adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Amid pandemic, politics needs to resume in its core sense — politicians, parties need to connect with people – The Indian Express

Published

 on


Written by Suhas Palshikar
|

Updated: May 23, 2020 7:34:50 am

In Opposition, non-BJP parties have been lazy in not responding politically at all. It took two full months for the UPA and some other non-BJP parties even to think of talking formally to each other.

The past two months have thrown up an incongruous image of the politician and the political party. They are the wielders of power, they talk of the “people”, but betray an instinctive choice of “law and order” and a techno-bureaucratic idea of governance. Most parties have been on a holiday. Politics was never a dirtier word than it is today. At best, it is the season of social work or “constructive criticism”. Except for some moral indignation uttered on social media, most “Opposition” parties have remained both clueless and pathetically silent in the midst of this unprecedented crisis which is only worsened by callous policy and a bureaucratic cobweb of regulations.

Where they are ruling in a state, non-BJP parties have made the usual noises about discrimination and neglect by the Centre. But unlike the Left Front in Kerala, they have rarely come up with a robust alternative route to governance. In Opposition, non-BJP parties have been lazy in not responding politically at all. It took two full months for the UPA and some other non-BJP parties even to think of talking formally to each other. Even that meeting is marked by the absence of the BSP, SP and AAP.

While the Congress finally took the initiative in calling the non-BJP party meet, the “grand old party” has been in the forefront of the syndrome of non-political wait and watch. The Congress has manifested its usual indecision, lethargy and incomprehension in its response. It has been wary of being seen to be opposing the government. This may be partly due to the pressure of public perception. But one suspects that the party itself subscribes to the idea that moments of crisis are moments of non-political and non-contested governmental authority. Another problem for the Congress is that it is a ruling party in some states where its governments are happily using all the powers that the lockdown has extended to governments. In its approach to governance and politics, the Congress fails to distinguish itself from the BJP.

Opinion | Who is being backed by Pakistan in Afghanistan in these days of chaos?

The biggest worry for the Congress, however, is its indecision over how much to cater to the middle classes. This is a genuine dilemma. The middle classes control public discourse. The Congress keeps hoping that by talking the language of governance it can woo the middle classes. Hence, it took two months to take up the issue of the suffering of the vulnerable sections and migrants. And when it did, it was not sure who leads the party and what other party stalwarts are supposed to be doing.

Yet, there are two elements in the latest Congress approach that indicate the return of politics at last. One is the decision to focus on migrant labour and their plight. Though it decided to take this line eight weeks too late, this emphasis allows the party to sharply contrast itself to what the government did or did not do. If the Congress were to sustain this, the party would be moving towards a social coalition of the lower half of society that it has for some time shied away from.

The second element — very weak for the moment — is the political action such an approach will require. Over the past few weeks, thousands of helpless workers have been struggling to reach their homes. This has been chronicled mainly through valiant journalism. It is a shame that such a gigantic tragedy and human suffering has not stirred the politicians out of their comfort zones. Rahul Gandhi’s nominal outing may just symbolise what the political actors need to be doing. Unless party workers hit the roads, talk with suffering workers, walk with them, they will not realise that taking a stand also means mixing with the people. What Rahul Gandhi did the other day was hugely inadequate and far too late and yet, very important — a message to (his) party workers that politics needs to resume in its core sense — connecting with the people. If leaders of state parties were also to take a cue, an opening up of the political arena might be facilitated in these times of political quiet. Given the fact that many state parties have more active cadres locally than the Congress, much of the political action and agenda setting will depend on state parties.

Opinion | The govt’s flagship health scheme has crossed 1 crore treatments, positively impacted lives

On its part, the BJP, too, is caught in the trap of regulation and denial. Its inadequate political response to the pandemic has been three-fold. First, it hoped that Modi magic will turn the virus away. If one listens again to the first speech by Narendra Modi (March 19) when he announced a day-long Janata curfew, one would be aghast about the naiveté publicised by it. But it is also about the collective willingness to believe in the impossible. The claim that a 14-hour-long curfew, and then, a 21-day lockdown will break the “chain”, constituted the BJP’s initial response (the lockdown did break many a life chain, but the claim was about chains of infection). The BJP went about doing what it does best: Turn everything into an event feeding into pseudo-nationalist sentiment. Thus, outworn clichés about national pride, war, etc kept circulating.

Cut to the PM’s latest speech on May 12 indicating the second and third response. That speech was significant for its careful underplaying of the COVID issue and its frantic effort to divert attention to India’s glorious future by adopting an “atmanirbhar” approach. Suddenly, COVID was a non-issue and India’s march to power was the issue. The third stage of the BJP’s response followed immediately – and was, in fact, included in that speech. It consisted of a combination of claims of massive financial relief package and “reforms”.

After two difficult months of lockdown, India stands humbled — by the virus, but more than that, by the treatment meted out to its most vulnerable sections; humbled, also, by the fact that a large lower stratum of so-called middle classes will have lost its source of livelihood. At a moment when governments needed to be more deliberative, we have a government beset with uncontrollably delusional self-belief. When governance needed to be more responsive and democratic, we celebrate the culture of obedience, inculcate bureaucratic authoritarianism and are happy with platitudes.

Resumption of democratic contestation is a must. Our main challenge is to revive and build politics. If at this historic moment Opposition parties truly engage in politics, they would be ensuring a possibility of a political response to the pandemic. Politics alone can be survival therapy for democracy — perhaps in doing that Opposition parties would be ensuring their own survival too.

This article first appeared in the print section of May 23, 2020, under the title ‘The political therapy’. The writer taught political science at Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, and is chief editor of Studies in Indian Politics

Opinion | Stress on supply-side in economic package while neglecting demand reveals flawed understanding of economies

???? The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

More From Suhas Palshikar

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

News

Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’ for Halloween video asking viewers to vote

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.

In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”

At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.

“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.

She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.

“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.

“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

The Harris campaign has taken on Beyonce’s track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending