Obama´s Vice President
Rizwan Ghani
June 05, 2008
Obama has made history by winning Democratic Party presidential nomination for general election.America like rest of the world is keen to know if Obama will like to have Hillary as VP.
It is Obama´s prerogative to make the final choice. However, in my view Hillary will not be that person because Obama stands for ´Change´ and Hillary as put by Obama camp represents ´status quo´. The press reports also support this assertion http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/05/barackobama.hillaryclinton1.
Democrats should listen to Carter carefully and allow Obama to make his choice. Party voters had six months to choose between inspirational vs operational, depth and breadth of experience. They single women had their say. Obama victory is a clear message. The party will unite. America wants change and it spells end of 'status quo' era.
The fact of the matter is both individuals have diametric personalities, views and in all fairness, Hillary´s return to White House even as VP could well be termed as ´shadows of Bill Clinton´s third term in office´. In all probability, Obama will like to bring a fresh team to White House to give the nation a clean start.
Obama´s statement of working with Hillary in future being termed by the media as ´olive branch´ has more to do with keeping Democratic Party vote bank intact for national election than Hillary herself. Obama camp´s refusal to accept the ´dream ticket´ idea from day one shows that it was never an option.
In all probability, Obama will like to have VP who supports his vision of change; brings states/votes in national election and is simultaneously a reliable, trustworthy and truthful.
In my view, Obama by adopting US Supreme Court´s 1936 decision can use issue-based politics on domestic and foreign policy front to select a VP and in the process win national election. The court upheld most of New Deal acts asserting that individual citizens must be protected against overpowering economic groups and from disasters, they have not brought on themselves. Legislative enactments provided for old-age and survivors insurance, unemployment insurance, federal control of various financial interests, minimum wages, supervision of agricultural production, and the right of labor unions to organize and bargain collectively.
The independent observers would agree that both Obama and Hillary have failed to conclusively crack the health care challenge. Reportedly, the statistics show that America with life expectancy of 75.5 years has lost to Cuba with the life expectancy of 77 years. The experts instead of muddying the waters by dragging in socialism etc should focus on positives across the world including Cuba to regain the loss in the national average life expectancy due to poor planning, bureaucracy and soaring costs of insurance and overall deteriorating health care standards at individual and state level.
Democrats need to bring entire medical system including private practices and insurance programs under the microscope to decrease drug prices, cut overhead costs and make the system accountable, which up until now has used (or abused) free economy´s unrestricted right to business to generate profits without delivering the results. The New Deal allows state intervention in health sector for public welfare. In wake of neo-conservatives supporting Wall Street and Banking sector, which is a violation of free market economy why should not Democrats ´socialize´ health care. The 1936 New Deal US Supreme Court decision allows for any such ´Change´.
It holds good for quality education for all, rationalizing hourly wages/salaries of workers and chief executives down to 7:1 from existing 289:1 and end speculation by freezing oil prices to 80 dollar a barrel (50+ 30% Dollar devaluation) and other essential commodity prices because they are beyond power of ordinary American people and rest of the world.
With the Great Depression of the 1930s and the New Deal introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, American conservatism became a distinct political movement. Many Americans applauded the New Deal legislation that introduced serious constraints on free-market activities and allowed for the growth of the federal government, heavy taxation, and governmental intervention in and regulation of the economy.
The conservatives disapproved of the New Deal and restated the fundamental premises of a free-market economy. The most forthright rejection of the New Deal appeared in a book by the Austrian-born economist Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944), in which he argued against governmental economic controls and planning. Conservatives continued to insist on a return to the free-market economy and on a retrenchment of the federal government and its bureaucracy.
Obama and the Democratic Party leadership in step with New Deal should therefore help oil producers ´find´ a realistic value of barrel of oil to end current hike in fuel prices backed by the speculation. Reportedly, 86 million barrels of oil are being produced daily against the demand of 88 mbd. The 2 mbd deficiency is no justification to push oil prices from 50 dollar a barrel to 130 dollar. The policies not markets should determine real prices of commodities.
