SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (58770)8/8/2004 11:21:38 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793964
 
Vietnam today
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Staff | August 8, 2004

WITH THE presidential race generating so much talk of John Kerry's Vietnam record, one could almost forget that "Vietnam" is not just the name of a war that ended 30 years ago. It is also the name of a country of 82 million human beings -- who live under one of the most repressive dictatorships on Earth. Whatever political value there may be in recalling the Vietnam of years gone by, it is the people of Vietnam today who really need our attention.

"Vietnam is one of the most tightly controlled societies in the world," reports Freedom House, the human rights monitor. "The regime jails or harasses most dissidents, controls all media, sharply restricts religious freedom, and prevents Vietnamese from setting up independent political, labor, or religious groups."

Last last month, for example, the regime sentenced Nguyen Dan Que, a 62-year-old physician, to 30 months in prison for the crime of "abusing democratic freedoms." Translation: He wrote essays condemning government censorship and posted them on the Internet.

This wasn't Que's first encounter with communist justice. He was arrested in 1990 after publicly calling for free elections and multiparty democracy. The government charged him with sedition and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment. In 1998, after being released as part of a general amnesty, he was invited to leave the country. When he refused to go into exile, he was placed under house arrest and barred from resuming his medical work. But Que would not be intimidated, and continued to speak out for freedom. Now he is behind bars again.

Pro-democracy activists are not the only victims of Vietnam's dictators. For years it has persecuted the indigenous highland tribes known as Montagnards, singling them out for religious repression -- most of them are devout Christians -- and confiscating their ancestral lands. In April, when some Montagnards staged a peaceful protest to demand religious freedom, the government reacted with a violent crackdown. Hundreds of Montagnards were beaten by police and by ethnic Vietnamese armed with clubs and metal rods.

"They beat the demonstrators, including children," one eyewitness told Human Rights Watch. "People's arms and legs were broken, their skulls cracked. Children were separated from their parents. Near Ea Knir bridge, two people were killed." Other witnesses told of protesters being blinded with tear gas, then handcuffed, taken away, and never seen again. Some Montagnards were tortured. Human Rights Watch mentions two who were tied up and hung over a fire until their limbs were scorched.

Few Americans have made an issue of Vietnam's harsh denial of political and religious liberty. One who has is Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, author of a bill linking growth in US aid to Vietnam to "substantial progress" in Vietnam's human rights record. Smith's bill, the Vietnam Human Rights Act, passed the House by an overwhelming 410-1 vote in 2001. But it never got a hearing or a vote in Senate, where it was blocked by the then-chairman of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee -- John Kerry.

Last month the House again passed Smith's bill, this time by 323 to 45. As in 2001, says Smith, the message of the bill is that "human rights are central -- they are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent."

Predictably, the vote sent Hanoi into high dudgeon, and it denounced Smith's legislation as "a gross interference into Vietnam's internal affairs." In truth, the bill would amount to little more than a slap on the wrist. It would have no effect on the roughly $40 million in foreign aid currently going to Vietnam every year. Only increases in that aid would be blocked, and only if they were earmarked for non-humanitarian purposes.

Opponents of the bill, like Kerry and Senator John McCain of Arizona, insist that the carrot of "engagement" will do more to nurture human rights in Vietnam than the stick of sanctions.

But that claim has been proven false by the experience of the last three years, Smith argues. Vietnam's treatment of dissidents and religious minorities has gotten worse, not better, since relations with the United States were normalized in 2001. The Vietnam Human Rights Act "would be law right now if it hadn't been for Kerry," Smith says, "and some of those dissidents would be out of prison." By blocking the sanctions bill three years ago, Kerry ensured only that Hanoi's repression would continue unabated.

Will he block it again this year? The Kerry campaign didn't reply to an inquiry as of late Friday, and Smith claims no inside knowledge. "But I know this much," he said the other day. "The best and brightest and bravest people in Vietnam are in prison, persecuted by the government for their opinions or their faith. And you don't do people who are suffering immeasurable cruelty any kindness by aiding a dictatorship."

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: LindyBill who wrote (58770)8/8/2004 11:23:25 AM
From: carranza2  Respond to of 793964
 
Never thought I'd link something from Mother Jones but here it is:

motherjones.com

All the Right Moves

The men from the Economist explain why conservatism won out in America.

Reviewed By Michael Kazin

July/August 2004 Issue

The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America
By John Micklethwait
and Adrian Wooldridge.
Penguin Press.
450 pages. .95.

