| laoyao 的个人资料A Chinese in America日志列表 |  工具  帮助 |
|
5月11日 Joel Klein: History of American Political Consulting (Part I: Presidential Campaigns) OK, Just kidding. His title is actually "Politics Lost", with subtitle "How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid". And yes, this is the most trivialized book I've ever listened to. Here is an example given by a New York Times book review: For example, when Klein writes of Pat Caddell, a pioneering pollster, "His junior partners — people like Paul Maslin and Mike Donilon — had relationships with other media consultants, and they also had clients who wanted Bob Squier or Ray Strother, not Doak and Shrum, to do their advertising," the observation is no more interesting in context than it is here. Naturally, my reaction was like reading a Chinese article mentioning Anselm of Canterbury, Pierre Abélard, Solomon Ibn Gabirol,Peter Lombard and Gilbert de la Porrée as if they were author's friend 胡适之. (BTW, don't worry, I have heck no idea what these people are either. I simply copied this list from a wiki page about something I don't understand.) But everyone who reads TIME knows who Joe Klein is. One of the best and most influential political analysts in this country, whose article appears in the first several pages of each TIME, and who closely followed all presidential campaigns in the past three decades. No wonder he would write his book like Stephen Hawkins assuming every reader knows Dirac, Poisson, or Arrhenius (BTW, I know all of them. :-)). His book started with a speech Robert Kennedy gave in front of a mostly black audience when he was campaigning in Indianapolis and the breaking news came that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. RFK gave a spontaneous short yet very emotional speech, in which he talked about the assassination of his brother for the first time in public. He pledged for non-violence, and pray. It turned out Indianapolis was the only major city that didn't have riots in the black community after MLK's death. Joe Klein saw this as a real example of statemanship, that shows the human side of a politician, which may seem weak but is actually what human decency is all about. And then, he started talking about a young Democratic pollster named Pat Caddell, who at the same time in the Deep South, was developing a totally new way of polling: not only asking voters whom you are going to vote for, but also ask what issues you concern most, what if this candidate runs head-on with that candidate, would you vote for this candidate if his position in that issues is......And guess what, 8 years later, at age of 26, he was recruited by a Southerner Jimmy Carter, who according to Klein, had an instant mutual attraction with Caddell when they met.  So it begins Joe Klein's History of American Political Consulting, Part I, Presidential Campaigns: Jimmy Carter - A nice person, honest man, and clumsy politician, as well as weak president. Caddell helped him run a successful campaign in both primary and the general election, but gave some wrong suggestions during his presidency, like incorrectly deciding to please American people rather than lead them, i.e., show them strength (shit, am I writing an SM movie review?). Ronald Reagan - Natural politician, partly due to his actor career. Very good performer, who sometimes can pop out great lines that were not scripted by writers, like "Honey, I forgot to dodge" after Hinkley's assassination. American people love that, and Reagan knew that too. He would refuse suggestions from consultants at times he thought his instinct was correct. And for most of the time, he turned out to be indeed correct. George H. W. Bush - Good policy maker, clumsy politician. He had some great accomplishments during his presidency, but he as a candidate was only mediocre, which led him to lose the re-election because of an economic recession that's at most, medium. (And he won the first election just because his opponent, Dukakis, was even worse.) Bill Clinton - Brilliant politician, one of the best political consultants himself. He is a naturally born master of politics, who can change his position flexibly to turn disadvantages to advantages. He is smart enough to understand what ordinary people want, and explain complicated issues with plain languages, yet human enough to sometimes show his weak side, which made him famous for always coming back (and Monica Lewinsky). In one word, he is good at both dealing with politicians and connecting with voters. Al Gore - Good policy maker, but not good politician. Klein argues that Gore has a tremendous understanding of issues, sometimes to surprisingly impressive details, with an academic attitude (well, think about Global Warming). But his public image was terrible, probably due to he is in essence a shy person. And his academic spirit made him too focused in numbers. Poll numbers. He would make stupid decisions based on who-knows-accurate-or-not numbers, like being scared by some Democratic primary opponent so he announced his complete platform too early that he didn't have