Month: September 2009

President Obama stormed the major networks over the weekend appearing on as many as five of them. Critics promptly termed it as over exposure.  There has been way too much “over the board rhetoric”, fear mongering and false propaganda (“Obama lies, grandma dies” among other outrageously false campaigns) on the right. President Obama and his team have done their best to go in for a campaign style run around the country to try and minimize the negative effects of their opponents’ campaign. But it appears that they figured it was best to have the President directly take his message to the people though the major networks. Given the President’s inherent ability to handle such interviews well it was a timely and well thought out strategy.

In this day and age, it is so easy to slip up in the media. President Obama did a phenomenal job of staying on message right through all the interviews. His ability to be clear and precise without ever once coming across as being evasive is truly commendable. On the downside these interviews quickly got boring and repetitive. As for the interviewers, none of them really came through with deeply insightful or particularly memorable questions (I think Letterman will do a better job).  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Racism, Afghanistan, and Healthcare are the hot current topics of interest.  Surely these media pundits could have devised something more creative to ask the President instead of the predictable questions. George Stephanopoulos I thought got a little too cute with a definition of the word “tax”.

President Obama certainly helped his cause by re-affirming his commitment to healthcare reform but its very unlikely that these interviews did little to convince any of his opponents. He could perhaps have been more forceful in calling out the negative propaganda like he did in his joint session of Congress. The Republican leadership has done little to squash the outrageous accusations from the right.  President Obama could have seized the moment to take a few shot at them. But he chose not to, but instead remain above the fray.

Despite President Obama’s sincere efforts, at this juncture it does appears as though he has to kiss goodbye to bi-partisanship and get his party fully on board to pass the healthcare bill, if he ever hopes to have one passed.

The healthcare debate across America seems to be reaching a crescendo. Angry town hall meetings and brilliant, pithy sound bites from the opposition (“Death panels”, “Kill Grandma” etc.) appears to have cornered President Obama. He could very well have refrained from stirring a public debate and stream rolled his plans relatively drama-free through the largely Democratic Congress (with some serious challenges in the Senate). But an inherent community organizer that he is, he chose to seek  bi-partisanship. His team did their homework and tred their best to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton administration. Rather than drive the plan (like Bill Clinton tried), they issued some broad guidelines and let Congress iron out the details. An interesting and different approach. Yet, today, the health care reform plans are in a state of crisis. If it fails to go through, the chances are that healthcare reform will never see the light of day for years to come.

His support for the “public option” will be the part of his speech that will be of most interest to anyone who has been closely following the debate. It is next to impossible for him to mollify all the sections of his party and still achieve bi-partisanship.  If he settles for Sen. Snowe‘s plan of a “trigger-based” public option, the left wing of the Democratic party is going to be deeply disappointed. On the other hand, this approach ensures that he and his team have their best shot of getting health care reform (for whatever its worth) passed with token Republican support, and ultimately claiming victory.

One speech can’t fix the healthcare woes of America. But it will be a good test of President Obama’s ability to forge consensus to whatever extent possible, and will provide some deeper insights into his political acumen. Clearly, the stakes are high for his party, for himself and the country as a whole. When in trouble (or when you are desperate as his critics would like to infer) you draw on your best skills. This explains why President Obama has chosen to do what he does best — give a good speech!

A stable opposition is critical to the functioning of any democracy.  Like it or not, the BJP is the face of India’s opposition today. The left is in complete disarray and what remains of it appears to be self-destructing (as in the case of Kerala). The regional parties for the most part have all been cut down to size in the recent election. In short, as of today, India has no credible opposition to speak off. So the sooner the BJP gets its act together the better for India’s democracy as a whole.

The BJP appears to have a leadership vaccum at present and little in terms of bench strength for credible future leadership to counter the steady rise of Mr. Rahul Gandhi. For all the criticism that has been leveled against Mr. Advani, the fact remains that he made the best attempt by far to move the BJP to the center of the political spectrum by making a conscious attempt to soften the party’s hard line image starting with his own.  While it might have been an opportunistic move, there is little doubt that it was the best strategic move the party has made in recent times. Unfortunately, for him he failed to carry the base of the party with him on this journey. Moreover, he lost a golden opportunity to further soften the party’s image by not taking a firm stand on the Varun Gandhi issue (Maneka Gandhi is now in the Jaswant Singh camp!), among other strategic blunders (personally attacking the PM, for instance).

To make matters worse, the loss in the recent election appears to have triggered public feuds between the visible faces of the party. There have been calls for the “RSS to take charge” and bring some order to the party. There is nothing worse that can happen to the BJP than to be faced with an open “RSS coup”. As India continues to crank out impressive growth rates, hard line right wing rhetoric is likely to resonate less and less with the masses. Even a blatant attack by terrorists on Mumbai failed to galvanize the BJP to a victory. In quieter, relatively prosperous times, the BJP has little hope of staging a comeback with an endemic hard line image. On the other hand,  some extreme events could  drive public sentiments to the far right and give the BJP some hope of a revival.  But counting out that would be like hoping for a miracle.

Where does the party go from here?  The BJP in its current avatar needs the RSS in order to survive.  At the same time, as things stand today there is little chance of ever returning to power without shedding its hard line “Hindutva” image and broadening its appeal to moderates and minorities.  The hard liners in the party are unlikely to ever shed their extreme positions on hot button issues. There is open infighting within the party.  Lastly, at 80+ Advani isn’t getting any younger .

Ironically, one avenue for the party might be to adopt a Congress-like split leadership with a younger, credible, centrist-leaning person with a mass base and acceptable to the party (especially the trouble-makers) as the face of the party with Advani playing a Sonia-like role! However, this is hard to imagine given Mr. Advani’s dominant role in the party over the years.  Besides, unfortunately, for the BJP, at present it does not look like such an individual exists among their ranks.

The other alternative of course, is to opt for the status quo i.e.  do nothing, hope that the noise dies down, and take things as they come. It will be interesting to see which of these paths the party chooses. With no presence to speak off in keys states, and two successive defeats in the Lok Sabha elections, and a deeply divided party, the BJP is clearly at a crossroads. At present, it appears that if the party does not seize this opportunity to re-invent itself it runs the serious risk of further marginalizing itself over the years.