Approach this book with caution, fellow progressives. It may confirm your worst fear. Two smart Brits who work for The Economist have written a vividly detailed study of why conservatives rule American politics. What is worse, they maintain that the right is likely to dominate for some time, even if the Democrats eke out a victory this fall.

The Right Nation has nothing in common with the crude polemics by the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter that growl from racks at every airport and mall. Micklethwait and Wooldridge gaze on their American subjects with the skepticism of European agnostics who've grown up in a tidy welfare state. The moralism of the evangelical right makes them shudder, and they mock the hypocrisy of a president who rails against "big government" but has blithely run up a record deficit. A keen grasp of history and demographic trends firms up their prose, which is spiked with the dry wit that seems the birthright of every Oxford graduate. Many Republicans, the authors report, believe high deficits will prevent liberals from enacting future social programs. That logic "is rather like saying that, because your brother-in-law drinks too much, you're going to drink all the alcohol in the house before he visits for the Memorial Day weekend."

All this frames an argument that the most confirmed W-hater should take seriously. In their view, three simple reasons explain why conservatives keep defeating the left: The right wins the battle of ideas, has a more determined and focused army of activists, and is reaping the benefits of long-term changes in American society.

The unlikely figure of William Jefferson Clinton proved an expert witness to the ideological sway of his opponents. "The era of big government is over," declared the only Democratic president to win re-election since FDR. Clinton accomplished two historic feats that conservatives had long demanded—a balanced budget and punitive welfare "reform." But his grand liberal dream to provide every American with medical insurance was a spectacular flop. Do you want a health care system run like the post office? asked the pitchmen for the right. It's a myth that federal largesse goes mainly to lazy and immoral Americans—or ungrateful foreigners. But, after decades of skillful propaganda, most Americans believe this. The golden era when Congress created Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the National Endowment for the Humanities and the EPA, seems to belong not just to an earlier century but to a different nation.

The men from The Economist appreciate how diverse is the cadre responsible for this sea change. At the top, of course, are white guys in expensive suits, men like Ralph Reed and William Kristol familiar to anyone who watches a Sunday morning talk show. But the authors also introduce pro-life college kids from Colorado Springs who believe conservatism is a benevolent creed, and they identify the many women in Bush's inner circle who've enjoyed the support of right-wing foundations. Rich conservatives, the authors point out, don't really donate more money than do their liberal counterparts in New York and Hollywood. But they target nearly all of it to projects whose sole mission is to advance the right's cause.

The authors' claim that the future smiles on conservatives is more dubious. Micklethwait and Wooldridge show that people who own stocks and homes and attend church tend to vote Republican, and those indicators are rising. Yet, if one deletes piety from the equation, Demo-crats do just as well. Latinos are the wild card in such electoral predictions. The authors predict the upwardly mobile and U.S.-born will shift toward the GOP. But most Latinos toil at working-class jobs and will probably do so for years to come. They are a natural constituency for progressives—if, indeed, the left can take its doctrine of social equality to heart.

And there's the rub. The left can't control demography, but it can build a smarter movement. In 1970, John Mitchell, Nixon's leading henchman, said, "This country is going so far to the right, you are not even going to recognize it." With zeal and an eye for liberal soft spots, conservatives set about fulfilling his prophecy.

Meanwhile, the left fragmented into a variety of worthy causes—from environmental defense to gay and lesbian rights to affirmative action. These fragments have helped make the United States a more humane place. But they forgot that the first rule of democratic politics is to state a few forceful ideas and to make clear how they can benefit the majority. Even Americans who despise the right know exactly what it believes: "family values" and "less government." Since 9/11, conservatives have added the defeat of "Islamo-fascism" to the agenda. Can progressives unite behind ideas of similar clarity and appeal? Can they rid themselves of a nagging contempt for the unhip, the poorly educated, and the God-fearing? If the left is not a movement of and for working people—blemishes and all—then it has little chance to regain its previous influence.

Micklethwait and Wooldridge conclude their immensely valuable book with a sobering prediction. If Kerry wins, they write, "he will be reduced to trying to reconstruct the status quo ante, cutting back on tax cuts for the super-rich and repairing relations with foreigners (up to a point), but generally coping with an agenda dictated by the right." Such a future is not inevitable; as John Mitchell knew, history often has a surprise up her sleeve. But if progressives want to prove the right wrong, they'll have to stop boasting about how enlightened they are and start winning over the heart of America.