enough momentums in the general election. John McCain - Good person who greatly overestimated the importance of personality in politics. In Klein's eyes, McCain's campaign is all about presenting John McCain himself, rather than the traditional campaign that studies the opponent, or what the voters want to hear. His famous "straight talk" campaign theme was great, but just wouldn't work in today's politics. When he met Karl Rove, he got crushed with no chance. George W. Bush - Natural politician. His easy-going and no-nonsense image is very popular in specific voting groups. And his consulting team is simply one of the greatest ever. It has been built for a long time. Bush has faith in them, and they have loyalty to Bush. Oh, and it's led by a man named Karl Rove. What can you say? John Kerry - Lousy candidate. Klein calls him political opportunist. He doesn't know what his position is, merely depending on guessing what voters want him to be. He is just an opposite of his fellow Vietnam veteran John McCain. As a result, he won the Democratic primary as everyone's second choice, but he lost their trust. However, Klein also pointed out that Kerry himself was not that bad. He had faiths and ideals, but just didn't have the guts to refuse the consultants (BTW, according to Klein, Kerry's consultants were in constant internal power struggle). At the end of the book, Klein gave hope, and suggestions, to the new emerging politicians. Like having a "good angle" friend who would suggest you on your conscience, rather than numbers that your consultants would suggest on. And at least on one issue, have a position that less than 40% of the voters would agree with. This book was apparently written in some anger, as well as some despair. I am personally not so angry or desperate though. First of all, the success of certain candidates were always credited to different reasons by different pundits. For example, Bush's 2000 election victory has been attributed to the following factors: evangelicals (religious Right), conservatism strike back, Clinton scandal, Gore arrogance, Bush family connections, Karl Rove......Even if the pundits' analysis are only 10% correct, Bush should have won by landslide. But the election was actually decided by some hundreds old people in Florida, who probably thought they were voting for Gore. Had Gore won, what would the pundits say? They will say the same thing, just in an opposite direction! Yeah, liberal rules, Clinton rocks, rationalism wins, religion sucks, political family go to hell, and Karl Rove is one of the most stupid political consultants you can ever have! And secondly, it makes total sense to me that politicians rely heavily on their consultants. I think politician, just like any other career today, is becoming more and more professionalized and trivialized. This is inevitable. The problem is, while politics have been changing into professionalism as other careers, it still remains a unique career that affects everyone, and in a democracy, affected by everyone. Therefore, a good politician has to maintain a good knowledge of public affairs, and a good skill of public relationships. This is the dilemma of the 2000 election. Gore is almost a scholar, but people don't like his personality. Bush is charming, but he is an idiot as a president. No one can really be successful in both fields. Clinton is close, but still suffered major failures in both sides. You want the human side of politician? Well, then why don you still expect them to be omnipotent? So Klein's suggestion, or hope, of an authentic humane politician, is, to me, too simple, sometimes naive. I think the more applicable solution should be small government. Once the power of the government is limited, people would care less, and there is less for politicians to concern about. That would still require some political consultants, but it would be much doable job now. And don't forget the side effect: politicians will get much less donations and endorsements in a limited government, which means, they will have much less money to hire consultants. 5月6日 some Readers' Letters for the Time's China issue The cover story of Jan. 22nd Time was the rise of China. There were some interesting comments from readers that appeared on the issue two weeks later. But to be fair and balanced, I quote all of them here, so that you know the world is not as crazy as I would have presented. :-) Rise of a New Superpower Our inaugural section on China examined how that country is directing its commercial growth outward, building foreign economies and its political muscle along the way. Readers grappled with how the world has yet to change China--and how China has yet to change the world RE "The Chinese Century" [Jan. 22]: I am from China, and I'm studying in a medical school in the U.S. Like many young people in China, I have a lot of worries about the country's uncertain future. Chinese society has extremely good aspects, such as a booming economy and increased opportunities for young people, but also bad sides, like Internet censorship and peasants' and laborers' poorly protected rights. China's leaders must be made to understand that democratic reforms are urgently needed. Not only is China's peaceful rise an aspiration of 1.3 billion Chinese, but it will be good for the rest of the world too. KOU QIN Augusta, Ga. TIME reported on China's business activity in Africa but was silent on the continent's economic strategy. It involves the New Partnerships for Africa's Development (NEPAD). Far from being a begging bowl, as many have misunderstood them to be, the partnerships are aimed at achieving political reform, sustainable economic growth and social justice. The China-Africa Summit that was held in China last year emphasized NEPAD as a long-term framework within which China should engage Africa. China is a critical player that Africa will work with strategically to establish fair procedures for international trade. As for colonization, the African people will ensure that it never happens again. TSHILIDZI MARWALA Cambridge, Mass. Your article overemphasized the lack of democracy in China, leading to speculation about possible global catastrophe and war. Democracy can't be imposed on a nation, however; it must evolve to take root and endure. China has come a long way from the feudal regime it was only 100 years ago, and it will reach democracy on its own terms. China's strategy to meet its demand for natural resources is entirely peaceful. Fierce competition for natural resources does not preclude international cooperation. Maybe China will align its strategies with the U.S.'s if the U.S. stops interfering in China's internal affairs and starts looking for common goals such as world peace and prosperity. CHRISTINA FENG Malvern, Pa. I am a 16-year-old high school student and despite spending most of my life in the U.S., my patriotic sentiments for my homeland, China, have never faded. I used to attribute criticism of China to envy of its burgeoning geopolitical influence, but having discovered that patriotism and rational thinking are not incompatible, I am now open to reasonable criticisms of that country. Most people don't realize that China has 55 ethnic minorities. An abrupt switch to a democratic system would probably prove disastrous. A strong central government exercising a bit of authoritarianism is probably not the worst evil for China at this point in time. China has made substantial progress in integrating capitalist reforms, which have brought immeasurable economic benefits. As the century moves along, the government will gradually relax its policies and adopt concepts like intellectual-property rights and maybe even human rights. I look forward to TIME's regular section on China. GEORGE LU Rockville, Md. "The Chinese Century" convinced me that by buying products made in China I am supporting that country's political nonintervention policies in areas like Darfur and helping perpetuate a disgusting lack of regard for the value of human life. From now on, I am going to focus on buying American-made products. JANET THURSTON Brighton, Mich. 5月4日 Jessica Lynch: The truth is always more heroic than the hype. "The truth of war is not always easy to hear but it is always more heroic than the hype." True hero! 5月2日 Motorcycle Diaries First I have to reveal how retarded I am. ---- I didn't realize this movie is about Che Guevara until the last minute of it. (which is consistent with the fact that I didn't realize the underground princess tale is probably only an illusion of Ofelia until the last minute of Pan's Labyrinth) This is partly due to my stolidity to foreign names. I skipped all the names in the caption automatically, not to mention the names "Fuser" and "Ernesto" further estranged me from that famous name. But that's exactly why I enjoyed this movie. I didn't watch it as a youth biography of a revolutionary icon, but as two ordinary people's journey to explore a continent with enthusiasm, curiosity, and hope to have some fun. Yes that young man might seem too idealistic and innocent, but for God's sake, he was only 22, well-educated, and an Argentinian! And after all he did try to seduce (or be seduced by) a beautiful woman when her husband was nearby but drunken. I did feel some phoniness though, by the last scene of swimming across the Amazon river. But, now that I know that was Che Guevara, the guy who abandoned high rank government position for a highly dangerous guerrilla war in which he was eventually killed, that scene is not phony at all. It's compassion, one of the most noble human emotions that nowadays people are shy to exhibit even if they have. But of course, compassion is also one of the most noble human emotions that have been, is, and will continue to be terribly abused as the excuse of hate crimes, intentionally or unintentionally, in which Che himself contributed a good part, and still remains one of the biggest inspirations. But that will be too big a topic for me to discuss here ---- or, as you know, the truth is, I don't have the capacity to discuss this topic to a satisfactorily convincing degree. And finally, two more pictures:   |
|
|
