by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Frank F. Islam
In spite of Joe Biden’s win over Donald Trump for the presidency, much of the media coverage after the November 3 elections related to the future of the Democratic Party.
That discussion was precipitated by the Democrats’ loss of 13 seats in the House in 2020. By contrast, the Democrats gained 41 House seats in the midterm elections of 2018.
The events of January 6 and the subsequent turmoil focused public attention on the future of the Republican Party, rather than that of the Democratic Party. The future of the Democratic Party still remains in question, however.
In large part, this is due to the fact that the Democratic Party — as it has almost always been — is a big tent party. Democrats today cover the spectrum both demographically and ideologically. As Thomas R. Edsall points out in his New York Times column:
But it’s important to remember that conflicts are inherent in a party that seeks to represent constituencies running the gamut from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 14th district in New York (50 percent Hispanic, 22 percent non-Hispanic white, 18 percent Asian, 8 percent Black) to 7th generation Utahan Ben McAdams 4th District in Utah (74 percent white, 1 percent Black, 3 percent Asian, 17 percent Hispanic).
After the congressional losses in 2020, those conflicts led to finger-pointing and blame-placing. Some moderate to conservative Democratic congresspeople cited the riots associated with Black Lives protests and calls to “defund the police’ as primary reasons for the losses. While some in the progressive camp attributed them to poor campaigns and a failure of Democratic leadership to help organize and do grassroots work in those districts.
The differences of opinion continued as President-elect Biden made his cabinet selections. Progressives lobbied for more left-leaning and diverse nominees while moderates and conservatives urged for more centrists. Those differences continued as President Biden saw his COVID-19 rescue plan pass both the House and the Senate with the progressives disappointed that the $15 an hour minimum wage did not stay in the Senate version of the bill. Nonetheless, on March 10 the House Democrats came together and approved the Senate version of the nearly $1.9 stimulus package and it is now law.
Disagreements and disorganization are nothing new to the Democratic Party. Indeed, if one looks back in time, it is easy to see that nationally the Party has always had some difficulty in getting its act together and the required voters in the right places behind it.
As evidence of these deficiencies, consider the following:
- Would Bill Clinton have been elected president if there had not been a third-party candidate named H. Ross Perot siphoning off a slew of votes in critical states that most likely would have gone to his Republican opponent?
- Vice President Al Gore’s loss in 2000 to George W. Bush, in what should have been a run-away given the high job approval ratings for Bill Clinton’s second term in office.
- John Kerry’s loss in 2004 to incumbent George W. Bush whose approval ratings were declining substantially in 2003 and 2004
- Hillary Clinton’s stunning loss in 2016 to Donald Trump, surrendering the traditional blue states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
- In 2020, would any of the candidates in the historically large field for the Democratic nomination for president other than Joe Biden have been able to defeat Donald Trump?
Barack Obama was not victimized by the inability of the Democratic Party to put together winning campaigns that address the complex nature of the American electorate and our convoluted electoral college presidential selection process. Obama did this by creating his own organization to parallel that of the Democratic Party, and employing it successfully to emerge victorious in 2008 and 2012.
The past is not prologue. But it does cast a shadow that could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if the right lesson is not learned. The lesson in this instance, as demonstrated by the wins of Obama and Biden, is that the big tent needs to embrace Democrats from every corner and open its flaps to independents and cross-over Republican voters as well.
E.J. Dionne emphasized the pivotal importance of this approach in his Washington Post piece, observing:
The 2020 election perfectly captured the distinction between Democratic diversity and Republican homogeneity. Biden’s coalition was a little bit of everybody — self-described liberals (they constituted 42 percent of his voters), moderates (48 percent), and conservatives (10 percent), according to the network exit poll conducted by Edison Research. In other words, contrary to Trump’s claim that Biden is a tool for raging leftists, a majority of his electorate was non-liberal.
It appears that some in the Democratic Party are not in a learning mode currently. Progressives — especially the democratic socialists — are pushing the party and its policies to be reshaped in their image and likeness. What would that mean for the future of the big tent going forward?
It means that the tent would not be that big or welcoming. That might not matter as much in terms of winning presidential elections, but only because the Republican Party has shifted to the extreme right to become the Party of Trump (POT). This past election attests that the POT has little to no appeal for moderate Republicans or truly independent voters. As we noted in our previous blog in this series, “In spite of its footprint across the country, unless things change substantially, the POT is now and is destined to be a state, regional and local player as opposed to winner in national elections.”
The polar opposite would be true for the Democratic Party if it shifted to the extreme left or became the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP). The DSP might win the presidency but would have a much more difficult time in winning Senate and House races. The results of this could be a Democratic President confronted by Republican-controlled House and Senate.
The best path forward for the Democratic Party is to stay the course in terms of diversity and a broad base, and to improve the operational and grassroots capacity to win U.S. Senate and House races. The best examples of how to accomplish this come from the Democratic pick-up of House seats in the 2018 mid-terms and Stacy Abrams’ and her counterparts’ work in Georgia that resulted in Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock being elected to the U.S. Senate.
The Democratic winners in the swing districts in 2018 benefited from a sutge of anti-Trump voters and a very low Republican turnout. They also ran on platforms tailored to reflect the local priorities of their district, and not allegiance to a consuming ideology.
William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution notes that in 2020, for some reason, “…more Democrats than Republicans who voted in the presidential contest failed to vote for their party’s candidate, reducing their chances of prevailing in close races.” Democrats are at a structural disadvantage in House races due to gerrymandered districts and need to have candidates and organizing approaches that maximize their turnout to overcome this.
Stacy Abrams and a network of local organizers in Georgia, including groups such as the Asian American Advocacy Fund, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, and Georgia Standup, set the gold standard for grassroots organizing. They mobilized voters of color and the disenfranchised, uniting them with white voters to enable Ossoff and Warnock to prevail in the Senate run-off races and Joe Biden to win the presidential race by 12,000 votes. The stage was set for these accomplishments through a decade-long process of planning and coalition-building.
The Georgia coalition is a model for what some presume will be the mode for the big tent of the Democratic Party for years to come: a multiracial, multi-ethnic group of upper- and middle-class white voters joining with middle- and working class Black, Latino, and Asian voters.
Michael Powell, in his New York Times feature article, explains why achieving this united bloc template will be much easier said than done. Powell highlights that in the 2020 elections “..slices of ethnic and racial constituencies peeled off and cut against Democratic expectations.” He quotes Professor Omar Wasow of Princeton University, who explains, “We should not think of demography as destiny…These groups are far more heterogenous than a monolith, and campaigns often end up building their own idiosyncratic coalition.”
Therein lies a message that the Democratic Party must hear to guarantee the future for their big tent on an across the board basis. That message was first communicated by Tip O’Neill, Democratic Speaker of the House from Massachusetts. O’Neill said “All politics is local.” That locality is not only the place from which voters come, but also the space between their ears where they make the decision on whom to support and why.
Given that, the formula for success in the future should be a process that is bottom up, top down, and managed in the middle. That formula will vary from place to place and space to space. By recognizing this, and keeping the flaps open, the Democrats big tent will get bigger and make things better for the vast majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions, World
Frank F. Islam
Never mind! That would be the response of tens of millions of Donald Trump’s loyal supporters on what to do to counteract his egregious actions, tweets and statements.
They would say that to others, as they themselves would always mind. They would embrace whatever Trump says and do whatever he asks.
Why is that? Who are the Trump supporters?
As we noted in an August 2016 blog before the presidential election that year, “Trump supporters are of two principal types: right wing populists and Republican diehards.”
Those populists who were early supporters of Trump tended to skew male, older, whiter, and less educated. As we observed back then, however, “Frequently, citizens’ votes have more to do with who they are rather than who the candidates are or what their ads say. That’s why when it comes to winning elections in close races, understanding psychographics trumps demographics.”
Here’s what various researchers and analysts discovered about what was on and in the minds of early Trump supporters at that time. They were Republican voters who:
Were “true authoritarians” that scored high on authority/loyalty/sanctity
Felt that discrimination against whites had become as big a problem as discrimination against Blacks and other minorities.
Scored highest on racial resentment and were much more likely to support Trump than their more moderate counterparts.
Didn’t feel they had a voice. And wanted to wage an interior war against those who are different than them (e.g. immigrants and Muslims).
That mindset and these populists made Trump victorious in the Republican primaries. By general election time, they were joined by what might be labeled “diehard” Republicans.
As we wrote in 2016, these stanch Republicans came “… from across the party continuum.” They were loyal Republicans who would never leave the Party nor ever vote for a Democrat or a third-party candidate. They included single or wedge issue voters such as business owners, gun owners and evangelical Christians.
The diehard Republicans were not uniformly enthusiastic about supporting Trump in 2016. Within just about a year after his winning the presidency, they had become much more approving.
In a blog written in October 2017, we noted that Trump’s support among Republicans as a group was substantially higher than that of the Republican congressional leadership. His approval ratings and the belief that Trump was taking the Party in the right direction were extremely strong and extended across the board. Based upon an assessment of the significance of that data, we stated, “What we can tell at this point in time is to a greater rather than a lesser extent, the Republican Party is the party of Trump.”
Over the next three years, from 2017 through 2020, Trump’s approval ratings with Republicans remained very high and remarkably stable. More importantly, in that time period he solidified what might be called his stranglehold on the Republican Party, which must now more correctly be called the Party of Trump.
