In Washington and the White House, the game of musical chairs is still going strong: but it is more than a game. Since the election on Nov. 2, eight of the 15 members of President George W. Bush's first-term Cabinet have resigned. This is already a higher rate of turnover than occurred at this transition stage under the last two presidents who won a second term, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and more departures are predicted. Yet the number of outgoing Cabinet members is less significant than the kind of individuals who have been chosen to replace them.
There's Carlos Gutierrez, the new commerce secretary, a native of Havana who began his career at Kelloggs, selling cereal out of a van; and Margaret Spellings, the new education secretary, and the first woman in that post for almost a quarter of a century; and Alberto Gonzales, the new justice secretary, who is the son of a migrant farm worker; and of course Condoleezza Rice, the first black female US secretary of state, who has replaced Colin Powell, the first black male to hold that post. A multimillionaire and a son of privilege, Bush is successfully engineering -- or so it seems -- a rainbow administration.
YUSHA
At one level, this is to his and the US' credit. It is also a vivid demonstration of why the right here is currently so much more successful than its British equivalent. To be sure, because this is a presidential and not a parliamentary system, Bush is not confined in his choice of Cabinet ministers to elected officials. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a British rightwing Cabinet being flooded by quite so many females, immigrants and non-whites. The Tories are not yet that adroit.
Because, make no mistake, Bush's Cabinet appointments represent the politics of calculation quite as much as -- if not more than -- meritocracy and multiculturalism. Since so many of Bush's new appointees are women or from minority groups, it will be much harder for Senate Democrats to withhold from them the necessary approval.
Moreover, appointing individuals who were not born to the purple (as Bush himself was), but who instead owe their prominence to him, is an obvious way of buttressing Cabinet loyalty. But the calculation involved in these new Cabinet appointments goes deeper than this. By so strenuously encompassing diversity within his administration, Bush is further reinforcing what proved the Republicans' most potent message during the election: that he and they stand for America, that indeed they are America, while the Democrats are a party of sectional interests and half-baked elitists.
Of course, this claim is substantially unfair. The Republicans invoke a united America, but they also draw on vital sectional interests of their own: evangelical Christians, the gun lobby, the oil industry, and much of Wall Street. In other ways, too, their opportunity-for-all politics are not quite what they seem. If one looks below the top positions in Bush's administration to the mass of senior executive positions, the number of female and minority appointees is far less impressive than it was under Bill Clinton.
None the less, in one respect, the Republicans' critique is correct. The Democrats have allowed themselves to appear overidentified with particular groups in US society, and so made it easier for their opponents to posture as the party of the nation.
In part this has happened because of a failure of ideas. In recent decades, those on the US left have tended to be preoccupied with disaggregation and difference. They have seemed obsessed with race and gender issues, and neglectful of those powerful forces that in practice often override these divisions: religion, nationalism, individual and family ambition, etc.
Thus Democrats have conventionally appealed to America's Hispanic voters in terms of their difference, by focusing on issues such as civil rights and immigration. By contrast, the Republicans have doubled their share of the Hispanic vote over the past three elections by appealing to it much more in terms of mainstream issues such as education and home ownership.
One way for the Democrats to redress these failings, some of the party's pundits are now arguing, is by a judicious change of language. Instead of championing same-sex marriage, for instance (and so explicitly linking itself with a
particular group -- gays and lesbians), it has been suggested that the party should refer instead to "the right to marry," thereby converting what appears a sectional cause into a matter of common humanity. Others have signalled the need to construct a new Democratic populism, and rightly so.
Something will have to be done to prevent the Republicans doing at the next election what they
did so successfully this year: representing their (millionaire, Yale-educated stay-at-home) candidate as a flag-waving man of the people, someone you could have a beer with, and the Democrats' (millionaire, Yale-educated war veteran) candidate who looked French.
But all these things are surface strategies. Far more important is substance and policy. If you search Google for "Democrats and Women," more than 3 million items flash up. "Democrats and Race" produces a similar figure. Try looking for "Democrats and Poverty," however, and you get a paltry 700,000 hits. This has been one of the problems of the overemphasis here on race and gender. It has got in the way of proper attention to America's profound economic inequities, even though the latter are grievous and feed so obviously into its racial and gender inequities.
This is now the Democrats' biggest challenge. In a vast, hugely powerful country that is historically antipathetic to high taxation, central interference and anything savoring of socialism, they have to find a way of reconnecting with those blue-collar workers with insecure jobs, minimal health insurance, and limited prospects who none the less voted last time in their millions for Bush. They have to take on American poverty and win. They have to challenge the Republicans' claim that theirs is the party of the American dream as well as the American nation. They have to insist that well-publicized opportunities for a few in Bush's Cabinet is not the same as opportunities for the many.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under