here again on the old familiar notions – ‘devoid of any focus on platform’, ‘no real collective wisdom’, ‘bozo’, ‘schmoe’, ‘moronic politics’, et cetera.
Primer:
You can’t see the difference between Estrada and Roco :lol:
The problems are our Politicians. Part of it is Us. A Politician
comes to you soliciting your vote. Offers you money, or “bibingka
on the sky” promises, or feed you disinformations and misinformations.
You can see the tactic on the Web Blog Site. We bite, they are in.
We become suckers, inonse at inuto pa.
As long as we fall to these Political Scammers and Con People. We
will just go around and around in circles. Look at our situation.
Political standoff. Have we advanced since the Marcos time politics?
now you are talking sense, toro. since you have correctly identified the real root of the “problem”, deal with it with all the wisdom you can muster. and you can start with YOU.
benigno, great post. i really like your analogy between cold war weaponry (for the destruction of the world) and the “antiquated thinking” and obsolete methods (for destroying governments, including a presidency).
Thanks Bencard. There problem with these methods is that instead of seeing the challenge as a system of inter-related issues, they instead zero-in on a highly visible target and focus on it relentlessly. In the process we forget the contexts of whatever we imagine ourselves to be “fighting” for.
As though there had been an important connection? What convoluted logic that all is?
I dont know what to say about you B0. Your thinking is too extreme, when you said:
“need look no further than the landscape of economic opportunities for the Average Pinoy Schmoe — call centres and nursing diploma mills sprouting up everywhere and an economy of which 10% of “added value” is accounted for by the remittances of overseas foreign workers (OFW’s). All this indicates how an immense chunk of Filipinos’ fortunes are tied up with factors external to our society.”
How can you even say this when some third world countries are doing it? Take India, they have more call centers than the Philippines and more economic woes. Aren’t these call centers motivated by western companies so that they can save money on high salaries and wages? Company savings is profit, you must have known this.
Good on these Filipino call centers, you dont even know who you will be talking to, when you call one. Their English accent is understandable and they can deal better with the demanding Western culture.
Other countries have overseas workers too. Diyes! or Geez man… Wakey…Wakey…Benign0… wake up and smell reality too, as you have been telling all Filipinos to be real. Even those categorized as first world countries are suffering caused by the “credit crunch”. House foreclosures due to unpaid mortgages, people who lost their jobs, people living on the streets, unemployment and more… need I list them to put everyone in depression. I would say “No.”, as there are real things most people in the world have to deal with now, not just Filipinos.
Not that the topic is about economy, but since you made it as part of your article, someone must disagree with you. Why would you even compare Arroyo’s enemy to antiquated war weapons? As those “antiquated old farts” still have their brains in their head. Just because they are old does not mean they would have to stop functioning. You must live such a life of dream. Once again ocho-ocho has been out for a long time now.
A perfect Benign0 Country… Now who wants to be a Benign0 Citizen … raise your hands please? Not me.
Where exactly did I assert that these problems are unique to Pinoys?
And just because other countries are beset by the same problems does not necessarily make our own imprisonment by these problems excusable.
Your argument is like those of an alcoholic who finds comfort and validation in the company of other winos. :D
Yeah me in the company of Winos and an Alcoholic, what more???
Matapobre ka!
Honestly, your depression reeks in your writing. You cant seemed to get out of it and insulting everyone is the best way you can deal.
Come on… old farts, the enemies of Arroyo. Give Benign0 your best shot and even at your age, you might have the best arsenal for someone who insults FILIPINOS.
I dont take insult from any race or colour B0 and that includes you. Are you trying to say everyone should just take your insults? No… frekkin’ way! My advice, keep your identity hidden.
Cute little moi? Insult Filipinos? What a disturbing accusation! :D
Cite specific examples of these “insults” I dish out, plez…
You write with resentment. Don’t you notice that? Oh, no you can’t read your own resentment, dont you?
But does your writing meant that you are brilliant and such an intellectual? The guts to compare your book against Jose Rizal’s “Indolence”. What did Rizal said about those who can’t appreciate who they are… something about some smelly fish…excuse me, I am a certified old fart and not sure about that – dimentia.. coming in!
But good luck to your book. Sana bilhin nang mga langaw or bangaw.
Me? “Resentful”?
What makes you think so? :D
BenignO writes, making it sound like the downfall of the USSR was simply an afterthought.
And then the Soviet Union collapsed.
Just like that, what was seen as the biggest threat to the safety and security of the “free world” was gone.
Funny how things turn out. -
But the “expensive” requirements of MAD did precisely that. That the side that was economically unprepared for it was mutually assured to be destroyed – economically, that is.
Are MAD’s tenets antiquated for the present global situation?
Who knows? With the brewing nuclear controversies (like in Iran and NKorea), maybe it is ripe for a resurgence.
“You bomb my cities; I bomb yours – twice as hard.”
For some crazy leaders those are the only convincing arguments worth being worried about.
Precisely my point, Amadeo. The way the “Opposition” is behaving — in that hollow-headed way Pinoy “Oppositions” have behaved in the last 20-odd years — is not only proving ineffective, it is contributing NOTHING to the real long-term goal of strengthening democratic institutions.
As you cited:
“You bomb my cities; I bomb yours – twice as hard.”
You “corrupt” my Government; I PeoplePower you.
Unfortunately the “Opposition” cannot even claim to make as good a threat as “twice as hard”. :D
That’s the ultimate transactional politics :)
As if, those activities are the end-all and be-all of a “democracy”.
We need to go beyond such activities and try an alternative path – to use “People power” in an organized and methodical manner to achieve political goals in the institutional mainstream legislative and executive arena.
Harnessing pro-active, focused, and systematic “people power”-driven activities can help nudge the shift towards transformational state policies that affect real-world economic realities in a rewarding manner. This means:
* more volunteerism
* more calls for enabling more individuals in their capacity as sovereign citizens holding the government accountable.
* expansion of social networks of political advocacies
* more interaction and more accommodation of views in order to find common ground (i.e. everyone wants to be proud of the nation; everyone wants fundamental rights observed; everyone wants genuine rule of law). the devil is in the details – pro- anti- -abstain, etc).
Bong,
Ultimate transaction politics, indeed.
Start with a Civil Liberties Union. One group, powerful, neutral, except for the protection of citizen’s rights. The Ombudsman has proved incapable.
Joe
“The Ombudsman has proved incapable.”
Joe,
The above quote reflects a popular refrain amongst the vocal anti-admins. I am aware of their charges — which include favoritism towards schoolmate FG, slowness in some cases, etc., but I wonder what measuring stick you have used to arrive at your conclusion.
Have you compared this Ombudsman with any others? Is there an actual track record which indicates overall performance?
Or is this just a perception based on selective anecdotes? Or maybe just a gut feel? Pls explain/support your claim. Thanks.
Reality Check,
No, thanks. The last time I saluted was the day I left the army many years ago. Oh, not true. I return the salutes of the guards at subic. They are pleasant, always, and don’t order me about.
Joe
But I will note that the Ombudsman is responsible abuses of government positions, as in CORRUPTION.
Nice going, eh?
Joe
Goodness. I just asked you if you could “please support your claim”. I don’t know why that means I’m asking you to salute me. Guess it was the wrong question…..
—————
OK, Joe. You don’t have to support your claims. You can say anything you want. It just doesn’t make for interesting discussion.
Little kids can say that the moon is made of cheese.
Adults — in a blog dedicated to intellectual discussions — typically encourages debate and expects the normal “rules” (attack the post, not the poster…support your thesis…etc) to apply.
Reality,
Since when is “opinion” not a legitimate tool of discourse among intelligent men, especially as it regards future events. Only God has the facts about that.
Don’t denigrate children. They have an innocence and openness of mind that is refreshing, as opposed to some adults who are thick with manipulations and blindness.
As for rules, don’t tie your brain with them. Think and live free.
Joe
Jeez, Joe. Of course people can have their opinions. No one said they couldn’t.
However, opinions that are based on clearly incorrect premises or facts are not opinions, per se. They are faulty opinions…opinions without merit…at best. At worst, they can be ignorant BS or willful deceptions.
Hence the reference to the belief by some children that the moon is made of cheese. Now we can choose to not correct their faulty misunderstanding and just let the kids be cutely naive.
But we are adults. So when we go to a site dedicated to the open discussion of weighty subjects, we should expect others to question our opinions. We understand that we will often need to substantiate our claims.
