The time will come when a more enlightened citizenry will outnumber the smaller vested interests that control the electoral process. But it will be in a mass movement that will affect changes in the electoral process itself.

That movement need not be based on numbers alone but with a critical mass of committed engaged citizens. Armchair revolutionaries need not apply.

The left shot itself in the foot and it continues to shoot itself in the foot. They have the correct analysis but do not have the solutions. Events will create the leadership for good or bad. Elections will not do it.

I am still kinda hoping that the little one makes a grab for authoritarian rule.

We need something to shake up this country again… What appears to be hubris on the part of GMA will naturally consolidate and hopefully a nemesis will arise.

Authoritarian rule from the right is more likely to happen. During the height of the Great Depression the right in the U.S. responded with massive reforms of the system to prevent the extreme left from taking over. There is no truly leftist party in the U.S.

The capitalists were saved and there grew a more secure institutionalized system where private capital and government integrated.

This version of rightist dirigist system still prevails in all the advanced economies of the world.

The Chinese model is one such example. The CCP is creating their own private capitalist to co-exist with parts of the state capitalist model.

It is not a proletariat based dictatorship. It is slowly transforming itself into a more dirigist model like the other more advanced economies of the world

Benigno has feigned to follow, but what’s come out of his usual riposte was plain naiveté. He was quick to point out the “lack of any meaningful platform among our crop of ‘candidates’” and state his thesis: presidentiables in the Philippines, or their political parties, actually stand for nothing.

Contrary to Benigno’s simple-minded pretext, mainstream politicians in the Philippines, presidentiables or not, invariably all stand for something, i.e., for conserving “market” and (procedural) “democracy.” Indeed, they are not expected to question the legitimacy of the dominant segment of the system in place or press for radical change of the current resource distribution. They debate, sometimes ferociously, but only within the range framed by their superordinates. Contained debates of such nature reinforce the system in place and ultimately are damaging to a people’s emancipatory project.

Now, what I understand J_AG is saying is that the era of fundamentalist market ideology is getting out of fashion fast even as the nanny State, in the French dirigisme tradition (a principally capitalist economy with strong government intervention), gets the upper hand “in more advanced economies of the world.” On the other hand, emergent global economy like China while obviously profiting from the phenomenon of the market is radically reinventing the capitalist wheel in the dirigist model.

In Framing the issues beyond personalities, a post of mine published by inq7.net on March 8, 2001 in connection with the May 2001 elections, I had occasion to expound “how certain issues could be framed for public debate away from the images of the candidates” in the following manner:

In other political societies like the United States or Great Britain, the starting framework is often the political party ideologies. In the US, for example, Republicans have a more market oriented philosophy than Democrats who favor government regulation of the economy. Hence, Republicans draw more support from business interests as well as from Protestants and professionals while democrats have disproportionate following from labor, blacks and urban dwellers. Similarly, the Britain’s Labor Party advocates for social welfare while the Conservative Party pursues laissez-faire agenda. There are of course many instances where political parties echo each other’s platform since many voters are either estranged ideologically or they find themselves at the center, in which case the image of the individual candidates would then matter. In any event, voters are at least presented with some threshold policy alternatives.

In the Philippines, major political parties are still highly ideologically identical; hence, electoral debates are mainly focused on the candidates’ personalities and fitness for office rather than on substantively differentiating public issues. In the towns and provinces, political contests have remained to be the same old squabbles of competing feudal politicians. But the success of some not rooted in political dynasties, a number of them are entertainment and sports celebrities, could be seen as nascent signs of shifting loyalties of the masses to traditional power and wealth. Erap could have been packaged in line with this apparent break from established allegiances.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s opening salvo two days after she was swept into power declaring that “democracy and the market will be the guiding principles of (her) domestic and foreign policies” has so far not been met headlong by any opposition party. In our forum, however, we had raised early on this issue as crucial to the process of nation building, urging that the new government should be able to define clearly the role of the government versus the market over the control of the so-called commanding heights. We thought that a national consensus should be formed to legitimize the resolution of this issue, instead of being simply handed down by the new government whose ascension to power has not been based on the strength of its partiality to either alternative. . . .

True to her market prejudice, GMA now in power taunted the business community: “It is you who will create the wealth, that will produce.” Whereas we, in our forum, have challenged the business class “to build and to compete” or to engage in aggressive profit maximizing capital investments instead of rent seeking—buying cheap and selling dear. . . .

By way of historical perspective, the remarkable growth of American industry at the end of the 19th Century was propelled by the monopolistic practices of unscrupulous industrial capitalists creating colossal family fortunes while forcing millions of wage earners to live in subsistence level. Later industrializing Japan pursued developmental strategy with the state determining what industries to exist and what were not needed. South Korea’s starting point for competing on the global stage was through officially sanctioned cronyism involving protectionism and government subsidies for the ultra diversified businesses, the chaebols . . . .

The big question then for the Philippines in its search for its own economic model could be: Can the country ever catch up in the race for economic progress by simply delivering the reins of the commanding heights to the market, allowing the market free play?

. . . As a corollary to the first question, if the market would be reined in and leading domestic industries were to be protected and subsidized by the State, how should such favored industries be disciplined in order to perform and compete globally? How could it be accomplished without transgressing WTO commitments and obligations? What are the ways big business could be made accountable to the community and to the environment?

Should small business be subordinated to big business in the meantime? If so, what would be the effects in the long term of such an approach to creativity, innovation, or inventiveness especially upon start ups? Is this the way to compete in the New Economy? Should the path rather be for the succession of start ups responding to market signals to drive the force into diversification?

Should workers and business be encouraged into a relationship of co- determination and participatory labor relations? And should the Left be welcomed wholeheartedly into the political theater ultimately to serve as the alternative political ideology? Or should the country pursue sustainable economic growth sans any ideology?

Of the several presidential aspirants today, it appears that (minus GMA) it is Mar Roxas who has on record tackled the mythical dichotomy between market and government which I have noted in the following blog entry:

Exclusive of the variable of individual hard work, self-sacrifice or initiative that Senator Roxas has thoroughly touched upon in his (Jaime V. Ongpin lecture in October 2005), the great debate on how to attain the Filipino good society is also focused, as the Wharton-educated politician is certainly supposed to be familiar with, on whether the vehicle to rely upon on the whole would be the government or the market.

Recall that President Arroyo had been straightforward on this issue at the very outset of her presidential career. “During my administration,” she announced at her first Vin D’Honor on January 21, 2001, “democracy and the market will be the guiding principles of my domestic and foreign policies” (although two years later, Arroyo flip-flopped in a dramatic way saying that “unbridled globalization is no longer in vogue,” globalization being meant, it would seem, as the agency that will carry the ball towards the utopia of the good society built around a free market).

On the other hand, presidential timber Mar Roxas showed his state-interventionist bent as a congressman at least as regards one critical piece of legislation, the Retail Trade Liberalization law: he was accused of inserting protectionist clauses in the law.

As Trade and Industry Secretary, Mar Roxas allowed another glimpse of where he could be on the ideological divide during a brush with then Finance Secretary Alberto Romulo on the question of giving government incentives to investors. Roxas saw “jobs generated,” as well as “foreign exchange” and “technology transfer” created by the incentives whereas Romulo decried the “foregone revenues.” And when Roxas perceived that the Philippine tuna has been subjected to tariff discrimination (by the US) in favor of the Latin American package, still as DTI Secretary he threatened (indeed a gutsy move by a former Wall Street investment banker) to withdraw Philippine membership from WTO.

Is there something more discernible about Mar Roxas’ predilections from his Jaime Ongpin memorial lecture? Let’s vet closer what he said:

Our social compact is premised on the basic idea is (sic) that if people put something into their life, they should get something reasonably gainful out of it. We all “bought” into this bargain and we look to the government as the chief implementer of the same. This is a simple but basic bargain that seems to work in meritocracies like the US and Singapore, but here in the Philippines, the gap between effort and output has steadily widened.

The first sentence I believe is a nuanced manifesto of economic liberalism (which argues that since men are the best judge of their own limits and capacities, it follows that the most rational use of the resources available to them will happen if they are allowed to follow their pursuits under conditions of free competition). This also dovetails with Mar Roxas’ conception of “leader and leadership (being) within us.” The second sentence which “look(s) to the government as the chief implementer of the (bargain)” is therefore a non sequitur (underscoring mine); it smacks of protectionism (or the old policy of mercantilism, the granting of special privileges to merchants and manufacturers to encourage the development of commerce and industry).

Shouldn’t the suggestion that the meritocratic system in the US and Singapore are normative bother us too? (In the US government subsidies to wealthy farmers or aircraft manufacturers are mind-boggling and Singapore, as is well-known, is a single-party government.)

What else did we learn from and about Mar?

Everywhere else in the world today, governments are gearing up to meet the challenges of the 21st century: the challenges of globalization, of integration, of achieving economies of scale. Nations are identifying and building up their comparative advantages—whether these be in agriculture, in manufacturing, or in high technology or science.

…

Or we can decide to truly make the domestic industry competitive: this will mean overhauling our thinking and premises on our economy. This will also mean adjusting our tariff policy, our energy policy, and our agriculture policy, among others.

Now, we are getting the point: government must meet the challenge of globalization in order “to truly make the domestic industry competitive ….”

If we haven not realized it yet, the phenomenon of globalization is the engine of turbocapitalism that is running over the traditional role of government in domestic affairs by the ascendancy of transnational forces erected around free market. Globalization sees the “withering away” of nation-states that surrender their powers to non-elected technocrats and rationalistic global actors like the IMF, WB, WTO and multinational players such as the TNCs. Globalization is therefore the antithesis of Rostovian developmentalism which relies upon governmental intervention “to provide the enabling, nurturing and invigorating environment within which private initiative and industry, meaning people taking responsibility for their lives, can grow and be properly rewarded,” to borrow the language of Senator Roxas

The equivocation of Mar Roxas on the market /government debate is quite understandable from the standpoint of a mainstream politician that he is. U.S. President Obama is no different; he said this on the campaign trail:

Well, look. I am a strong believer in the free market. I am a strong believer in capitalism. But, I am also a strong believer that there are certain common goods that you know — our air, our water, making sure that people are safe — that require us to have some regulation. Now, it has to be well designed.

But, the financial system is a classic example of a deregulation philosophy run amuck. And now, you see the consequences and ironically, had we had some sensible regulation, we would not have now, actually, a much closer approximation to socialism when it comes to the banking system, than anything that any Democrats have been proposing over the last several years. When you don’t guard against excess, then a lot of times government ends up having to step in anyway, in a much more burdensome way.

One other thing that HASN’T CHANGED as we commemorate this momentous twenty-second anniversary of the publication of James Fallows’s seminal piece, Damaged Culture: A New Philippines? is on-going PROOF that Filipinos should never have asserted their independence of the United States in the first place.

Look no further than this “Letter to President Obama” sent supposedly by these bozos (source: where else but in JOLOG CENTRAL):

Teofisto Guingona Jr. former vice president;
Jovito R. Salonga, former Senate president;
Franklin Drilon, former Senate president;
Camilo D. Quiason, former SC Justice;
Former senators Wigberto Tañada, Sergio Osmeña III, Vicente T. Paterno, Agapito A. Aquino;
Josefina T. Lichauco, former cabinet secretary, Concerned Citizens Movement;
Francisco I. Chavez, former Solicitor General;
Corazon J. Soliman, former cabinet secretary;
Juan Santos, former cabinet secretary;
Jejomar C. Binay, mayor, Makati City;
Bro. Eddie C. Villanueva, national chairman, PJM;
Sr. Mary John Mananza, OSB, co-chairperson, AMRSP;
Harry L. Roque, Jr., UP Law, Concerned Citizens Movement;
Jun I. Lozada, state witness, ZTE/NBN

Following letter was sent to Obama through House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

His Excellency President Barack Obama
Washington District of Columbia
United States of America

Dear Mr. President,

We shared the wonderful jubilation of the American people during your historic election triumph. When you assumed office early this year, we rejoiced at the audacious hope that you inspired, and on your promise of change for the common good.

We joined all freedom loving people of the world who exulted when you declared that “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent…are on the wrong side of history.”

The Filipino people share the same morals, ideals and aspirations that define the envied way of life of the American people. Filipinos yearn for the same kind of leaders that the American people yearn for themselves; leaders who are imbued with the right values, lead principled lives, and govern withn the highest ethical standards. The ideals of justice, democracy and the upliftment of human rights animate the Filipino people’s dreams of a better world in much the same way that these ideals animate the dreams of the American people.

Upon your invitation, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo will have the chance to meet with you on July 30, 2009. In your meeting with Ms Arroyo, it may serve you well to be mindful of Ms Arroyo’s legacy of corruption, extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, bribery, election cheating, among others. We do not wish to belabor you with details of these high crimes which have surely been documented and reported by the U.S. State Department to your Office.

The Filipino people also yearn for change from the effrontery of hopelessness and the curse of decadence that Ms Arroyo represents. In your meeting with Ms Arroyo, we feel confident that you will make clear to her that a Government that does not comply with the Principles of Democracy and respect for Human Rights cannot have the approval and support of your administration. We implore you Mr. President to inspire hope and be an instrument of change for the common good of the long suffering Filipino people.

(Signed by the people listed above)

You have got to be kidding!

I find it pathetic that those signatories would take their grievances to the President of the United States. It demonstrates that the Philippines should never have asserted its independence from the United States in the first place!!

That such a message would be sent to a foreign head of state by people who themselves are IN POSITIONS of influence says A LOT about the utter impotence of Pinoys in this whole business of looking after themselves.

- Pathetic.

- Uncool.

- Full of shit.

That’s The Filipino for you — after 63 years of “Independence”, and most likely for the NEXT 63 years.

Dear President Obama,

Signed,
benign0
GetRealPhilippines.COM

It’s simple, really™ — though not for the small-minded.

============
Join us on Facebook!

This week, a black man, President Barack Obama, became President of the United States. However, I will remember this week, not so much for Obama’s ascendancy, but for George W. Bush’s descent into infamy, and his long painful ride into the sunset.

So for now, let’s forget about Obama for a minute, and look at George W. Bush.

Former President George W. Bush (and I am sure many will rejoice at being able to call him FORMER president), started out his term in the White House riddled with controversy. He won a bitterly contested election that required hordes of lawyers from both the Democrat and Republican parties to argue endlessly over the legalities of counting chads.

Winning this election, and coming to power in such a manner, was already a foretelling of the future. In the same way that Bush came into office, hounded by controversy and ridicule, he leaves in basically the same way.

What happened in his two terms as President is a sad tale at how high, and how low, a President and his country can go. From becoming a leader of a powerful nation with the backing of the civilized world, ready to face the challenges of terrorism after 9-11, the United States and Bush became a financially weakened state, with little to no international support or credibility.

The United States became a hollow shell of what it once was, and what it could have been. Unloved, unpopular and leaving a horrible legacy of debt (the U.S. financial crisis), death (the Iraq War) and disaster (Hurricane Katrina) Bush left office with the largest disapproval rating since Nixon resigned.

It is a wonder he wasn’t forced to do the same, considering how many international and domestic laws his secretive administration may have broken.

The next few months will be very interesting for the many disclosures that will come out, now that that Obama’s more open administration is in power.

I feel sad about Bush. He is a Christian man, very devout in his faith, and with a strong sense that God had put him in power for a reason – to save the world from terrorism. He failed in that task.

Terrorism is as rampant in the world as it was when 9-11 happened. If only that was the only place where he failed. But he failed his country, and the world, financially as well. The world economic downturn took place during his term.

There are debates as to whether he could have prevented it. Nevertheless, it happened during his watch. And as Truman says, the buck stops here.

Ironically enough, Bush has taken to comparing himself with Harry Truman, a Democrat who was an unpopular president during his time, but was redeemed by history and is now widely considered one of the best Presidents the United States ever had. But Bush is nowhere near being a Truman. Specifically because Truman never blatantly violated human rights, which is something Bush’s administration did with impunity, and is clearly his worst legacy.

This legacy of torture is embodied in Guantanamo Bay. A place where Bush made torture and violation of human rights an everyday practice. This is patently against international law. But he did it anyway, using loose legal reasoning by a young legal scholar named John Yoo, as his basis for torture, among others.

Whether or not Bush will suffer the consequences for his actions and decisions remains to be seen. But he will forever have to face the shame of being a failure as President. And that is a punishment which will follow him the rest of his life, and in the history of the world.

In any event, Bush is gone. Obama is here. And the world may be all the better for it.

(Column piece for the Sunstar Davao newspaper)

I can;t help it but to read the books before wrapping them in colored paper. I’m sending Benjamin Pimentel’s “Pareng Barack: Filipinos in Obama’s America” to my Puerto Rican colleague in LSU. My amigo sent me a book about a Puerto Rico’s identity problem. It was sent to me through the kindness of a Pinoy LSU student here for the holidays.

And speaking of Puerto Rico, there is a book that compares the initial colonial experience of Puerto Rico and Islas Filipinas with the USA. Entitled “American Empire, the Politics of Meaning”, this was written by Julian Go based in Boston University and published by Ateneo press. America’s attempts at empire is interesting. We can actually compare three cases as if it were a planned experiment. The 1898 Treaty of Paris gave the USA three major new possessions, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Filipinas. They gave Cuba its independence in 1902.Puerto Rico became a colony and remains now as a Commonwealth. The Philippines was given a 48 year “tutelage” in American government. (However this was rudely interrupted by the Japs in 1941).

The question is how come the Americans decided to spend that long a time here? I think all agree that America never intended to incorporate the Philippines and by 1916 had a “roadmap” to set the Philippines to independence. In 1935, the self government experiment began with war looming over the horizon, Manuel Quezon lurched towards authoritarianism.

In contrast by 1916 or thereabouts, Puerto Ricans were given US citizenship by statute (This means there is a possibility of admitting the island as a US State. The Philippines? Not in our dreams!) . Full commonwealth status came in 1952. This is the root of Puerto Rico’s identity problem.