The extent of Trump’s ownership and control of the party was demonstrated by the fact that the Party adapted no platform at its annual convention this year. Trump was the platform and the Party is his.
Trump established this total mindshare by governing and communicating in a manner that increased his support with his expanded core group while adding a couple of new constituencies, such as white supremacists and right-wing conspiracy theorists. He did this by focusing and championing the issue or item that was top of mind for them.
The top of mind concerns of key groups of Trump supporters and selected actions that Trump has taken to address them are summarized below:
The base of populist supporters: Being an outsider is top of mind. Trump channeled the animus, agitation, and alienation of these supporters and magnified and personified it during the primaries and presidential campaign through rallies, tweets, and public statements. He persisted along this same trajectory after he was elected. He has never stopped campaigning. He has held more than 130 in-person and virtual rallies since taking office. He has issued tens of thousands of tweets to his millions of followers. He has encouraged his most loyal supporters to take to the streets on his behalf with calls to “Liberate Michigan” and other states to reopen them during the COVID-19 shutdowns, and to turn out and be pseudo “poll watchers” to intimidate voters in polling places in swing states this election.
Corporate executives, business owners and the rich. Profits and personal wealth enhancement are top of mind. During his presidency, Trump has benefitted businesses by eliminating or modifying regulations in agencies from the Department of Labor to the Environment Protection Agency. The sweeping change that was most beneficial was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was ostensibly drafted and passed to benefit America’s middle and working class. The truth, according to the Congressional Budget Office projections, is the tax cuts will save partnerships, S corporations, and large businesses billions of dollars over ten years. And higher income individuals have done much better initially in terms of savings than middle- or lower-income Americans.
Gun owners. Unrestricted access to and use of guns of all types is top of mind. What Trump has done for these “Second Amendment people,” as Trump calls them, is to ensure their “rights” have gone untrampled. In spite of the Parkland shooting, other mass shootings, and various national surveys showing the majority of the American public is in favor of some form of gun control, Trump has advanced no meaningful gun legislation. At one point he told legislators to not be afraid of the National Rifle Association and advocated some background checks for guns. He later backed away from those positions. In February, 2020, the AP ran an article titled “Trump campaigns as a 2nd Amendment warrior.”
Evangelical Christians. Abortion is top of mind. Evangelical Christians want to see Roe V. Wade, which makes abortion legal, overturned. Trump received 80% of their vote nationally in the 2016 elections, and that vote may have made the difference for him in the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The abortion issue is similar to the guns issue. Numerous surveys taken over the past few years show that a large majority of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade countermanded. In spite of this, Trump has weighed in with the Evangelical Christians by proposing Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barret, who has consistently advocated for limiting abortion rights, as his Supreme Court nominee.
White Supremacists. Racial superiority/discrimination is top of mind. Even though many early Trump supporters demonstrated racist tendencies, this segment was not explicitly identified as Trump supporters during the 2016 presidential campaign. After the violent confrontations in Charlottesville, VA, which included a woman being killed by a white supremacist, Trump brought it out of the closet by saying “..there were very fine people on both sides.” He resurrected white supremacists again during the first debate with Vice President Joe Biden by not condemning white supremacism specifically and stating that the Proud Boys, an acknowledged white supremacist group, should “Stand back and stand by.”
Conspiracy theorists. Domestic upheaval and terrorism are top of mind. QAnon (Q), which asserts that prominent Democrats, A-list personalities, and others in the so-called deep state, are involved in a cabal engaged in satanism, child sex trafficking, and other devious acts is in a class by itself in terms of generating completely unfounded inflammatory charges through social media. Q now also has dozens of Republican political candidates this election cycle either embracing or espousing some of their beliefs. In August, Donald Trump said, “I don’t know much about the movement, other than I understand they like me very much which I appreciate.”
Those are the top of mind issues for some major groups of Trump supporters. They bring us to the elephant and the fox in the room.
The elephant is the elected officials in the Congress of the United States in Washington, D.C. The fox is Fox News.
The elephant was the symbol for the Republican Party when it was the GOP, before it became the Party of Trump. There is a need for a new symbol because those officials are now in a space defined by President Donald Trump and not themselves.
Early in his campaign to secure the Republican presidential nomination, Trump had only one Senatorial ally — Jeff Sessions (R-AL). His senatorial opponents such as Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke about him in derogatory terms.
After Trump won the nomination, the Republican members of the Senate and House of Representatives begrudgingly became supporters. After he was elected President, the support increased and some politicians, such as the members of the Freedom Caucus in safe districts and states, became outspoken and ardent advocates.
As it became obvious early in his tenure in office that Trump’s popularity and approval ratings were much higher than their own, the Republicans shifted to become accomplices and enablers in advancing Trump’s agenda. They did this because the top of mind issue for the majority was and is re-election.
The impact of Trump upon the Republicans was evident during the impeachment trial in the Senate. In his closing argument there, House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) declared, “It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. Is there one among you who will say, ‘Enough’?”
The answer to Schiff’s question was a resounding “No.” Trump might not have control over the minds of the Senators, but he definitely has control over their votes and mouths.
By contrast, because of Fox News, Trump has mind control over his strongest supporters. The reason for this, as polling by the Pew Research Center revealed, is that Fox is overwhelmingly the most trusted source for news among the traditional TV news media sources for these supporters.
Fox News is the primary purveyor of Trump’s fake news. Because of its one-sided presentation of information and opinions, it also serves as an unofficial public relations firm for Trump.
Indeed, Fox News commentators such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson not only spin their presentations to reflect favorably on whatever the President says and does. It is also reported that he seeks their advice frequently, or listens to them and then repeats things they have said.
Fox News commentators shape or reinforce what’s on and in Trump’s mind. And Trump, in turn, shapes and influences what’s in and on the minds of his supporters.
Trump is able to do this because each of us has our own belief system and tends to accept information which fits within that system. Social psychologist Milton Rokeach from Michigan State University was one of the foremost experts on belief systems. As we noted in our first book, Renewing the American Dream, published in 2010, Rokeach developed a psychology of dogmatism. He found that dogmatism was a measurable personality trait created by the convergence of a closed cognitive system, authoritarianism, and intolerance.
We’ve seen no study on the profiles of Trump supporters but it is likely many of them would score highly on the dogmatism scale. There is a new book, however, by psychology professor Bob Altemeyer and lawyer John W. Dean titled Authoritarian, which presents recent survey results confirming that many Trump supporters have right-wing authoritarian mindsets. Other Trump supporters would do what many of us do because we are human.
If a fact, figure, or statement doesn’t fit with our belief system, we ignore or reject it. Studies have found that people will not seek or attempt to secure data if it does not reinforce with their own viewpoints. And they will accept inaccurate information over definitively accurate information if it conforms with their views. In other words, there are ideological blinders through which we filter information.
In a recent New York Times article, political scientist Greg Weiner asserted that President Trump’s “..orienting principle is that everything that benefits Mr. Trump is true and everything that inconveniences him is false.” Weiner goes on to state, “Five centuries ago Niccolo Machiavelli called this the “effectual truth:” Claims that are true, he wrote in The Prince, are so not because they correspond to objective reality but because they are politically ‘useful.’”
The most adamant supporters of President Trump accept and endorse his effectual truth on all matters on which he opines. It becomes their political mantra and defines their societal mission.
This was proven most recently by the fact that there was little negative reaction among the Trump supporters to his catching COVID-19 or his reprehensible tweet and video instructing the American citizens, “I’ve learned so much about the coronavirus. Don’t let it dominate you. Don’t be afraid of it. You’re going to beat it.”
There are more than 210,000 Americans who have not beaten it. And there have been more than 7 million cases to date, with many more deaths and cases in the offing. This is not a blessing.
Some have called Trump supporters mindless. They are not mindless but they do mind less.
They mind less about the health of their fellow citizens. They mind less about the growing inequality in the country. They mind less about equal justice. They mind less about religious freedom. And, most importantly, they mind less about the future of the democracy.
From one perspective, Trump supporters might be labeled mind full. That’s mind full not mindful. Their minds are full. These supporters have not drunk the Kool Aid or the hydroxychloroquine.
But their minds have been dominated and infected by Donald Trump. If that dominance results in Trump’s re-election in November of this year, it will be the embalming fluid for the American democracy.
Fortunately, there will be many other minds at work and voting in this election cycle. They include the normal big tent Democratic coalition and cross-over voters who supported Trump in the 2016 election, from groups such as women, senior citizens, suburban residents, citizens with college degrees, and working-class heroes and essential workers.
This should produce a Biden victory. That victory will provide the opportunity for concerned citizens of all political stripes and persuasions to unite and start the hard work that will be required to revive and build a collective and more inclusive American mind and memory.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Opinions
India and the US must discover how to work closely together in order to earn the strategic partnership label and become “one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century,” writes Frank F Islam
Frank F. Islam
This past December, the United States and India celebrated the 60th anniversary of the first visit of a US President to India. That President was Dwight Eisenhower (Ike). Since then five other Presidents have come to India. Their visits and they have all had an impact on the manner in which US-India relations have evolved.
In my opinion, there have been three stages for the US- India relations to date:
- 1947 – 1990: Fledgling Relationship
- 1991 – 2016: Strengthening Relationship
- 2017 – 2020: Functional Relationship
I believe the future stage will be a Strategic Partnership. It will start sometime in the period between 2021 – 2030.
1947-1990: Fledgling Relationship
The Fledgling Relationship really began with President Eisenhower’s visit to India in 1959. Indian Prime Minister Nehru had visited the US in 1949. After that though for a variety of reasons there was only nominal interaction between India and the US for the next ten years.
President Eisenhower’s five-day visit changed that. It was memorable and monumental. Ike addressed the Indian Parliament and his remarks were unexpectedly well received and embraced. More than a million people participated in a public rally for him. When he departed, Prime Minister Nehru said that the President leaves India with a “piece of our heart.”
Eisenhower’s trip kicked off this relationship. After it, there was emerging cooperation in areas such as higher education and agriculture. But things did not progress well politically in the ’70s even though President Richard Nixon visited India in July of 1969 and President Jimmy Carter came to India nine years later in January 1978.
Nixon’s spent less than one day in India. It is reported that his trip was intended to try to reduce the tensions and distrust between him and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It did not. When Nixon sided with Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh War there was no basis for a rapprochement.
President Jimmy Carter came to India for three days after Prime Minister Gandhi was replaced by Prime Minister Morarji Desai in the 1977 elections. He had several meetings and addressed India’s Parliament. This trip early in Desai’s administration could have solidified the relationship. But, the “cold and blunt message” that Carter delivered on India’s detonation of nuclear bombs and a call to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty fell on deaf ears and cooled things off. In addition, a growing economic nationalism in India throughout the ’70s led to the nationalization of some business sectors and forced companies such as Coca Cola and IBM to close operations. After the turbulent ’70s, relations between India and the US were very quiet throughout the ’80s.
1990 – 2016: Strengthening Relationship
India-US relations began to unthaw in the early ‘90s. That was for economic rather than political reasons, however. Because of the acute financial crisis, the Indian economy was liberalized in 1991. This caused American businesses to flock to India and to begin to use their economic, social and political clout to improve US India relations resulting in the U.S. becoming India’s largest trading partner. Three consecutive US Presidents, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama heard those messages and traveled to India.
President Clinton made a five-day visit with his daughter Chelsea in March 2000. This visit came after the Indian nuclear tests at Pokhran in 1998 and sanctions imposed by the US. It removed the sanctions and reestablished a somewhat flagging relationship between what was referred to as two “estranged democracies.”
While he was in office, George W. Bush maintained the upward trajectory for the relationship. And, most notably came to India for 2 ½ days with his wife Laura in March of 2006 during which he signed the landmark U.S. India Civic Nuclear Agreement.
President Barack Obama made two trips to India – one in his first term and one in his second – that took U.S. India relations to the next level. The first visit was for three days in November 2010. Obama addressed Parliament during that visit and met with then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The second three-day visit was in January 2015 primarily to participate in the Indian Republic Day Celebration with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The Obama visits were especially impactful in terms of the public exposure and statements regarding the nature of the relationship between India and the U.S. At various points leading up to, during and after the visits, President Obama referred to that relationship as “one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century.”
Another focus of emphasis for Obama was on economic ties with the President participating in an event organized by the U.S.-India Business Council during each trip. In conjunction with those events, India and the U.S. agreed to and announced billions of dollars of trade deals.
2017- 2021: Functional Relationship
President Donald Trump took office on January 20, 2017. He has not visited India but has said that he would “some time” and Prime Minister Modi is a “very good friend.” There were high hopes from some that US-India relations would continue to strengthen under his presidency. In point of fact, they have not. They have become primarily functional. In my opinion, that is the best that can be expected with and from this President. Partnership, cooperation, and collaboration are not words that are in his vocabulary. Nationalism, isolationism and protectionism are.
This is most true when it comes to trade relations and negotiations. One need only examine the Trump approach to working with Mexico, China, Canada and others to recognize this.
For the first two years of the Trump administration, India got by relatively unscathed compared to many other nations. Near the end of 2018, Alice Wells, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia told the Press Trust of India, “This has been a landmark year for US-India ties as we build out stronger relationships across the board.”
Then, in the first half of 2019 things became unhinged as relations were strained and India and the US got into a tit-for-tat tariff war after the US terminated India’s Generalized System of Preferences which allowed India to send certain imports to the US duty-free. By mid-year, cooler heads appeared to be prevailing and there was rumor after rumor that a new trade deal was being cut and would be announced soon.
On September 24 at the UN meeting in New York City, Trump said “And, I think very soon, we’ll have a trade deal.” At a December 11 meeting of South Asia experts convened in Washington DC jointly by the South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council and the Asia Group on the sixtieth anniversary of Ike’s India visit, Acting Secretary Wells stated “The talks are in a better place. They take much longer than we would like. The deal will be modest but hopefully a stepping stone to a more ambitious trade liberalization.”
