via Al Jazeera America.
via Al Jazeera America.
The GOP is conflicted.
They are ashamed that their disdain for genuine democracy is unfolding.
They scurry to relinquish themselves of associations with one another, and they are desperate to convince the world that their views are not as outrageous as their party platform.
A recipe for failure, it seems.
While Rubio & Bush might seem like the most poise of the candidates; their ideology resonates only with the same constituency amassed by other GOP candidates. Their platform is not only fundamentalistic and hawkish; it lacks the basis it needs for legitimacy. These guys are entertainers!
There is too much shame in the Republican Party.
Rubio goes far enough to humanize illegal immigrants; but his inability to translate that into a viable political position and a platform for efficient reform as well as what seems to be his inner desire to maintain a system that disenfranchises immigrants from integration makes it all too apparent that Rubio falls in line with the rest of his party on the issue of immigration, which is ironic because, while a vast number of Cuban & Latin-Americans identify with conservative politics, the majority tends to side with the Democrats, which is the more ethnically diverse and responsive party in the American political landscape today.
America is the greatest country on earth, without a shadow of a doubt. Even Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, vilified by US media outlets as an America-Hating tyrant, shared the sentiment, “America is the greatest country in the world”, during one of his more recent interviews with Charlie Rose. That being said, America is not perfect. Much like the countries from where most of these immigrants fled, America suffers from drawbacks. These drawbacks are reflections of the stubbornness of the elite to recognize the need for cultural integration. A more clear example of this stubbornness is the unwillingness of “White America” to acknowledge the dues it owes to the Black population. America tends to view itself as so exceptional that it excuses its own double-dealings. But that has bitten it in the foot. And the mass influx of illegal immigrants in modern times is just one among many symptoms of those decisions.
In an interview with Senator Rubio before announcing his candidacy in the 2016 race, Mexican-American journalist Jorge Ramos lambasts Rubio’s hypocrisy on the issue of immigration:
Your father was an illegal immigrant living in the US illegally until 1967. He eventually obtained status. Why did your grandfather receive the generosity and support of this country? Why don’t you do the same?
The realities Republicans ignore:
The GOP tactic is not new. It is a smear-tactic. Dehumanize the subject and justify exclusivism and social disenfranchisement. It is the face of old America, but if this is the “New World”, then perhaps we also need to make calls for a “New America”.
Produced by KRIKOS.
For production, song-writing, artistic direction, bookings, features and/or audio engineering by KRIKOS please send professional inquiries only to KRIKOSofficial@gmail.com.
As I prepare my thesis for my graduate studies at the University of Central Florida, I begin to ponder some of the variables involved.
This forces me to ask other questions about my subject matter, the Middle East, and social justice.
Is democracy meant for the Middle East?
It is true that Lebanon is the most democratic; with women’s freedom to dress liberally and citizens to criticize politicians openly; but still, the system is very much undemocratic, corrupt & influenced by autocratic neighbors.
This leaves me wondering if the Middle East is intended to be democratic, given its religious nature and religious history.
During my undergraduate studies, I recall my professor of ME studies, an Iranian-American not to mention, who challenged the universalism of democracy, asserting that the ME was a unique society, possibly unsuited for democracy; at least the Western model.
Many proponents of democracy in the ME, most of which tend to be either non-Middle Easterners, or Middle Easterners from the diaspora, such as the Syrian National Council, the supposed coalition against Syrian president Bashar al Assad. The SNC, operates outside Syria, in Turkey. These critics of the dictatorship in Syria argue that the ME is suited for liberal democracy, but only a minority is liberal, which is why perhaps the Syrian opposition to Assad was swallowed up by extremist groups; which represents the majority of the opposition. This reality suggests that, even if the dictatorship were overthrown, genuine liberal democracy wouldn’t ensue, but rather, an Islamic-style of government. And the extents of its Islamism would be unknown. Take Egypt, another example for instance. When democracy prevailed, the force that dominated the elections was Islamism, in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. This scared liberal Egyptians, and secularists in the international arena alike. It almost minimized the prospects of a liberal democracy flourishing the heart of Arab civilization; the “Mother of the World” – Egypt.
Iraq, almost 13 years after its so-called ‘liberation’, remains in worse shape than it did prior to the invasion.
Libya, it could be argued, suffers the same fate.
So why then, must we continually heed neoconservative calls for “democratic revolution” in the Middle East?
Are we right or wrong to?
Produced by KRIKOS
Directed by Masood Ahmed
KRIKOS presents: “3-Peat”.