Visiting San Juan in 2007 as an visiting lecturer, I noticed that Puerto Rico has indeed benefited from its commonwealth status. There is even a version of Manila’s LRT (tren urban), swanky malls and trendy gated communities. The island’s economy is also the most developed in the Caribbean and the country is classified as a high income one by the World Bank. However as mi amigos explained to me, the country is in a limbo. The joke is Puerto Rico is a separate and independent nation in 1) Miss Universe and 2) The Olympics.  It is obvious that Puerto Ricans consider themselves separate from the rest of the USA

The story of Puerto Rico parallels that of the Philippines. For example, the University of Puerto Rico was founded in 1903 and was made a state university in 1908 (in the same year that UP was created). Go’s book details this parallelism and takes note of the differences.  First of all Puerto Rico’s elite readily accepted US occupation. In the Philippines we had a sovereign republic waging war against the occupiers. It was only by 1901 and Aguinaldo’s capture when the Pinoy elite realized the futility of the war and accepted US sovereignty. In both cases, representative government was quickly established. While Puerto Ricans accepted US sovereignty and the status quo, Filipinos even by 1915 still resisted and this was even noted by the saintly Episcopal bishop Charles Henry Brent. Brent wisely said in an interview that Filipinos will never like Americans! Also there is a significant community of Puerto Ricans in the USA like there is a significant community of Filipinos there.

The nagging question I had in the back of my mind while in Puerto Rico was this. Would have my patria adorada, Filipinas be like this if we had remained a Commonwealth? We know that privately Quezon had doubts on independence and would have wished for an “associated state” status for his country. Our July 4, 1946 independence day  saw the nation in a prostrate condition. Massive amounts of American aid were needed and this was with strings. This has poisoned Philippine-American relationship ever since.

But the Puerto Ricans I have met in their patria seem to envy me a Filipino for one thing. This is that I carry a Philippine passport (which means I am a citizen of a fully independent nation). One political science student wanted to know more about Philippine-American relations and visit Manila. I hope she can visit Manila and see for herself! I began to think that Puerto Ricans may have the reverse of my question in my mind. What would become of Puerto Rico if we become completelty independent?

So the identity crisis continues. In 1998, the Puerto Ricans rejected 1) commonwealth status, 2) independence and 3) statehood in a referendum. They chose instead 4) none of the above.

They have their anti US bases movement too. They want to kick out the US Navy of Vieques island.

Conclusion: Our shared histories with America and Spain completely screwed us up! At least for me as a Pinoy, I could take consuelo de bobo in having my own Pinoy passport!

BTW, Benjamin Pimentel’s book is good. It is refreshing take on a subject that is taboo in polite FilAm circles, and this deals with racism and hostility against blacks. I have to commend Benj for writing the book. When I was in Louisiana and Obama’s presidential star was just a bit above the horizon, none of the FilAms I met considered him for president. Of course they didn’t tell me that because Obama was black but that he was too liberal. But some of the FilAms were considering Hillary. But Hillary is uberliberal. So I realized that this liberal thingy was a euphemism and the real reason is that  Obama was black! I have never been to any FilAm hosted social gathering in America in which an African American was invited. FilAm readers may not like what I write but this is my experience.

Then I was a neutral observer of US presidential politics. But that black issue spiked me and I immediatelty realized what America has having a hard time coming to terms with.  Having lived for many years in what many Pinoys think as more racist Australia, I became skin colour blind there especially in desert Queensland. True there was racism in Australia in the past but Aussies now try extremely hard to get over that a part of their history.

What Benj Pimentel wrote is so true and he does it with out much offense but with sadness. He exposes our flaws as immigrants.  What I found poignant is his chapter on our World War II veterans (America’s shameful treatment of them  is one more poison on the Philippine-American relationship) and the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II (a very shameful episode in American history). Despite the injustices, the victims still found the resources to forgive the United States of America. So we find it shocking that the Michelle Malkin types in the US media would even consider internment once again.

And the last chapter detailing why Pimentel taught his kids Tagalog is an eye opener. I know of only one FilAm who taught his kids Tagalog. (Although all my Ilocano relatives in Honolulu made sure their kids can speak Ilocano and  have it as a language at home!). The usual reason is that FilAm kids won’t need Tagalog to live in American society. However I have met not a few FilAm students who lament that their parents did not teach them Tagalog or any Philippine language. They say some part of their identity is lost.

I agree and feel the same. I feel that my elders did me a disservice by not teaching me Ilocano. Thus I part of my identity is lost (and I feel like a foreigner in my cousin’s Honolulu home!). My elders imagined a Philippines where the regional languages are unimportant and only English and Filipino are. The same way that I lament I did not learn Spanish well enough since on a visit to Latin America, I felt strangely at home but still a stranger. Part of my Spanish heritage is lost and I am forever disconneted with my forebears that fought in the Revolution. Also I can’t fully connect with my Puerto Rican amigos.

Now all of us who deal with America now wait for Inauguration Day.

Barack Obama is a US senator alright but apparently the US constitution has not set the same requirement for the Office of the President. It sets the higher standard that the candidate should not only be a US citizen but a natural born citizen at that. Thus, if official documentary proof will show that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, then the issue should first be resolved. No less than the Supreme Court should step into the scene and to lay final judgment on whether or not Obama should assume watch to the office 64 million Americans have placed him – the White House.

The US Supreme Court has been perceived to have taken varying attitudes to the lawsuits that have already been filed – refuses to take up the citizenship issue, declines to make an opinion on the question of eligibility, holds off decision to grant hearing, and so forth. However well the camp of Obama can hide the vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate from scrutiny, until shown, not few Americans will always press that Obama himself speaks the truth surrounding his citizenship and eligibility as stipulated in Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution (USC).

In all likelihood, it is going to be Catch 22 – case of damn if you do, damn if you don’t. If Obama admits to the fact that he is not a natural born citizen of America, then his political detractors can easily prepare the menu for his possible impeachment – if and when – he insists to take oath and assumes office. On the other hand, if Obama claims that he is a natural born citizen under specific provisions of the US Constitution other than Section 1, Article 2 of USC, then there may be special judicial course of action at the disposal of the newly elected president, just maybe. It is not far removed either, that the Supreme Court can assume a rather activist stance to ‘rationalize’ when it takes to the view of defending Obama from what maybe a judicially overstretched perspective.

The idea that confronts every average American is the simple requirement that the truth be revealed since the issue has been thrown in the intellectual landscape. And it does not have to be mired in the realm of pure legalese as when it must compel the Supreme Court to rule over the case. In the end, the internet that is largely responsible for making sure Obama wins in this presidential election might be the same vehicle that could in fact, unmake Obama. But this is full of implications in the higher scheme of things.

Not remotely, observers find it strange that America has voted for that one who would later on be proven to be one who is not eligible to become US president on account of his citizenship requirement. The new president of the strongest nation in the world that is America has been elected and yet will be ejected even before he assumes official watch. The strongest legal argument against those who press on the eligibility issue is yet to be discussed in any forum in the internet. Thus, until the issues are joined, the American people have no way of making their own judgment as to which theory to believe.

There ought to be two schools of thought on this controversy: one commits to the thesis that Obama is not a natural born citizen of America and the other embraces this prevailing claim’s antithesis – that Obama is a natural born citizen. There is the bar of public opinion if the Supreme Court is found to be slow in the action. A host of questions will remain unanswered until Obama confronts the lingering doubt in the minds of the American public that he is possibly not a natural born citizen of US and therefore should be held accountable for every patent violation of the Constitution.

Certainly, Obama cannot be a mere guest at the White House since he must be its lawful occupant in order to be able to exercise the powers of the President. The US Constitution cannot be set aside without a final answer to this citizenship question. Until addressed, the seeming controversy might divide a wedge among the American people in what would evolve as the new – Great Intellectual Divide. There might just be one more day left to save the pond where water lilies double in size each day choking other life forms underneath. US does not deserve to be in the kind of situation it is in at the moment. It bears watching how Obama can clear his way out of the noose. Perhaps, there shall not be any farther obstacle to the new president-elect to assume the vast reservoir of presidential powers since the presidency of America cannot operate in a vacuum.

Contributing Writer: PRIMER C. PAGUNURAN
UP Diliman, Quezon City
Email: nielsky_2003@yahoo.com

The Cat was harsh but apparently clueless of the mayor’s true grit. She rushed to charge that the mayor “would rather hide behind his loyalists.”

“What a coward,” she continued. “Parang bata. Tapang lang pag may mga nakatakip sa kaniyang mga tao.”

I replied to The Cat to set the record straight:

Cat, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.

When Marcos declared martial law, one American official was reported to have said that the Philippines is a country composed “of 40 million cowards and one son of a bitch,” claiming that not a single Filipino has risen to fight the destroyer of their freedom.

Indeed, during the dark days of the dictatorship, many Filipinos cowered in fear and many more Marcos turned into cowards. I have known personally Jojo Binay as a nameless human rights lawyer at that time defending victims of the tyranny.

Marcos might have hidden “behind his loyalists” but not Jojo because then, as now, he’s a son of a bitch even when fighting for his or others’ rights – by himself.

The year before, or in 2006, Binay was ranked fourth as “World Mayor” by a London-based international think tank on urban affairs, the City Mayors. But the well-esteemed mayor has become a thorn in the side of the Palace. So, the political persecution of Mayor Binay by the Arroyo administration did not come as a surprise; it was not Binay’s first time.

On October 17, 2006, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) of the Arroyo government also suspended the gutsy and popular mayor, his vice mayor and all his councilors for allegedly hiring ghost employees. Binay denounced the suspension and said he would not follow the “illegal order.”

“They might as well kill me here but I will never run away from this fight.”

