|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 
|
review Dissenting
voices
Zia Mohyeddin column
review If you visit any US
news website or channel, you are bound to be bombarded with terms such as
debt ceiling, fiscal cliff, budget deficit and grand bargain. These words are
going to remain Obama’s lasting legacy to political vocabulary. Though
these terms have been around and simmered beneath the political discourse,
they have burst upon the political scene within the last three years. Since the first week of
March, the term sequester has been added to this repertoire. With coming into
effect of the sequester, spending cuts of 85 billion USD are automatically in
operation and the US government’s expenses were met till March 27 through
continuing resolution mechanism. This state of uncertainty
has bred the ever-present threat of shut down by the Republican Party. Bob
Woodward’s new book ‘The Price of Politics’ provides a blow-by-blow
account of how the current terms came to acquire such a deadly echo and how
debates about these terms have shaped the impasse US faces today. Woodward shows that behind
these terms stands a long history of ideology, political outlook and tactics
embodied in a set of actors, which compose the US legislative politics. The
spark that lit the bonfire of ideological vanities came in 2011 when the
Republicans refused to raise the debate ceiling — previously a routine
legislative formality — without getting massive reduction in public
spending in return. This refusal torched all
notions entertained by Obama of striking a Grand Bargain with Republicans,
which would involve a fine balance between spending cuts and revenue
generation through tax hikes. At one point Obama and John Boehner, the
Republican speaker, came very close to sealing the Grand Bargain only to be
torpedoed by Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, who is a new power in
Washington and propeller of Tea Party agenda. From that point on, the
prospect of ever-looming fiscal cliff has hung over the US government.
Woodward’s book clinically dissects the long, tortuous and agonising
negotiation that led to this denouement. And he does a brilliant job of
explaining motivations, ideological worldviews and strategies of the
different interlocutors involved in the process. Woodward is an archetypal
Washington insider who knows how the process of decision-making works in
Washington. (He wrote three books on the decision-making process that led to
attack Iraq under Bush administration). Being an old-fashioned beat
reporter, Washington is his life-long beat. The book is based on interviews,
diaries, transcripts with key White House and congressional staff and all
major actors involved in the high-wire negotiation. The result is a
meticulous construction of atmospherics that attended the negotiation and a
catwalk of characters that were centrally involved in the negotiation. His
book hums with nimble-footed political moves and intellectual gyrations. One can sense the tension
that underlies the process. You can see Jack Lew, recently appointed treasury
secretary, in his previous incarnation as Director of the office of
Management and Budget in fine flow. Rohm Emanuel, as White House Chief of
Staff, is glimpsed throwing F-bombs on some Democrats minded to vote against
fiscal stimulus. The book begins with
Obama’s early sterling successes in getting the fiscal stimulus bill of
$787 billion and the Affordable Healthcare Act passed in the first flush of
his unprecedented win. However, soon afterwards,
the President got bogged down in a long and tortuous negotiation over debt
ceiling raise and tax hikes. The Republicans, newly energised by electoral
victory in 2010 house elections, began to flex ideological muscle beefed up
by a new intake of Tea-party allied elected politicians. This new intake is
more ideologically strident and insanely committed to small government
agenda. Moreover, a sizeable chunk
of new Republican politicians — 279 at the last count — allied themselves
to a lobbying group, American for Tax Reform led by anti-tax activist
Norquist Grover. This set the stage for a long drawn out battle between the
Republicans pushing for small government and no tax budget, and the Democrats
seeking preservation of government spending and raising revenue through tax
increases. Obama, ever the
conciliator, worked very hard to bridge the gap between these positions. By
agreeing too early with the Republican demand of prioritising deficit
reduction, he constrained space for himself. A powerful faction of fiscal
conservatives in the Democratic Party — organised in the Blue Dogs grouping
— who sympathised with the idea of deficit reduction further muddied
matters. Clearly, Obama had a hell
of a job at hand in striking a fine balance. Here, in order to gain time, he
set up Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission to find a middle ground. The
Commission’s 59-page report — which suggested a mixed menu of spending
cuts and tax increase — did not move the stalled matter. From then on, Vice
President, Joe Biden, who is considered an old hand at deal cutting, largely
shouldered the tedious task of negotiation. Like Lyndon Johnson, he is an
effective operator, with the ability to work across the political aisle. Yet, Joe Biden’s
legendary negotiating skills did not cut any ice with the intransigent
Republican Party. (Noted American economist, Paul Krugman, maintains that
budget deficit, though important, should not be a major concern right now
when the country needs more spending to stimulate the economy at a time of
continuing recession). The stalemate continues. The result has been that an
intransigent Republican that does not appear amenable to any reasonable
compromise on matter of budgets and tax hikes hobbles Obama’s presidency. President Obama’s efforts
at playing the statesman have not borne fruit either. There seems no solution
in sight, despite the Republican Party suffering electoral defeat in the last
election. Paul Ryan, Vice Presidential candidate, and an ardent deficit
cutter, is still harping on the old tune despite the US electorate clearly
voting against this harsh-hearted economic programme. While both parties blame
each other, American people are suffering the consequences of gridlock. This
book is a must read in order to understand the ideological roots of the
current crisis afflicting America today. Those with deeper interest in
decision-making process of US government and granular retelling of
motivations of actors would find it very illuminating. However, those interested
in a broad-brush view of the current crisis may find the book too detailed
and pronounce it fit only for policy wonks. That is perhaps where it
rightfully belongs. The book is available at
Liberty Books. Title: The price of
politics Author: Bob Woodward Publisher: Simon &
Schuster, 2012 Pages: 428 Price: 1616 PKR
Dissenting
voices Life spent in the
pursuit of knowledge and scholarship is a rarity in our country, where people
stopped thinking independently long ago. Dissenting voices are ruthlessly
crushed and naysayers find themselves completely alienated in these times
when ‘anchors’ and ‘columnists’ have become the fountainhead of all
sorts of knowledge and analysis. However, we haven’t run
short of the dissenting voices that keeping coming back to us. The author of
the book ‘Suggestions For Discourse on Philosophy, History and Society’
is one such voice. Ashfaq Salim Mirza is perhaps one of the few scholars who
has comprehensively studied the entire works of Marx and Hegel and that is
why his opinion matters. But he is not a rigid Marxist as he is not hesitant
to allude to the fallacies of Marxism. This book is a collection
of Mirza’s published and unpublished essays on various themes. From the
contents of the book, one can judge that he has varied interests: Philosophy,
History, Politics, Art, Literature, etc. In ‘Loving the Earth’
he introduces us to an ancient Indian Philosophy ‘Lokayatta’ which he
claims is the most ancient concept of Indian Materialism, which flourished
during the 6th century BC. This theory urges us to love the world and try to
beautify it instead of looking towards heaven all the time. When we look
around we see hordes of people making an effort to turn back the clock. They
love to seek greener pastures in the primitive age, which they fabricate to
make it alluring. “A large section of our
society is working on a war footing to keep our eyes shut towards making this
place a better place to live. For them to beautify the environment, enjoying
the landscape, listening to good music, sitting in the company of beautiful
women and giggling with children is meaningless as compared to the comforts
of the other world. These merchants of faith are trying to turn back the
wheel of history”, the author notes. You may rant and squirm but
the author is spot on. He busts another myth in the article ‘Sufism as an
antidote’ when he proves that reality is much different and our stance is
flawed. In his words, most of the Sufi poetry shuns the mundane worldly
realities and life on earth is considered to be ephemeral. The indifference to the
worldly life is a dangerous pastime as it instills hatred for this world. Sufism can be used as the
opium of the masses but it cannot fight with extremists who have spread its
dangerous tentacles in our society. The forlornness and love for other
worldliness, “is so individualistic that it can’t be channelised into a
mass movement for combating terrorism”. Showing zero tolerance for
unrealistic slogans and ideas, he ferrets out the truth come what may. You are free to demand for
peace but the recorded history of humankind does not testify your wish, as
war is the constant and permanent feature of human affairs. In his article
‘Mirage of Peace’ he proves that peace is a mirage and it will continue
to be so. In a detailed and brilliant
essay, ‘1857 Two Opposite Perceptions’ the author scans the two strands
of historiography: western and nationalist. He points out many lacunae in the
reasoning of the nationalist historian who daubed the incident of 1857 with a
nationalistic colour. He is an admirer of Manto
and loves to live in his masterly crafted world. However the author fails to
offer anything new about the great writer, Manto. He busts the bubble of
‘Civil Society’ by extensively quoting Marx and Hegel and opines that
historically we haven’t reached a stage where we may have a prospering
civil society. In a limited space one is
not able to dwell at length on the other ideas and concepts the author has
discussed. If you are a student of philosophy, history, sociology, art and
literature you will find the book interesting. Title: Suggestions For
Discourse on Philosophy, History and Society By: Ashfaq Saleem Mirza Publisher: Dost
Publications, Islamabad Pages: 204 Price: 300 PKR
Zia
Mohyeddin column I am one of the
worst non-do-it yourself men in the world. I envy people who, when their car
hiccups and stops, calmly get out, lift the bonnet of their car, bend down to
tap various parts of the engine before fiddling with the carburettor. They
then bring out a rag from the boot of the car, wipe their hands with it, get
back to the car, turn on the ignition key and, lo and behold, the car starts
again. My trouble is that I don’t even know where the carburettor is or
what its function is. I take no pride in my ineptitude. I only mention it to
let you know that when my car stopped because of a mechanical defect — and
it happened once or twice — I left my car where it was and walked away.
Luckily, someone came to my aid. There were times when I
reprimanded myself for being so hopelessly unknowledgeable about technology,
but now I don’t, for I have become totally convinced that technology would
defeat me every time. I am full of admiration for
people who, at the flick of a finger, are able to trace a number on their
cell phones and press a button to get through to whoever they wish to speak
to. I have to press all the eleven buttons and in so doing I often press six
instead of nine or four instead of seven which means that I have to start all
over again. Pray do not think that I haven’t followed instructions about
storing numbers in my cell phone, but when I come to do it, nothing happens.
If and when I do press the right buttons the ring at the other end goes on
ringing until I hear a squiggly signal and the telephone goes dead. It
obviously means that the person I am trying to speak to is not going to
answer. The easiest option open to me is that I should send him a message —
a process known as sms. I am ashamed to admit that I don’t know how to do
this. Every seven year old knows
how to record a television programme. I have seen people do it. They grab a
video, insert it into a VCR and, hey presto, it records the programme. I wish
it was as simple as that. Before anything happens there are knobs to be
pressed, channels to be aligned, and several other adjustments to be made,
and this entire process eludes me. Now that I have learnt how
to dial a telephone number, I have also learnt how to run a video cassette. I
once looked through various videos lying around by the television set to see
if any of them was blank. None of them were. It occurred to me that not every
programme recorded on a 180 minute tape could be as long as that; there was
bound to be plenty of space at the end of the recorded material. There was no record of the
length of the programme on the tape. The only way I could get to the end was
be by fast forwarding or watching the whole programme. It was an ‘OK
Corral’ kind of a film. I had no idea of who recorded it and why. So I
spooled forward and suddenly came across the hilarious scčne where the cocky
cowboy shoots a baddie while the femme fatale makes advances to him, and
remembered that I had watched the film at the Essoldo in Kensington in the
company of Leslie Glazier who borrowed a fiver off me at the end of the film
which he never returned. The film soon gave away to
athletics. Someone had recorded over it. Nervous looking women athletes were
settling down in their starting blocks after another false start to the
400-metre race. The tape ended. There was no blank space at the end. I
didn’t have the heart to try another tape. I am not particularly
disheartened by my inadequacy about the mechanics of a VCR. I don’t watch
much television nowadays and I no longer have a desire to add to my video
collection. Already the video tapes of ‘Master Class’, ‘Brideshead
Revisited’, ‘Middlemarch’, ‘Tinker Tailor’, my own series, etc.,
have become rusty and are not watchable anymore. So what else is there to
grouch about? Ah yes, background music. I have nothing against background
music provided it is of my own choosing. I would concede that there are films
and television plays in which the score is subtle and sensitive but the music
that accompanies our TV soap operas (borrowed from the worst Hollywood
movies) is so melodramatic that it is unbearable. There is a great deal that
is unpleasant in our environment which we have to put up with and I do not
think we should add another irritant to it. It is not just the music
that blares out of our televisions screens. I have an aversion to all
background music coming out of lifts, hotel lobbies, restaurants, cinema
foyers, telephone waiting systems and aeroplanes waiting to take-off. The
managements of corporate organizations claim that most people are glad to
listen to the music provided for them. I am told that it improves the quality
of their lives and that I have no right to interfere with their enjoyment. As I said earlier, I
wouldn’t mind if the music was of my own choosing. I have often sat down to
read my newspaper to the accompaniment of Chaurasia’s Jhanjoti or
Beethoven’s violin concerto. It acts as a balm to the mind which becomes
deeply agitated after reading about the mayhem that is unleashed upon us
everyday. But to have to go through a meal in a restaurant listening to an
instrumentalised version of “Sun veh Bilouri ukh valia” is a strain that
can only hasten a coronary assault. A few months ago, I visited
a shirt store in a shopping arcade in the Bull Ring: The loud music coming
out of all the orifices of the shop was rap. Rap is a kind of street verse
spoken in Patois. In the last few years the music on tap in nearly all the
boutiques of England is non-stop rap. It is probably soul-stirring for some
but I find that not being able to understand the words, the chant, though
rhythmic, is not conducive to selecting a shirt. I am not suggesting that
passive listening is ruining my life but it is certainly altering it for the
worse. Two or three tracks of Nancy Sinatra or Bilal Khan can soften the
brain. Yes, I agree with you. This
is not a funny but a grouchy column. |
|