She went on to caution, “If India wants to be an exporter, if India wants to use trade to drive job production and to address some of the economic challenges it is currently facing, it needs to be competitive in its exports, which many companies say right now, it’s not because of the tariff barriers.”
There will undoubted be a trade deal and it will probably be some time soon. But, in spite of the fact that President Trump has hosted Prime Minister Modi at the White House in 2017 and played second fiddle to Modi at the massive “Howdy Modi” event in Houston Texas in September 2019 there will not be a really strong strategic relationship between India and the U.S. That is primarily due to the fact that such a relationship is contrary to President Trump’s modus operandi and personal style.
2021 – 2030: Strategic Partnership
India and the U.S. will have a strategic partnership in the future, however. It will come after President Trump is no longer in office. If Trump loses his 2020 re-election bid, that partnership could start being developed as soon as 2021. If he wins, it will not start developing until 2026.
The reason that such a partnership is likely is that there are many driving force factors that will eventually bring it about. The primary ones include:
- Shared democratic values and common geopolitical interests. President Eisenhower’s early connection to India was based on both of these issues. The recent emergence of China and Russia on the world stage make bonding between US and India much more important than it was sixty years ago.
- Trade and commerce. While there have been a few strident talking points in the past two years, US goods exports to India went up significantly in 2018 as did US imports from India. Trade may be off in 2019 because of the conflicts in the past year. But, the figure set by CUTS International of $500 billion in terms of US-India trade by 2030 seems imminently doable.
- The presence of an ever-growing and influential Indian-American community. By the time the next US census takes place the population will be over the four-million mark. There are also five Indian Americans in the US Congress.
President Dwight Eisenhower was a visionary. Speaking to India’s Parliament in 1959, he stated that the welfare of India and the US were linked together.
The prospect and potential that he envisioned for an alliance between India and the US is being realized. There is still quite a way to go to achieve it fully and there are no guarantees it will happen because the future is promised to no one.
Either country could lose its course and make the partnership less feasible if it abandons its commitment to a unifying and uplifting democracy. India and the US must discover how to work closely together in order to earn the strategic partnership label and become “one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century.”
The journey has begun. Time and tenacity will determine how and where it will end.
(The writer is a civic and thought leader based in Washington DC. He can be contacted at ffislam@verizon.net)
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Mr. Frank F. Islam Speech at the Inauguration of Auditorium at AMU Department of Mass Communication- October 2019
Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation to Prof. Kidwai for inviting me to inaugurate this beautiful auditorium at the department of Mass Communication. Thank you, Prof. Kidwai, for all you do to make a difference.
It is truly a pleasure to be in the timeless city of Aligarh. AMU has been a beacon of learning. It has always been a beacon of hope, aspirations, and dream. AMU indeed is a true treasure. It is a precious possession. I am delighted to be here at AMU. My days at AMU have had a profound effect on me. It was an exciting time of my life, though I must admit…sometimes it was chaotic. But nevertheless, it was filled with charms, cheers, changes, and challenges; memory remains endearing. AMU shaped my story. AMU instilled core values that have served me in good stead throughout my adult life. These values continue to be my guiding principles.
Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank several individuals who have worked diligently to make this dream come true. I want to thank the Vice Chancellor for his vision of the kind of Aligarh we can build together. He represents the best of AMU. He is artillery of our heart. He inspires all of us to do well but do good. He provides the example and sets the standard. Let us give VC a big round of applause.
I also want to recognize and express my deep appreciation and special thanks to Ali Rizvi, Afrina Rizvi and Prof. Kidwai for planting the seed for the creation of this auditorium. I also want to thank Parvaiz Talib and Tauqeer Sherwani for their effort. They were instrumental in construction of this auditorium. Let us give them a big round of applause.
It is a distinct pleasure and privilege for me to speak at the inauguration of the Frank and Debbie Islam Auditorium in the Department of Mass Communication at Aligarh Muslim University.
We decided to put our names on this auditorium for several reasons. The general ones are:
AMU helped shape and made me who I am.
The Department of Communications here at AMU ranks as one of the premier institutions of its type in India.
This auditorium in this department is a special place where students, faculty and guests can convene in a setting to look, to listen and to learn. It is a place where information and ideas will be exchanged that will impact the who, what, where, how and why of our future communications. Viewed from this perspective it is more than a hall for assembling. It is a launching pad.
Those are my general reasons. Now, let me add two very specific reasons.
The first is that my wife Debbie and I have a deep commitment to democracy.
The second is that we recognize that journalists and the free news media are central to ensuring that a democracy survives and thrives.
