Gates: If you don't want change, you don't want me.

The will of the people has been heard and the Democrats have been chosen to lead us out of the war on terror! …or perhaps in keeping with yesterday's pessimistic post, the Democrats have simply done a better job of framing the main questions of the day and the Republican incumbents have temporarily been psychologically rejected by the angry voters! No matter how you say it, there is reason for Dems to celebrate: Rumsfeld’s resignation. But alas, the Daily Kos crowd is moaning and groaning about his replacement, former CIA director Robert Gates, calling him the “most corrupt of retreads of past Republican administrations.”

The Daily Kos is wary of him because, according to this, “Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran / contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.”

Hmm…“in a position to have known about their activities” is another way of saying “we don’t have any evidence of his involvement in anything.” So, before Gates is crucified because of what he may or may not have done 20 years ago, why not look at Gates in 2006? Luckily for us, this month’s issue of Texas Monthly magazine, for whom I intern, features Gates in a cover story entitled “Can this guy save the Aggies?” The article, written by Paul Burka, paints a picture of Gates that makes him seem like the best candidate Democrats could have hoped for from Bush.

Since 2004, Gates has been president of Texas A&M University, a place that is more wary of the changing nature of reality than even the Bush administration. This is because A&M, perhaps more so than any large public university in the country, is tied to its traditions. Any change in the makeup of the University—for instance, allowing women to enroll in the seventies, the name change of the Agricultural Department, and greater emphasis on recruiting minorities today—are seen by some Aggies as an attempt to diminish the Aggie tradition and spirit. Yet, when Gates came to A&M, he told the Board of Regents, “I am an agent of change…If you don’t want change, you don’t want me.”

And in fact he made a great deal of changes to A&M. Among them was a renewed emphasis on promoting diversity at the University. Although he rejected race as a factor in admissions, many minority professors have appreciated his efforts to recruit minorities by reducing ‘legacy-based’ admissions, opening recruitment centers in inner-cities, and starting scholarship programs for first generation students, such that 25% of recent classes has been comprised of such students. Gates also appointed the first ever female Dean of Texas A&M’s College of Agriculture, and began to dismantle the good old boy network that had maintained excess staff positions for years.

But does his out-of-the-box thinking as a University President translate to a similar approach in matters of defense? A few quotes from the article suggests that it does:

“Gates joined the CIA in 1966, during the Vietnam War…He opposed the war, as did most of his CIA friends, and even marched in protest of U.S. activity in Cambodia.”

“He also believed from the beginning that the Soviet Union could not sustain its vast military buildup and its foreign adventuring without risking economic collapse. In all of this, he was proved right. Gates occasionally allows himself an I-told-you-so, but he also owns up to his misjudgments.”

“Most Americans believed that Jimmy Carter was a weak president toward the Soviet Union whose emphasis on human rights was, as Gates describes the prevailing viewpoint, ‘naïve and counterproductive.’ Not Gates. By emphasizing human rights
violations, Carter ‘became the first president since Truman to directly challenge the legitimacy of the Soviet government in the eyes of its own people’”

So, according to this article, written well before Gates’ appointment and by a moderate and possibly left-of-center writer for Texas Monthly, describes Gates as an agent of change, an ex-anti-war protestor, an unconventional thinker who owns up to his errors, and an advocate of human rights. Sounds pretty good so far. If the guy can bring change to Texas A&M, then Democrats should let him try to do the same for Bush administration. The latter might even be an easier task (full disclosure: Hook 'em horns).

Newsflash: Democracy Not Perfect - Blame My Ancestors

Haven't posted in a while, but I figure what better time to get back on the horse than today because....It’s voting day, and all around the country people are going to the polls to exercise their god-given constitutionally-amended right to choose their leaders—to choose, based upon their intuition, their issue-based research, their conceptions of right and wrong, their critical and analytical thinking skills, their judgement of character, and any other tools granted to them by God and/or Evolution and supported for use in that great institution called the American Democracy…or to be more accurate, the American Republic.

I found out today that the very first Republic in the world was the ancient state of Vaishali, named after the Great King Vishal, in what is today Bihar state in India. In the words of wikipedia, “even before the advent of Buddhism and Jainism, Vaishali was a vibrant republican state; in fact, it was the first republic in the world, similar to those later found in Ancient Greece.”

A lot has changed since my namesake first established the idea of popular rule in the sixth century B.C. The idea of the Republic has on several occasions flourished, died, been resuscitated, exported, imported, imposed, exposed, and it has undergone a seemingly infinite number of transformations over the centuries. At least one famous historian has suggested in more recent times that it is part of the final and ultimate form of human government—the end of history.

Whenever these types of governments come to an occasional climax in the form of large-scale elections like the sort being held today, they become the subject of innumerous praise and optimistic paeans (see here, for example), one after another, glorifying the ability of such systems to fix what is wrong in the world and remove all of the ills that afflict society from the top-down. After the elections, those disappointed with the results can only go so far with their criticism, because after all, the results are ‘the will of the people’ and by extension they reflect the people’s best interests.

In the run up to the election, however, a very small group of persons in power and their financial supporters spend large amounts of money into scaring the population into better understanding what their will should be. This is done because those few understand that the phrase, ‘the will of the people,’ is so mutable and moldable that it rings hollow and is often up for sale to the highest bidders or the best manipulators.

A recent New York Times op-ed recaps a psychological study in which people were asked to evaluate two candidates, the first of whom is described as having very average characteristics, and the second of whom has some very good and other very bad characteristics. When people were asked to choose which candidate they would accept, they overwhelmingly chose the second candidate, keeping in mind his very good features. However, when people were instead asked which candidate they would reject, they also overwhelmingly chose the second candidate, perhaps bringing his very bad features to mind. So, then, which is the will of the people? The first or the second candidate? The answer doesn’t depend on the candidate, but on how the question is asked.

Politics is all about framing questions—Do you want to protect the institution of marriage? Do you support the Patriot Act?—and not at all about the issues. The side that scares people the most wins—or sometimes loses if the people get offended. Somewhere in there, often lost amidst the sound and the fury, are the best interests of the people. And this manipulation is even praised by many, such as those who believe that the ridiculously negative personal attack ads during this election cycle—at the expense of informational ads about important issues—are a "gloriously refreshing" affirmation of the vitality of American democracy. In fact, these attack ads just change the pyschological framing of the election from "who do you want to elect?" into "who do you not want to elect?" The answer to both of these questions, if the study is believed, can paradoxically be the same.

The American democracy / republic is not perfect. It sometimes seems like more of a game than a system designed to help people and improve government. The results of elections may less reflect the free will of the people than they do the depth of politicians’ pockets and the shrewdness of their campaigns. It is perhaps ironically and ominously symbolic that the world's first republic, my namesake’s kingdom of Vaishali, is now located in the modern-day state of Bihar, the most politically corrupt and poverty-ridden state in India. Nevertheless, one definition of a Republic is ‘a non-monarchy’, and I can say with the certainty of someone who has lived in Saudi Arabia that, in fact, a democratic republic is better than a monarchy.

Therefore, here’s to us not being a monarchy, the mid-term elections, a continued critical analysis of our democracy, and a psychological rejection of the Republican-controlled congress (if not a psychological acceptance of a Democrat-Controlled congress).