Find Insurance Online

Abdullah Abdullah withdrew on November 1, 2009 from the runoff election in Afghanistan.   Interestingly, Hilary Clinton and a spokesman for President Karzai characterized Abdullah’s withdraw in virtually identical terms—namely, as “his personal decision.”  Such a stance makes sense because both the American Government and Karzai had an interest in the Afghan electoral process being perceived as legitimate.   It is interesting, however, that the identical interpretation was instantly available to the press.   Perhaps U.S. Senator John Kerry had urged Karzai to agree to the runoff by telling him of a secret deal between the American Government and Abdullah that would have Abdullah pull out with a statement affirming the legitimacy of the electoral system.   That is, I wonder if the U.S. senator promised Abdullah something that essentially short-circuited the electoral process.  Karzai would look like a statesman without having to risk losing power, and Abdullah would get something rather than a probable election defeat.  The US would get stability in a Karzai government without having to worry about another controversial election.
As it turned out, Abdullah did not keep to the script; he denounced the continued corruption in the continued occupants of the Karzai-hired electoral commission (a blatant conflict of interest for any electoral body, to be sure).   Also, the runoff itself was cancelled.  Was this part of the deal?  If so, the deal I suspect took place was very well hidden, or subterranean in nature and intention.

What concerns me overall from this case is the extent to which such a deal would deviate from the story that we, the public, were told.  If there was such a deal, it would have been at odds with the democratic process, which really needed a fair runoff election rather than a collapse (or fait accompli).  A runoff could have served as an opportunity to fix or strengthen the democratic process while demonstrating that electoral fraud can be extinguished without resort to revolution.  Not only was the world left with no such hope; we saw the democratic process truncated ,and thus as still deeply flawed. 

This might be naive, but for many years American presidents have been giving lip service to supporting representative democracy around the world.  It would be sad were the same presidents actually thwarting it on account of political expediency (such as clearing the way for a decision on a new troop surge).   I refuse to accept that integrity in place duplicity is too much to realistically ask for.  Ironically, had the US and UN invested people and energy into building fire-walls in Afganistan’s electoral process such that the runoff would have truly been free and fair (including from threats of violence), the American goal with respect to the country would have been much closer to being realized than by sending in a surge of miltary force.   In going for the expedient route, the American elected representatives and their appointees looked corrupt or compromised themselves.  In the end, it is up to us, the citizens—of whatever republic—to say enough is enough and to resist the temptation to pull the lever in the voting booth as we did last time.  Otherwise, we are to blame—as enablers rather than as game changers.

See: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/01/afghanistan.election/index.html

On January 10, 2011, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) was sentenced to three years in prison on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering for using a political action committee to illegally send corporate donations to Texas House candidates in 2002. Prosecutors claim the money helped Republicans take control of the Texas House. That enabled the Republican majority to push through a Delay-engineered congressional redistricting plan that sent more Texas Republicans to Congress in 2004, strengthening DeLay's political power. In the face of this charge, DeLay simply repeated his longstanding claim that he did nothing wrong. "I can't be remorseful for something I don't think I did," DeLay said in a 10-minute speech to the judge. This statement is not unlike those of John D. Rockefeller, when the monopolist of Standard Oil was accused in the late nineteenth century of restraint of trade.  Ida Tarbell, Rockefeller's chief critic, believed the titan was under a sort of self-delusion. It is possible that Delay suffered from a similar rationalization or state of denial denial. Just as Rockefeller, who attended Church more than once a week through his 90s insisted that things are right between him and his God, Delay pointed to his faith in Jesus as in effect rendering the verdict nugatory in terms of what really matters. To be sure, Delay probably did view himself as innocent of criminal conduct. "This criminalization of politics is very dangerous" he charged, "It's dangerous to our system. Just because somebody disagrees with you they got to put you in jail, bankrupt you, destroy your family."  Antithetically, Gary Cobb, the lead prosecutor, averred that Delay had "put his principles, ideals and beliefs above the laws of Texas." Particularly when one's religious beliefs are invoked along with a criminal defense (i.e., that it was politics that was being criminalized), one should be on guard against the possibility of self-delusion.  Both Rockefeller and Delay had immense power, and their respective views of the non-culpability bore on their use of power. The ends justifying the means allows for a slippery slope. Of course, in Delay's case one could simply look at the money exchanges and compare them to the law. According to The New York Times, "a jury determined that he conspired with two associates to use his Texas-based political action committee to send $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under Texas law, corporate money can't go directly to political campaigns." Yet as clear as this sounds, it is surprising how divergent Delay and Cobb are with respect to their interpretations. If we take the verdict as correct, and rather cut and dry, it might be troubling that Delay not only denied any culpability after the verdict, but went on to invoke his salubrious condition in terms of his religious faith. Such an invocation can easily turn into a justification, with the result being that great wrongs, such as wars, can be done in the name of a religion of love. Does religion itself support or enable its role in hypocrisy, or are there tools such that Rockefeller's pastor could have stood up to him as though a mirror to reflect the pride and duplicity or delusion back upon the titan who even as a teenager dreamed of money?

Source:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41006570/ns/politics-more_politics/ 

For more on the intersection of Rockefeller's commercial and religious roles and what this may imply regarding the Reformation and Christianity itself with respect to profit-seeking and wealth, please see Godliness and Greed, available at: http://www.amazon.com/Godliness-Greed-Shifting-Christian-Thought/dp/0739139835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294957599&sr=8-1