<p>soccart,
Politics in India is a mix bag of good and bad.
It has a very functional and thriving democracy and follows the parliamentary system left by the British. India is (has) moved to a similar bi-party theme with one party more to the right and other more to the left.</p>
<p>The bad side of Indian politics is that when 1/3 of the country is illiterate, economic or global agenda does not take precedence over local micro level agenda. Also, a substantial % (like 25%) of elected representatives are ex-convicts for serious crimes and got elected because they were good public speaker or popular or by using force.</p>
<p>The good side is that at the end of the day, both parties agree on economic agenda and enforce it effectively. Our current Prime Minister (equivalent to President in the US) is an economist from Oxford and Cambridge and our finance minister is a Harvard grad. Our President (a honorary role) is a former rocket scientist.</p>
<p>So a balance of these good leadership with bad local leadership has slowed the overall progress of the country and boosted corruption and bureaucracy, but again when 1/3 of the population is illiterate and 60% lives in rural areas... that is wht you would expect.</p>
<p>on a side note, last year elections was exclusively on comp based system - which was a welcome change ...</p>
<p>tore - about popular vote. did you read the article in NYtimes yesterday about how more americans are moving to canada coz of disappointment from the election results? tht was shockin, interesting...</p>
<p>about kerry making sense, he might have but unarguably bush's camp did an awesome job of paintin kerry as a flip-flop (which from a few '000 miles view, he might have...). also, the swift boat ads etc was a gr8 political strategy from the conservatives.</p>
<p>I was watchin an interview by a political analyst the other day and his analysis, although obvious, was very striking - "Democrats cant win an election without a Southener running for the President"...</p>
<p>"Awesome job"? You have to be kidding. It was great in that it influenced many people. It was disgraceful, however, how they slandered a decent man. You would have to be a fool to be swayed by what they said. Bush is one of the worst equivocators I have ever seen in politics. Then again, I am young. About Southerners: That's because your average American is extremely intimidated by well-spoken New Englanders that actually show their education. The masses need a President to whom they can relate. Sad, but true.</p>
<p>tore, when i said awesome job - i meant in gatherin votes. the article tht you sent me was really very interesting and informative.</p>
<p>about the article and many other articles tht I have read in the past couple of years - a quick question. Is the media in the US allowed to openly support or trash any candidate? The reason is coz sittin in India i see fox tht is all bout bush and then you have cbs and comedy central tht is all about anti-bush!!?? which media co. is non-biased??</p>
<p>"Is the media in the US allowed to openly support or trash any candidate?"</p>
<p>This is true to some extent, but no one would listen if it were too biased. I would say The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is fairly moderate, but others probably disagree.</p>
<p>I have to take exception to your calling the swiftboat thing a "strategy"...our family personally knows several of those individuals and they are sincere and truthful down-to-earth people who truly did self-initiate. And they all got balled up in controversy before the American public could even hear the worst of it. And, by the way, Kerry is not a New Englander. Born in Colorado, moved around, johnny-come-lately to Mass., where he studied the Kennedy accent (hardly authentic).</p>
<p>cruncha22, i am sorry if me calling swiftboat a 'political strategy' offended you. didn't mean it.
I just gathered that since Robert Perry of Perry homes gave a good bit of contribution to swiftboat campaign it might be a part of the overall republican strategy. afterall isn't perry a very close friend and supporter of karl rove and other tx conservatives? Atleast, that is what they sayin on news channel in India...</p>
<p>Today at my school two professors from BC spoke at an assembly about the war. One spoke about how there was no evidence of WMD's in Iraq or of a connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda. The other spoke about domestic issues related to the war, including the construction of a biological weapons research lab at BU. Both speakers were excellent and gave compelling arguments agaisnt the war.</p>
<p>However, there were no pro-war speakers. And my school never brings in pro-war speakers.</p>
<p>So I have a question for people: does a school have an obligation to present both sides of an argument? Or in some cases would a presentation like that become too confusing and take away from its focus? Or, as in this case, do you think that we already know the pro-war arguments through "mainstream" media and therefore the school doesn't need to present "both sides," just the "progressive" side?</p>
<p>"The swiftboat thing" was indeed a political strategy beaten to death by the Republican Party. Maybe you didn't turn on the television during the months preceding the election?</p>
<p>I know that Kerry was born in Colorado, but let me quote JohnKerry.com: "Not long after John Kerry was born, the family settled in Massachusetts. Growing up there, his parents taught him the values of service and responsibility." He didn't study "the Kennedy accent," as you say. I am sure being around Yalies contributed to it, as well. </p>
<p>But wait...I guess that didn't work for Bush, though. He still says "nucular" like an uneducated Texan. :confused:</p>
<p>I love the abstract words the john kerry writers use: "service," "responsibility." Bush is even worse, with his speeches about "freedom" and "patriotism". I mean, it works. Most people are too lazy to follow logic. Appeal to their emotions, as Bush does in his speeches, and you can convince them of any viewpoint regardless of how much evidence you have to back it up.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Kerry's campaign was increasingly guilty of appealing to the voter's emotion's as the election neared. But Bush's campaign was so much worse that it blows Kerry's out of the water. That kind of language has always really irritated me, though, as well. It makes politicians' words meangingless.</p>
<p>I disagree. I believe there should always be morality and logic behind everything we do, politics included. How demoralizing it would be if politics were just a game meant to be won, regardless of the means. Not that it's not looked at in that way by many...</p>
<p>There should be something else guiding our actions. Or else, what would be the point?</p>
<p>I suppose, but if you have moral and logical justifications for your opinion about something, it's not important to communicate those with others if you're a politician, because it won't be as effective as appealing to their emotions.</p>
<p>So, maybe you're anti-war, but you don't need to give people abstract and academic evidence. Instead, tell them graphic stories about people dying in the war.</p>
<p>I agree that most in this country are not responsive to real communication, but they should be, and no politician has the right to jerk them around for his or her own agenda. I do not believe in talking down to the masses, but in elevating them, at least just a little bit, to a point where they can be logical and make intelligent choices.</p>
<p>Perhaps they never can be. This is why I would never be a politician.</p>
<p>The above probably made no sense. I have a headache lol</p>