These last two reasons are what I want to talk with you about today – Democracy and the Free News Media. In my speech, I will:
Look at the historical connection between democracy and the free press
Comment on the current status of the news and the free media here in India
Comment on the importance of and requirements for “truthful” news
Finally, in my closing thoughts, I will share my connection to and involvement with the free press.
Democracy and the Free Press
Let me begin by observing that I am an Indian-American. The United States of America is my homeland and India is my motherland. I am doubly blessed by having had the privilege of living in the two largest democracies in the world. Active and engaged citizenship is essential to keep those democracies vibrant and exemplars for democracy world-wide.
One of those democracies – the U.S. – came into being in part because of the free press. The other – India – has had the reputation of having the most vibrant and free press in the developing world.
I went to the United States from India to go to school to study computer science at the University of Colorado in Boulder. There were many things that amazed me in my early days in the U.S.
But, one of the things that truly stuck out for me was the freedom of the press. The journalists and reporter’s ability to listen, to watch, to observe, to investigate and to write about anything was a wonderment to me. I saw their ability to speak truth to power as a defining hallmark of that great democracy.
At the time, I didn’t know why that capacity existed. Later in my life, as I have studied and learned more, I have come to understand that the source of this freedom comes from the American constitution, the bill of rights, and the wisdom of the founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson was one of those founding fathers and the third president of the United States. In 1787, the year the Constitution was adopted in Philadelphia, Jefferson wrote,
“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should say I would not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Think about that (pause) – Jefferson elevated the need for a free press above the need for government. His opinion was not atypical at the time the Constitution was drafted.
Many citizens feared that the Constitution gave too much power to a central government and might lead to tyrannical rule. So, they demanded the addition of a bill of rights in order to get the Constitution ratified by the states.
James Madison, another founding father, drafted the Bill of Rights which contains ten amendments. The first amendment of that Bill of Rights reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What makes this statement unique as it relates to “freedom of the press” is that it is an unqualified right: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. This explains why the press and the media in the United States has such a powerful platform upon which to stand.
The platform for the press here in India is not nearly that strong. One of the reasons for this is that the Constitution of India makes no specific reference to freedom of the press. The Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India, does guarantee the right to freedom of speech and expression. There is a general consensus that this article includes freedom of the press.
Status of the Free News Media in India
Even though there was no specific provision for it in the Constitution, from the time of India’s establishment as a free-standing nation in 1947, the free press has grown substantially and contributed significantly to the evolution of the Indian democracy. Sadly, in recent times, the freedom of India’s free press – or, I should say “free news media” to update that term to the 21st century – has been threatened.
In 2018, six journalists were killed in India placing it fifth on the list of countries in the world where journalists have been murdered. In September of 2017, well known journalist and activist Gauri Lankesh and television reporter Santana Bhowmik were killed in separate incidents.
Given these incidents and numerous more over the past few years, it is understandable why Freedom House, an organization that evaluates countries in terms of their freedom of the press, rated India’s press status as only “partially free” in 2017 giving it a score of 43 on a scale from 0-100.
The Importance of and Requirements for Truthful News
Those rankings for India are going the wrong way and are discouraging. Nonetheless, I know that all of you who are involved with the journalistic and communications professions understand that the need is to persist and to carry-on. Because if you do not, the Indian democracy will crumble.
The essential requirement, in this era of accusations of “fake news” thrown at the authentic free news media and the dissemination of much “fake news” by those with ulterior motives, is for those of you in this business and preparing to be part of the business is to continue to produce truthful news.
“Truthful” news stands in stark contrast to “fake news”. Truthful news is fact-based, authentic and accurate.
There are sometimes errors in truthful news. But they are not in it by design. They are honest mistakes or misstatements. They are misinformation, not disinformation.
Truthful news is produced by journalists and others who adhere to set of ethical standards.
According to Professor Michael Schudson of Columbia University, there are six key functions that journalism and news play to a greater or lesser degree for citizens in democratic societies:
Information: provided fairly and fully
Investigation: into concentrated sources of power
Analysis: furnishing in-depth and coherent frameworks to help explain complex topics or issues
Social Empathy: describing the conditions and situations of others in society and the world especially the disadvantaged
Public Forum: being a centralized communications vehicle for dialogue and discourse on issues and matters of importance
Mobilization: advocating for particular positions, programs or actions
Fake news and truthful news can make a tremendous difference in a democracy. Truthful news has the potential to bring us closer together and to facilitate collaboration in problem-solving, community building and pursuit of the common good. Fake news can highlight our differences, widen the gap between us as citizens, and reinforce polarization and partisanship.
