Today, I attended a talk on the upcoming U.S. presidential elections at the HELP College of Arts and Technology at Fraser Business Park, KL. The title of the talk was "Road to the White House: Candidates and Issues in 2012." This talk was sponsored by the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia, and the speaker is David Yepsen, who is currently the Executive Director at the Paul Simon Institute of Public Policy at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. You can see his bio here. David Yepsen had been a journalist for most of his career and specialised in political reporting.
Unfortunately, due to a miscommunication, I arrived late at the talk, and the speaker was already fielding questions from the audience. One of the interesting things he said was "Politics is not about 'what you did for me' but 'what you are going to do for me?'" This is something politicians need to give serious thought to. He notes that when an incumbent does something right, it is expected of him/her.
An audience member asked him what a primary and caucus is. A primary, or rather primary election, is basically an election to choose a candidate from within a party for another bigger contest. An example would be the U.S. Republican Party presidential primaries to choose a candidate to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency.
A caucus is a meeting of supporters and members of a political party or movement, kind of like a town hall meeting of members. One of the suggested origins of the word "caucus" is from an Algonquian (a Native American tribe) word meaning counsel.
He also talked about the growing political polarisation in the U.S. due to the existing power structure and gerrymandering. (The word "gerrymandering" was named after a 19th century former Massachusetts governor named Elbridge Gerry. Mitt Romney is also a former Massachusetts governor.) Growing political polarisation is also becoming more evident in many countries.
Other audience members asked about the U.S.-Russia arms race and the what he thinks the U.S. would do to influence the dynamics of the relationship between China and Southeast Asia. This is in view of the current spat between China and the Philippines. He cleverly noted that it is in the U.S.'s interest to have China buy their goods to boost their economy; so they have no reason to cheese off China. Also, the great pressure and peacemaker for any national leader is to ensure economic growth. He felt that Obama and Romney would have the same foreign policy outlook where this is concerned.
Yepsen also stated that while campaigning, candidates can make all sorts of promises, but once they are in power, their ability and influence will become more limited. They are likely to adopt more centrist views, rather than those that are closer to their election promises. Considering the power of the various special interests groups and of Congress itself, that seems pretty close to the mark. Overall, I felt that the talk got good response, with many students asking questions. But I also noted (at least the time I was there) that it was the foreign students who were more interested in asking questions.
After the talk, I had a chat with Franklin Morais, the head of the department in HELP that hosted this lecture. He mentioned some of the things Mr. Yepsen said that I had missed out. Yepsen mentioned that today, 53% of U.S. voters are women and they are a very powerful voting bloc. But at this point in time, compared to men, they are still way below men in terms of social influence. For example, women only make up 17% of the U.S. Congress. The shifting demographics (the white people are a minority in the U.S. now) will also play a influential role in the elections.
Too bad I missed the talk; I'd imagine it would have been really interesting. I thought he handled the Q&A really well.
Here's a video of him talking about the Iowa Caucus.
No comments:
Post a Comment