The unfolding food deficiency in developing world and growing food prices worldwide http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/03/food.unitednations are byproduct of ´free market economy´ attracting investment in lucrative sectors at the cost of agri-sector and agri-sector infrastructure development. In addition, the weakening of agri-sector has directly or indirectly precipitated following breakdowns in developing world: 1) joblessness and poverty 2) demographic displacement leading to pressure on urban centers. Reportedly, every third person in urban centers of developing world is either living in a ghetto or experiencing squalid living condition with inadequate health care, poor/no education and clean drinking water. 3) Agri-subsidies by advanced countries to their farmers depressing agri-produce prices in developing countries that in turn exacerbates chain of social unrest including unemployment, crime, sickness and illiteracy.
Ban Ki Moon in his UN Food Summit Rome address has projected 950 million people facing food shortages. Personally, I think it is around 2 billion. In Pakistan (120 million) and Indian (800 million) alone 920 million people are living below two dollars a day. Africa, rest of Asia, Europe and some 47 million American dependent on food stamps living below $22,000 federal poverty line are in addition.
Due to globalization, the American domestic policies including economic policies have direct impact on advanced world. Unless Obama and Democrat Party introduce ´checks and balances´ based on New Deal the developing world lacking requisite advance infrastructure, laws and policies similar to advance world cannot control corruption, secure local economies at hands of corrupt banking sector, stock exchanges and corporate world. In other words, the rich will keep getting richer and poor poorer. No amount of US aid can end this cycle of poverty, illiteracy and disease.
On the foreign policy front Obama as custodian of Liberalism should stand up against Conservatism supporting American nationalism claimed to have a "manifest destiny" to guide and educate "lesser" peoples in the world. Many conservative intellectuals and political leaders, therefore, favored a colonial policy for the United States.
Conservatives opposing New Deal since 1962 eventually got their chance in in 1980´s personified by Regan to oust the consensus that had been originally established around the New Deal welfare philosophy. Bush era stoically continued Conservative economic policies including strong support for religious and national values as well as strong opposition to high taxes, government controls, and federal spending accounted for the ascendancy of the conservatism within the Republican Party. McCain by supporting Regan policies is in fact peddling for unchecked free market economic policies including support for WTO, World Bank and IMF which simply put is a neo-cons Conservative agenda. Obama has rightly termed McCain´s policies as Bush´s third term in office.
Similarly, McCain´s call for national security is Conservatives rallying cry against the New Deal. Two wars, Iran and ME are manifestation of flawed Conservative claims of ´manifest destiny´ to ´democratize´ and ´educate´ lesser people in the world. Roosevelt reportedly had warned the policy makers to protect the country from interests of military-economic complex. The Democrats therefore have to see through Republicans ploy using US national security to secure economic and political interests of Super Rich.
The fact of the matter is America is an economic power fueled by trade, commerce and immigrants. The policies that undermine these areas will compromise national interest and global interests. It can always be argued if flawed economic and political policies of Republicans or handful of rogue elements are greater threat to country´s national security.
Therefore, on the domestic and foreign policy fronts Obama and Democratic Party have to end Neo-con Republican backed economic and foreign policies and instead adopt policies that support New Deal. In other words, end era of neo-Cons and start era of True-Liberalism to help reduce food and oil prices; improve health care and education; increase wages and end two wars.
On the global front instead of giving aid Obama and Democratic Party should do following to end poverty, illiteracy, joblessness as part of improving prosperity, security and good governance: 1) expansion/improvement of agri- and manufacturing sector. 2) Eradicate corruption. 3) reinforce/introduce culture of accountability, transparency and meritocracy. 4) Establish/reinforce governance infrastructure including independent judiciary and media so as to strengthen political systems, respect for constitutional rights and global conventions/charters.
Thus, Obama has to look for a VP who believes in real Liberal values including New Deal; is ready to fight against poverty and keen to protect interests of an average American; prefers diplomacy to war and recognizes international platform, conventions and charters for mutual safety and security. It is hoped Party including three influential Democrats will deliver. I think John Edwards though reportedly poised to be the new Attorney General for his pro-poor election campaign and Bill Richardson's wide experience are strong candidates for the post.
References:
Macridis, Roy C. "Conservatism." Microsoft® Student 2008
Gay, Peter. "Liberalism." Microsoft® Student 2008
It is Obama´s prerogative to make the final choice. However, in my view Hillary will not be that person because Obama stands for ´Change´ and Hillary as put by Obama camp represents ´status quo´. The press reports also support this assertion http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/05/barackobama.hillaryclinton1.
Democrats should listen to Carter carefully and allow Obama to make his choice. Party voters had six months to choose between inspirational vs operational, depth and breadth of experience. They single women had their say. Obama victory is a clear message. The party will unite. America wants change and it spells end of 'status quo' era.
The fact of the matter is both individuals have diametric personalities, views and in all fairness, Hillary´s return to White House even as VP could well be termed as ´shadows of Bill Clinton´s third term in office´. In all probability, Obama will like to bring a fresh team to White House to give the nation a clean start.
Obama´s statement of working with Hillary in future being termed by the media as ´olive branch´ has more to do with keeping Democratic Party vote bank intact for national election than Hillary herself. Obama camp´s refusal to accept the ´dream ticket´ idea from day one shows that it was never an option.
In all probability, Obama will like to have VP who supports his vision of change; brings states/votes in national election and is simultaneously a reliable, trustworthy and truthful.
In my view, Obama by adopting US Supreme Court´s 1936 decision can use issue-based politics on domestic and foreign policy front to select a VP and in the process win national election. The court upheld most of New Deal acts asserting that individual citizens must be protected against overpowering economic groups and from disasters, they have not brought on themselves. Legislative enactments provided for old-age and survivors insurance, unemployment insurance, federal control of various financial interests, minimum wages, supervision of agricultural production, and the right of labor unions to organize and bargain collectively.
The independent observers would agree that both Obama and Hillary have failed to conclusively crack the health care challenge. Reportedly, the statistics show that America with life expectancy of 75.5 years has lost to Cuba with the life expectancy of 77 years. The experts instead of muddying the waters by dragging in socialism etc should focus on positives across the world including Cuba to regain the loss in the national average life expectancy due to poor planning, bureaucracy and soaring costs of insurance and overall deteriorating health care standards at individual and state level.
Democrats need to bring entire medical system including private practices and insurance programs under the microscope to decrease drug prices, cut overhead costs and make the system accountable, which up until now has used (or abused) free economy´s unrestricted right to business to generate profits without delivering the results. The New Deal allows state intervention in health sector for public welfare. In wake of neo-conservatives supporting Wall Street and Banking sector, which is a violation of free market economy why should not Democrats ´socialize´ health care. The 1936 New Deal US Supreme Court decision allows for any such ´Change´.
It holds good for quality education for all, rationalizing hourly wages/salaries of workers and chief executives down to 7:1 from existing 289:1 and end speculation by freezing oil prices to 80 dollar a barrel (50+ 30% Dollar devaluation) and other essential commodity prices because they are beyond power of ordinary American people and rest of the world.
With the Great Depression of the 1930s and the New Deal introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, American conservatism became a distinct political movement. Many Americans applauded the New Deal legislation that introduced serious constraints on free-market activities and allowed for the growth of the federal government, heavy taxation, and governmental intervention in and regulation of the economy.
The conservatives disapproved of the New Deal and restated the fundamental premises of a free-market economy. The most forthright rejection of the New Deal appeared in a book by the Austrian-born economist Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944), in which he argued against governmental economic controls and planning. Conservatives continued to insist on a return to the free-market economy and on a retrenchment of the federal government and its bureaucracy.
Obama and the Democratic Party leadership in step with New Deal should therefore help oil producers ´find´ a realistic value of barrel of oil to end current hike in fuel prices backed by the speculation. Reportedly, 86 million barrels of oil are being produced daily against the demand of 88 mbd. The 2 mbd deficiency is no justification to push oil prices from 50 dollar a barrel to 130 dollar. The policies not markets should determine real prices of commodities.
