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.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS