Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Republican Contenders in 2016 White House Race: A strategy to win the hearts and souls of Voters!
Keywords or Terms: Republican Contenders; Rand Paul; John McCain; Jeb Bush; Marco Rubio; Scott Walker; Carly Fiorina; Rick Perry; Religious Freedom; Sexual Equality; Safety and Security of our Nation; Israel; Iran; Jordan; Saudi Arabia; Nuclear Weapons; Middle East; Hillary Clinton; and the New World Order
Yesterday, two Republican heavy weights declared their ambition to run for the White House or re-election to the US Senate. The strikingly heavy handed libertarian, Rand Paul, will like to become a US President and John McCain will like to be re-elected to a sixth term in US Senate. Both Republican candidates and a few more, are flawed for several reasons, among which is probably their role in signing a treacherous letter to Iranian leaders, enunciated by Tom Cotton, the senator holding brief for the State of Israel, if you ask, when it comes to stopping Iran from having nuclear capabilities. You've heard Jeb Bush, another Republican contender and probably the leading Republican in the race for the White House in 2016 saying, he cannot stand behind a flawed agreement. Rand Paul, John McCain, and Jeb Bush, like other Republican contenders, will now have to face Republican voters to make either of their dreams come through. Nothing can be taken for granted, not even the support for religious freedom against sexual equality; or, the unquestionable commitment to a disgruntled ally who often chooses to go her own way, outside reason on issues that affect, indirectly or directly, the safety and security of America.
Events of recent years tell us that Republican legislators have either boxed themselves to the corner with couple of missteps emanating from their “assumed” hatred for the 44th President of the United States, for whatever reason; or, their inability to understand the President’s political brinkmanship. Republican party leaders have made it difficult for Americans to understand the Party's current philosophy with the activism and insurgencies of Tea Party members. The far right Republicans’ misguided effort to paint Democrats as a tax and spend party and their own party as strong on defense by committing the nation into insistence foreign wars while surreptitiously cutting taxes for the rich, have complicated even further the understanding of the new Republican Party on many national issues. Many American progressives will like to believe Republicans can be reformed; that they can be made to understand that if Israel can choose to have a nuclear bomb, any other country in the world, must be given the benefit of doubt, on self determination, no matter how hard we may argue against their choice; or, past utterances regarding the future of any state. Mind you, no one is advocating a nuclear arms race here; however, will America go to bat for Israel, if it decides to bomb Jordan, Iran or Saudi Arabia? If America will not accommodate police brutality against minority groups within its borders, why should it accommodate a foreign state with a population close to that of the State of Illinois, continuing to foster discrimination and apartheid toward “minority” Arab group(s) within its population and across its borders.
It is probably safe to now articulate that an ally as bosom as the State of Israel, also has some short comings, including past misinformation regarding whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that led to Iraq war and cost lives of innocent Americans; and or Iraqis. Importantly, it is about time that congressional leaders comprehend that domestic politics is different from foreign politics; and, anytime, either of the major political parties attempt to draw foreign politics into domestic politics, the way Congressional Republican leaders had done recently with the invitation of Prime Minister Natanyahu of Israel, there are are bound to be some unintended consequences; and probably, misinterpretation of their intentions on both national and international stages. Whichever way anyone looks at it, however, it hardly savors well for the overall interest of America.
Disconcerting concerns of some well meaning Americans regarding how Congressional Republican leaders have conducted themselves during the term of the 44th President of the United States is now raising the issue of the volatility of the Republican Party brand among American voters. Some will like the party to swing back to its old mantra, full family values, limited government and unqualified fiscal responsibility. Others have sought a need for the party to change with the times, putting up and driving a national party’s platform that truly widens the tent, offering inclusiveness to some social causes that have remained barren on the national platform of the Republican Party and showing more latitudes in recognition of diversity, within and without America. Unceremoniously at the party level, many rank and file Republicans will like the field of 2016 White House contenders to quickly shape up or shrink, so the party can wholesomely work with a viable contender to the Democrat’s Hillary Rodham Clinton, or whoever the Democratic Party ends up choosing to carry its flag. For full disclosures, I am a die-hard Democrat who believes that a good competition between the two major political parties’ candidates brings out the best on a national stage; and, offers voters opportunity to choose a versatile and dynamic occupier of the White House's oval office.
The office of the President of the United States is not only important to the veracity of the interest of the multitudes constituting America; but also, has greater meaning or interpretations for the whole world, considering that the nation is the only super power left standing on the global stage. No longer can Americans see the choice of who to occupy the Presidency as limited to the interests of only 320 million Americans; many people across the globe now see the nation as a beacon of hope and her general elections' outcomes, an issue of international interest. That is why comments from Republican contenders regarding Iranian Nuclear Negotiations have become issues of concern for many in the international community who watch closely American general elections, especially the Presidential race, including: 1) “Obama’s dangerous deal with Iran rewards an enemy, undermines our allies and threatens our safety.” – Scott Walker; 2) “This attempt to spin diplomatic failure as a success is just the latest example of this administration’s farcical approach to Iran.” - Marco Rubio; 3) “Americans and our allies are right to be wary of a nuclear deal with Iran that is riddled with concessions by the Obama administration.” – Rick Perry; 4) “Iran’s behavior is not one of a potential ally or partner, we cannot trust them” - Carly Fiorina; and, 5) “These negotiations began, by President Obama’s own admission, as an effort to deny Iran nuclear capabilities, but instead will only legitimize those activities”- Jeb Bush. These are sampled comments regarding an outline of understanding to limit Iran’s ability to attain nuclear weapons, from Republicans aspiring to rise into the office of the President of the United States. It is not yet a comprehensive agreement as of date, and comments as these are flying all over the press. You wonder why these contenders have not shown restraint on an issue of negotiations, still ongoing. Do these contenders have the discipline to hold their judgement until an ultimate agreement? Are they actually for peace in the Middle-East; or, are they sold only to tentative understanding, already castigated by the leader of an eight million people Middle-Eastern nation, that constantly continues to insult America while at the same time begging for help to be protected against discrimination at the United Nations, while her leaders continue to promote an apartheid system within its boundary, as we speak.
The Office of the President of the United States today, isn't the same as what we had during the cold war. Times are changing and our leaders, or the choice of who to occupy the White House’s oval office, must change too. Without being charged of over-characterization or dramatization, the President of the United States today, is more like the President of the whole world; because every nation looks up to this nation to do the right thing in close to virtually everything across the globe. The World expects America to lead and it always does, except with few handicaps. Forget what many envious leaders across the globe may be saying about American Colonization fervor, despite the fact the nation, on record, has shown very little inclination when compared with other countries across the globe. Whenever things go aerie or afire across the globe, America is the nation that is called for help. This means a lot, far more than many can comprehend when it comes to addressing foreign or international issues and diplomacy as against domestic issues.
America today, needs not only an intelligent, diplomatic and seasoned leader, her voters must put in place a global leader, one who understands the intricacy of America’s interest vis-à-vis other nation’s, and at the same time, able to reconcile differences of opinions when it comes to fostering global stability and international peace. This is a herculean task; one that has not been chosen by America but by default has fallen on her laps; and must not be underestimated, while choosing our leader, or President of the United States. The rise of the Internet has opened the eyes, ears and probably nose of the world; and, many people across the globe probably know what is going on in everyone’s or country’s backyard. It is going and getting to become very difficult to cover up mis-deeds, misbehavior and tyranny in governance from poleteriate, either in a Presidency or Prime Minister's office. America has to take on the added responsibility that all nations and peoples of the world, are given a fair shake when it comes to diplomacy or understanding the political, economic and sociological variables defining all of us, and the globe. This is the task ahead of us, not a monologue or tweets from political aspirants or Republican office contenders that carry no relevance to the aspirations of Americans and peoples of the world.
For Republican contenders, no longer can you succumb to the experience of the 1920’s, where keywords as “rationalize,” “efficiency”, or “technocrat” that spoke to the heartlessness and cold-minded concerns that failed the industrialization of America; nor, the “Northern vs Southern presence” on the presidential ticket as shown fifty years latter, with the Mondale’s Campaign for the White House; neither can Republicans explore the “Gipper Strategy” of early 1980’s, accusing his opponent as holding a rally at the birthplace of the KKK, in Alabama, when in reality this never happened. Neither can Republicans default solely to using the “outside strategy – the Rudy Giuliani method;” or accusing Hillary Clinton as a member of President Obama’s team who got entangled in the Benghazi fiasco. All these strategies come with a pitfall and consequences best left to your imagination. America's presidential election has now become a world's presidential election, no matter how pundits refrain from seeing it likewise. If in doubt, talk to a seasoned diplomat at the US State Department and you'll get a better perspective of the argument here.
Further, criticizing the use of executive order by President Obama will not work either, since President Obama is no longer on the national ticket; and Hillary Clinton can easily convince any living American in the past six years that President Obama had his hands tied because of the recalcitrance of Congressional Republicans and their inability to appreciate diversity in America. Neither can Republicans rely on advancing a case as Lindsay Graham puts it: “Next President should pick up negotiations with Iran from where President Obama left off, because Iranians do not respect him.” George W. Bush’s Administration was darkened by the failures of mortgage derivatives, complete meltdown of the financial sector, extensive tax cuts for the rich, and the burden of unpaid foreign wars. Republican Party’s platform must shy away from keywords as “anti-Abortion,” “anti-feminism,” “anti-immigration,” “anti-sexual equality,” “tax-cuts and unregulated financial sector,” “gutting social security and medicare,” or, “anti-Obama-care”. References to these will only bemoan the people and create a wider gap between the Republican Party and the American voters. The horrors of the recent experience for Americans is still vivid, and any attempt to sell Americans snake oil will only backfire. Establishment Republicans and Party leadership must implore their prospective candidates to speak in private as if someone out there is recording with a cell phone or camera for a live audience. YouTube is full of many misguided private statements of Republican politicians that have been made public; it behooves the politicians to be circumspect of their utterances, no matter how minuscule.
An effective social media campaign impacting psychology of voters’ social behavior must become the blue-print of winning in an Information Age; just as your imaginary enemy, President Barack Obama, has proven in the last two cycles of elections. The new lingo is participatory democracy, where the power of technology in social media and internet are harnessed for the good of political messages. Instangram, Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler among other social media must be engineered into political message and campaigns. The nature of things to come, are only determined by the imaginative Party and a resourceful leader. The American voter is now a world’s voter. Change is here; and, politicians must change; for change is the only thing that is permanent.