In connection with the heightening imbroglio then (Binay has staged a mini “people power” in the country’s financial capital to protest his suspension), Manolo Quezon reposted in his blog an old piece he had written (in 2001) about the mayor:

This writer once accompanied a sortie made by candidate Locsin, and ran into Jejomar Binay, who knows that this writer has been no fan of Binay. But Binay, instead of pandering to this writer, merely acknowledged that they once stood on opposite camps: “So, you are the one who has hit me, and hit me hard in what you have written,” he said to me, and then finished off by saying, “good.”

Sitting beside Binay as he sat down and shoveled rice into his mouth is to see why all the earnestness of people like this writer will amount to nothing compared to what people like Binay do. In between handfuls of rice Binay’s eyes rove, and his mind probes: “Two corners away, there is garbage on the sidewalk,” he informs an anxious Barangay Kagawad; and then, pointing to mass housing he has put up and been attacked for having set up, he points to a street lamp and tells another nervous local leader, “that lamp has burned out and needs a new bulb.” He gulps down some water, and then looks up at the ceiling: “when was this barangay hall last painted? You have adequate funds, why haven’t you attended to this?” People are not only kept on their toes; they are doomed to accountability.

The writer must confess to renewed respect for Binay, whom this writer observed in action even when Binay no longer knew that this writer was observing him. It is not just palabas on Binay’s part; it is the nitty-gritty, the hard work, the attention to detail that wins loyalty house by house, street by street, barangay by barangay and returns an overwhelming mandate election by election.

In the exchanges that ensued in the same blog thread, I reacted in the following:

When Jojo Binay said he would have to be killed first before being forced from his office, he meant it. I just know. It’s vintage Jojo.

The Jojo Binay that I knew more than two decades ago was someone whose guts I couldn’t simply catch up with. A nondescript lawyer at the height of Marcos dictatorship, he defended alone or with a handful of activist-lawyers some of Marcos’ harshest critics. He was relentless in his quest and on certain instances he would spend his own money if only to make the right to counsel of his poor but deserving clients a living reality. Jojo and Rene Saguisag (who were pals) in their own perilous pursuits were like the crusading streetwise cops Starsky and Hutch. We were their junior helpers.

I watched Jojo, his size notwithstanding, refusing to back out of physical encounters with mean toughies, whether they were the feared goons of Marcos lieutenants or some drunkards or bullies raising havoc in his backyard.

I have not seen, or talked to, the man for more than 20 years although I passed by his office many times whenever I’ve been in Makati; I had nothing important to tell him and didn’t want to waste his time. That’s how I respect the man and his position.

I have heard some claiming that Jojo has somehow succumbed to human frailties as a public servant. Maybe, maybe not. I really have no idea. There’s something I’m quite certain though. He has served his city better than most Filipino presidents have served the country.

Many a time I have fancied that Jojo could be the alternative to GMA the Filipinos are looking for. Well, accidents do happen, you know. He’s a wild horse, but given the status quo I’ll bet on him.

That was two years ago. Before the Obamania.

The Obama-Biden Foreign Policy is also of great interest, especially to the Filipino people, as to what his presidency may mean for The Philippines.

According to The Change.gov website,

President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden have developed innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs.

The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and detailed agenda to carry out its policies. The principal priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.

It’s worthy to read through the Agenda being proposed by The soon to be Obama-Biden Administration

o Civil Rights
o Defense
o Disabilities
o Economy
o Education
o Energy & Environment
o Ethics
o Faith
o Family
o Fiscal
o Foreign Policy
o Healthcare
o Homeland Security

o Immigration
o Iraq
o Poverty
o Rural
o Service
o Seniors & Social Security
o Taxes
o Technology
o Urban Policy
o Veterans
o Women
o Additional Issues

The movement is however bloodless and, paradoxically, in the same intra-constitutional way the spurned regime had been first installed to power via a velvet coup – through the infamous 5-4 vote, we should not forget, of the five somber shamans in black robe. But if 2000 was a feat of judicial elitism, 2008 is a triumph of democracy.

Now, the challenge ahead of U.S. President–elect Barack Obama is how to translate his mandate to fulfill his promise of building a government for the people (Obama’s compelling victory notwithstanding, according to the election demographic data white protestant Americans, still the power axis in the United States, have rejected Obama by a margin of 65% to 35%).

Obama was then swift and smart during his victory speech in Chicago’s Grand Park, with a quarter of a million people of great diversity in attendance, to temper high optimisms by forewarning America and the world of the “enormity of the task ahead” and that “There will be setbacks and false starts” although he gave more than mere glimpses of what he plans to do.

For instance, on the economic front, he made it clear that “we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers” even as he bared a glint of Reaganesque: “government can’t solve every problem.”

On foreign policy, the president-elect appeared to restate American exceptionalism: “our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.” He did not however hesitate to manifest his resolve of toughness, or resort to the apt use of hard power whenever called for: “To those who would tear this world down: We will defeat you.”

But Obama was also unabashed about his soft and human side: “Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am.”

The multi-dimensional character of Mr. Obama seems to transcend the narrow symbolism of race, ethnicity and class which, as the worldwide euphoria to his successful journey suggests, peoples across the global spectrum identify with or embrace (with only a very few exceptions such those from Israel, Georgia and, unfortunately, Philippines, the home of “people power”).

Now, what should be top on the agenda of the new leadership? Hillary Clinton has two suggestions which appear to jibe with the direction an Obama presidency has professed to take: 1) build a new economy and 2) rebuild America’s leadership in the world.

To build a new economy, the Obama administration must first fight the present recession. On the campaign trail, Obama has been quite transparent about his longer-term strategy to overcome the economic crises. During an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in battleground Florida, Obama was forthright in his extemporaneous response:

. . . I haven’t been hiding the ball on this. I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure. Look at what China’s doing right now. Their trains are faster than us, their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive 21st century economy and we’re not.

One of the most frustrating things over the last eight years has been the ability of George Bush to pile up debt and huge deficits and not have anything to show for it, right? So, if you’re going to run deficit spending, then it better be in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our sewer lines, our water system, laying broadband lines.

One of, I think, the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid. Because if we’re going to be serious about renewable energy, I want to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago. And we’re going to have to have a smart grid if we want to use plug-in hybrids then we want to be able to have ordinary consumers sell back the electricity that’s generated from those car batteries, back into the grid. That can create 5 million new jobs, just in new energy.

But, it’s huge projects that generally speaking, you’re not going to have private enterprise want to take all those risks. And we’re going to have to be involved in that process.

x x x

Well, look. I am a strong believer in the free market. I am a strong believer in capitalism. But, I am also a strong believer that there are certain common goods that you know — our air, our water, making sure that people are safe — that require us to have some regulation. Now, it has to be well designed.

But, the financial system is a classic example of a deregulation philosophy run amuck. And now, you see the consequences and ironically, had we had some sensible regulation, we would not have now, actually, a much closer approximation to socialism when it comes to the banking system, than anything that any Democrats have been proposing over the last several years. When you don’t guard against excess, then a lot of times government ends up having to step in anyway, in a much more burdensome way.

On the other hand, to rebuild America’s leadership in the world, the new government must demonstrate right away concrete steps toward ending the war in Iraq.

Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope (2006): “how quickly a complete withdrawal can be accomplished is a matter of imperfect judgment based on a series of best guesses.” This early, the president-elect will be getting top-secret national security briefings from different government intelligence services. The grave responsibility attached to the high office of the U.S. presidency requires that Obama must listen to the experts but that does not mean that he must not continue to hearken to the collective judgment of ordinary people even on the very sensitive issue of ending a war.

Interestingly, how Obama plans to refocus the war on terror was also covered in the Maddow interview:

. . . we can’t allow bin Laden and al Qaeda to establish safe havens where they are plotting to kill Americans and train troops. There’s no dispute that that’s taking place right now. And so, we’ve got to make Afghanistan stable enough and focused enough on controlling its own borders, that we’re not seeing the Taliban and al Qaeda return.

In the meantime, I think the most important thing that we’re going to have to do in addition to adding more troops, providing alternatives to farmers for the poppy trade. Making sure that services are actually being delivered to the Afghan people.

The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan, is actually deal with Pakistan. And we’ve got work with the newly elected government there in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.

And, we’ve got to say to the Pakistani people, we’re not just going to fund a dictator in order for us to feel comfortable with who we’re dealing with. We’re going to respect democracy.

The historic Obama movement has succeeded against formidable barriers primarily because of intense commitments (yes, we can) to address the people’s concerns about a sinking economy and a protracted Iraq war as well as the sea of troubles that necessarily flows from these concerns. The honeymoon and celebratory mode will quickly dissipate with the slightest perception of backsliding or flip-flopping on these promises.

So, yes: “We as a people (must) get there.”

US President-elect Obama is next expected to appoint a treasury secretary to tackle the country’s economic crisis.

He has until his inauguration on 20 January to select his senior officials. Read Full Article

US President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama was keenly aware the world was transfixed on the 2008 elections as he spoke today in a humble but resolute tone about his foreign policy’s broad strokes.

He clearly knows the free world looks to him to give flesh to America’s continuing role as policeman of the world and foremost exponent of democracy, human rights, and free enterprise.

It does not take too much reading between the lines to understand that the 47-year-old 44th president of America, its historic first black chief executive, will shun dealing with unpopular, corrupt, and authoritarian regimes.

And fully focused on the great task the lies ahead, Mr. Obama was very selective in taking the hundreds of congratulary phone calls from leaders around the world today.