If not, then the site could become infested with ridiculous claims (“we are controlled by Russian transmissions to little devices implanted in us during circumcision!!!”, for ex).
An adult’s life is full of rules to be followed. Stop at the red light. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat on your wife. Pay your taxes. In serious blogs, “don’t attack the poster” and “substantiate your claims” are widely recognized,, followed and even sometimes enforced.
That said, Joe, you are always free to do as you please (and not as I please). Nonetheless, since you keep making claims and can’t/won’t demonstrate the validity of such…well then you are really just adding noise, not instructive or enlightening insights. Boring.
I would think that a foreigner — who lives in the provinces and who has only been here for 4 years — might welcome the chance to learn more. After all, why come to a site like FV???
Anyway, have your fun and don’t mind me (as I won’t be minding you). Thanks anyway, ciao.
Another thoughtful piece. However, please refrain from using the term Old Farts indiscriminately. Specifically, as it pertains to legislators, that’s fine, for they indeed have an excessive amount of leaking gas. The rest of us prefer terms like wise, distinguished, mature, experienced . . . except for certain ones, that decorum deters me from naming; then perhaps decrepit, surly, pompous, overbearing, self-righteous, blockheaded, arrogant, senile, rotting, and similar descriptors might appropriately be applied.
Chaos rules, no doubt. The best laid plans of Farts and young geniuses can be laid waste by a good eruption of Pinatubo or an invasion of the Spratlys by China or a worldwide economic collapse or killer-flu invasion.
All a good president does is improve the odds of building something rational. Without a good president, it is impossible. He does not have to be a superstar. He just needs to be honest and earnest, in his deeds and dedication to the good people of the Philippines. The educated “opinion leaders” — priests, professors, legislators and media editors – can make or break a leader.
The unempowered are just that. People without power, bending to the forces that flay at them. Your voice, unfortunately, never reaches them. It MIGHT be reaching a few of the opinion-makers. So use it well and SIMPLY make a difference.
Also, it is still a time of waiting and watching right now. You seem like you want an immediate overthrow, or the people are wimpy, in your eyes. The street protests are not nukes, they are gentle flares being popped in the gassy legislators’ eyes. The gassy legislators, alas, are quite blind, as well as deaf, so they deserve whatever they create.
For myself, just observing, I would be hesitant to say the people of the Philippines will stand for being doormats for the empowered rich.
Joe
please refrain from delivering homilies. most of us are adults here. just state your points of view, whatever that is, without unnecessary pontification. it doesn’t sound pleasing coming from an outsider. btw, do you realize how many uncomplimentary words you used, albeit directed at some personalities you did not name, as if they don’t apply to you at all?
Sorry, Bencard. I’ve been reading Johathan Swift and my mind got inculcated with his occasionally unkind humor. Further, I neglected to recall that attorneys lose their sense of humor during their third attempt at the bar exam or upon the stark realization that, in 50% of their court cases, they are losers.
And I’m a banker by profession, so feel free to rip . . . my sense of humor remains intact.
The descriptors that apply to me on any given day are surly, pompous, overbearing, self-righteous, blockheaded, and arrogant. Decrepit, senile and rotting do not apply, unless you consider a chronic case of hypertension to be indicative of advancing rot. As for yourself, you know you better than I do. . . .
As to being an outsider, we have been over that, so there is no need to keep raising it. Unless you are using it to marshal the FV troops to believe my opinions are irrelevant . . . then keep bringing it up. I’ll just let the opinions rise or fall on their own merits and trust that the reader can discern if there is any wisdom amongst the pomposity.
Frankly, rather than get into this kind of personal shoving match, I would prefer to know who you believe would be a good president for the Philippines in 2010, and why. Your views do not always align with others (a good thing), so I’m interested in what you think.
Joe
btw, joe, who cares about your profession or my profession? how many times do i have to say that i’m not here as a lawyer, just another ordinary filipino with an opinion to express. please stop this snide remarks about lawyers whenever you respond to my comments that have nothing to do with my profession. stick to the issues at hand, or make your own issues, and i will respond accordingly, if and when i want to.
humor, sometimes, are the refuge of scoundrels. think letterman.
Benign0:
For all the “ocho-ocho” things you’ve been talking about for the past few years or so… would you do the same – or think the in the same way – for the people of Iran?
Probably not, because Iran is not the Philippines.