The free news media must be the purveyor of and promotion of truthful news. In 2009, the Knight Commission produced a report titled Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age. That Report focused on the three objectives:
Maximize the availability of relevant and credible information to all citizens and their communities.
Strengthen the capacity of individuals to engage with information.
Promote individual engagement with information and the public life of the community.
Those of you in this auditorium have the competence and the capacity to adapt and pursue them in playing your role and making your contribution to advancing and enhancing this Indian democracy.
The Indian democracy is not perfect- far from it. But India’s democracy shines as a beacon of light in a world that is increasingly becoming darker. India has the potential to become a champion of democracy around the globe. If it realizes this potential, it will bring about a new dawn for democracy in the 21st Century.
Closing Comments
In this final section of my talk, I want to say that even though I am not in nor part of the free press or free news media. I stand staunchly for the free press, the free news media, and those journalists and others involved with it here in India.
I want to assure you that those are not just idle words. I put my money where my mouth is: That is why my wife and I have provided financial support for the naming of this auditorium. It is also why we have sponsored fellowships through the Alfred Friendly Press Partners affiliated with the University of Missouri School of Journalism to bring deserving journalists from India to the United States for classroom education and to work in an American newsroom.
Our first fellow was Smitha Rajan who was an assistant editor with DNA Divya Bhaskar in Gujarat when she accepted her fellowship. Our second fellow was Gulam Jeelani who was a graduate of AMU and who came from the Hindustan Times in New Delhi.
We will continue to fund fellowships such as these going forward because of a simple reason: In a free society, the free press matters. It really matters.
During my talk, I have placed a strong emphasis on the free press and news media. That is because that without them there can be no real democracy. And, if there is no democracy, the free world as we know it will cease to exist.
From that perspective, let me close with a quote from the Newseum in Washington D.C. The Newseum is a living memorial it recognizes news accomplishments of the past and a daily basis, it presents front pages selected from over 800 newspapers in its rooms on a daily basis.
Etched in the entry to the Newseum is a quote that reads as follows:
“The free press is a cornerstone of Democracy. People have the need to know. Journalists have the right to tell. Finding the facts can be difficult. Reporting the story can be dangerous. Freedom includes the right to be outrageous. Responsibility includes the right to be fair. News is history in the making. Journalists provide the first draft of history. A Free Press, at its very best, reveals the Truth.”
It is my privilege today to be with you. I know you are truth tellers and advocates for the free news media. You have the responsibility to seek or report the truth. You have responsibility to separate the facts from fiction.
Please keep up your good work. Know that the fate of the Indian democracy and of democracies around the world hinge in the balance. Know that I am on your side. Through your words, you can keep us keeping on.
Thanks for all you do and for listening to me. Good luck and god bless you.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Entrepreneurship, Media, News
Frank Islam
By Maeeshat news,
Renowned author, philanthropist and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) alumnus, Dr Frank Islam will inaugurate the Frank and Debbie Islam Mass Communication state of the art Auditorium-cum-Preview Theatre of the Department of Mass Communication on February 13 at 2: 30 pm.
Dr Islam donated a grant of Rs one crore for the project’s civil work, acoustics and interiors. The department already has a three-camera state of the art studio AMU Vice Chancellor, Professor Tariq Mansoor will preside over the inaugural function. The inaugural of the state-of-art auditorium with a seating capacity of 150 people comes after the establishment of a three-camera studio at the Department of Mass Communications.
Established in 1938 by Mr Chaudhary Reham Ali Hashmi, author of Fanne Sahafat (Art of News), the Department of Mass Communications offers Masters in Mass Communications, MPhil and Phd programmes, is one of the premier institutions of the country engaged in imparting training in mass communications theories and skills. “Strong academic orientation and extensive, hands-on-training enable majority of students to get jobs before the result is out,” said Professor Shafey Kidwai, Chairman, Department of Mass Communication.
Some of the distinguished alumni of the Department are Nadeem Asrar (Al Jazeera) Saif Khalid (Al-Jazeera), Parvez Alam (BBC), Iftikhar Ahmad (Director, Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia), Romana Khan (ABP News), Arfa Khanum (The Wire), Ghulam Jeelani (Mail), Brijendra Prashar (Hindustan Times), Naved Anjum (Indian Express), Ehtishamuddin (TV18), Ashish Sharma (Times Now), Feroz Haider (Times Now), Nadim Ahmad (Aaj Tak), Wali Ahmad (Indian Express), Vivek Varshney (The Nav Bharat Times), Anuj Kumar (The Hindu), Ehtesham Ali (NDTV), Hina Zubair (ETV), Raheel Pasha (ETV), Prof Ehtesham Ahmad Khan (Dean, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University, Hyderabad), Mohammad Asim (NDTV) and Poonam Sharma (Aaj Tak) .