The unfolding food deficiency in developing world and growing food prices worldwide http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/03/food.unitednations are byproduct of ´free market economy´ attracting investment in lucrative sectors at the cost of agri-sector and agri-sector infrastructure development. In addition, the weakening of agri-sector has directly or indirectly precipitated following breakdowns in developing world: 1) joblessness and poverty 2) demographic displacement leading to pressure on urban centers. Reportedly, every third person in urban centers of developing world is either living in a ghetto or experiencing squalid living condition with inadequate health care, poor/no education and clean drinking water. 3) Agri-subsidies by advanced countries to their farmers depressing agri-produce prices in developing countries that in turn exacerbates chain of social unrest including unemployment, crime, sickness and illiteracy.
Ban Ki Moon in his UN Food Summit Rome address has projected 950 million people facing food shortages. Personally, I think it is around 2 billion. In Pakistan (120 million) and Indian (800 million) alone 920 million people are living below two dollars a day. Africa, rest of Asia, Europe and some 47 million American dependent on food stamps living below $22,000 federal poverty line are in addition.
Due to globalization, the American domestic policies including economic policies have direct impact on advanced world. Unless Obama and Democrat Party introduce ´checks and balances´ based on New Deal the developing world lacking requisite advance infrastructure, laws and policies similar to advance world cannot control corruption, secure local economies at hands of corrupt banking sector, stock exchanges and corporate world. In other words, the rich will keep getting richer and poor poorer. No amount of US aid can end this cycle of poverty, illiteracy and disease.
On the foreign policy front Obama as custodian of Liberalism should stand up against Conservatism supporting American nationalism claimed to have a "manifest destiny" to guide and educate "lesser" peoples in the world. Many conservative intellectuals and political leaders, therefore, favored a colonial policy for the United States.
Conservatives opposing New Deal since 1962 eventually got their chance in in 1980´s personified by Regan to oust the consensus that had been originally established around the New Deal welfare philosophy. Bush era stoically continued Conservative economic policies including strong support for religious and national values as well as strong opposition to high taxes, government controls, and federal spending accounted for the ascendancy of the conservatism within the Republican Party. McCain by supporting Regan policies is in fact peddling for unchecked free market economic policies including support for WTO, World Bank and IMF which simply put is a neo-cons Conservative agenda. Obama has rightly termed McCain´s policies as Bush´s third term in office.
Similarly, McCain´s call for national security is Conservatives rallying cry against the New Deal. Two wars, Iran and ME are manifestation of flawed Conservative claims of ´manifest destiny´ to ´democratize´ and ´educate´ lesser people in the world. Roosevelt reportedly had warned the policy makers to protect the country from interests of military-economic complex. The Democrats therefore have to see through Republicans ploy using US national security to secure economic and political interests of Super Rich.
The fact of the matter is America is an economic power fueled by trade, commerce and immigrants. The policies that undermine these areas will compromise national interest and global interests. It can always be argued if flawed economic and political policies of Republicans or handful of rogue elements are greater threat to country´s national security.
Therefore, on the domestic and foreign policy fronts Obama and Democratic Party have to end Neo-con Republican backed economic and foreign policies and instead adopt policies that support New Deal. In other words, end era of neo-Cons and start era of True-Liberalism to help reduce food and oil prices; improve health care and education; increase wages and end two wars.
On the global front instead of giving aid Obama and Democratic Party should do following to end poverty, illiteracy, joblessness as part of improving prosperity, security and good governance: 1) expansion/improvement of agri- and manufacturing sector. 2) Eradicate corruption. 3) reinforce/introduce culture of accountability, transparency and meritocracy. 4) Establish/reinforce governance infrastructure including independent judiciary and media so as to strengthen political systems, respect for constitutional rights and global conventions/charters.
Thus, Obama has to look for a VP who believes in real Liberal values including New Deal; is ready to fight against poverty and keen to protect interests of an average American; prefers diplomacy to war and recognizes international platform, conventions and charters for mutual safety and security. It is hoped Party including three influential Democrats will deliver. I think John Edwards though reportedly poised to be the new Attorney General for his pro-poor election campaign and Bill Richardson's wide experience are strong candidates for the post.
References:
Macridis, Roy C. "Conservatism." Microsoft® Student 2008
Gay, Peter. "Liberalism." Microsoft® Student 2008
Print
Email
