If there were one thing the election of US President Barack Obama might do for American society, it would be to corrode the utility of the expression “token black.”
Obama’s ethnic background has turned out to be a boon for the local and global reputation of the US political system, but his rise to the presidency at no time could afford to crudely trade on his black identity, because most voters would not have tolerated it. This man became US president because of his intelligence, hard work, attractive policies, teamwork and communicative talent.
Obama gives hope to people who support a fair deal for minorities, but his triumph in overcoming the formidable talents of Democratic challenger Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain also validates the importance of individual merit and ambition over labels and labeling.
It is a classic American story, and it is a long way from over.
It may be impossible for Obama to meet most of the expectations that are being placed on his shoulders, not least by a black American community that remains mired in disadvantage. But expectations are a manifestation of hope, and Obama has engendered a continent’s worth of it, if not a globe’s worth.
The US has helped to generate a phase of horrible economic uncertainty, yet Obama has the opportunity not just to be a good president at a time of increasing deprivation, but also a president that ushers in a new era of international respectability and, in balance, benevolent influence.
For Taiwan, Obama’s rise to the top has brought no shortage of apprehension. While Obama’s principles are quite flawless, the record of his party on relations with Taiwan has been all too inconsistent.
But there are two factors working in his favor: The likely line-up of Washington staffers with Taiwan and China responsibilities may not be as effusively pro-China as had been feared; and it is hard to imagine that things will get any worse than under the last years of former US president George W. Bush’s administration.
For Taiwanese, the overriding question is this: What will Obama do with a Chinese state that is becoming increasingly assertive and arrogant and that is no less willing to rationalize systematic crimes against its own people?
If there is such a thing as a unitary Taiwanese voice, then perhaps this is what it would say to President Obama:
I honor and share your ideals, I wish to strengthen relations with an America that cultivates democracy and freedom and I have my own interests but they are not hostile to those of ordinary Americans. I reject despotism and the cynicism that flows from ossified structures of political patronage — and I ask humbly but urgently that you consider my international and military predicament with sympathy and act on it with resolve as necessary.
I wish China no ill, but the current Chinese government bears ill will for Taiwanese and scorns American values. My present government does not respect the fears of people who see little promise in a Chinese government that crushes human rights and exploits the poor even as it claims to champion both.
I am Taiwanese, and my identity is no less fundamental to my dignity and my future than that of a man who transcended hundreds of years of persecution of people of his kind to lead the most powerful and inspirational nation in the world.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS