The Flayed Man @partiingshot - Tumblr Blog

Thoughts on the 2016 Election.

I am not a fan of compelling people to explain their votes; each person chooses to vote for their own personal reasons, whether personal, national, regional, local, intellectual, or driven by self-interest of some sort. Yes, it is important on a discursive level to openly and free exchange ideas and opinions on issues without fear of retribution or reprisal. How those views inform our voting preferences is a corollary of that discussion (whether internal of external). But, more often than not, airing our choices turns into a referendum on the quality and qualifications of that choice. Fair as well, but ultimately fruitless unless there is an opening for discussion.

Explaining is one thing, but I do rather enjoy it when people announce their vote and almost immediately go on the defensive, expecting and welcoming those who will react to it. A choice is a choice, if made with full confidence and through discernment the need to defend it is unnecessary, unless the point of the announcement is to cause a stir. In which case, have at it.

A person can explain their choice, if they so choose. Other than that, voting is rather personal, rather important to maintain its secrecy and sanctity. Never force someone to provide their choices or to defend them.

Unless they want to. I happen to want to explain my vote, if only to provide insight into how I arrived at my choice. I will not defend it, but I hope this short essay will help illuminate my thought processes.

A quick note on surveys and the upcoming election.

For the last few months I held steadfast in my belief that 25%-27% will win the election. We are faced with what will likely be the tightest election in Philippine history. I suspect the final margin will end up being less than one million votes. The election will be that tight. A corollary is no matter who wins on the 9th, we are likely in for turbulence for a year or more. Neither Binay holding steady at 30%+ prior (amazing, how those analysts who said he had a core support level of 25%+ have backed off of that claim), Poe jumping out to a 35%+ (then coming back to reality, sorry La Viña, that 10%+ burst post SC decision did not materialize), or even Duterte recently coming in at 33% has changed my thoughts. Roxas, as we all know, has been ‘stuck’ around 20%; alternatively we can look at it as holding steady at 20%, but as always it is a matter of perspective.

In races this tight, machinery and ground game really matters; which is why we cannot count Binay out nor ignore the fact that with the fade of Poe (depending on which survey you follow), Roxas is in the best position to beat Duterte. The ability to get the vote out can spell the difference. We can see how razor thin the margin will be with how desperately all four leading candidates (sorry Miriam Defensor-Santiago) have been seeking any edge possible, any possible alliance to be made. There is, of course, a rather large line between seeking any edge possible and breaking the law, but there we are. Other than conspiracy theories and accusations of questionable provenance (including the rantings and ravings of poor Walden Bello), so far the election has resembled most other elections; questionable alliances made in the 11th hour, desperate grabs for publicity and boosts in surveys, and en masse showings of support. Granted, social media has added a wrinkle to this election, but while perhaps the noise has increased, the election is still being won where it has before: On the ground. And this election, to me, is marked by a distinct lack of coalescing around one candidate the closer we are getting to Election Day. That can still change, and I can make a case we are seeing forces shifting from two candidates to two others, but the picture is still unclear.

Winnability does not really matter to me. Voting has always been a matter of affinity - Which candidate best represents my stance on issues. Which candidate do I feel best articulates what I think. You can never find a perfect match, just one your can live with. But for others, winnability does matter in casting their vote. I think this election will be so tightly contested that winnability matters less, affinity and conscience matter more.

I am somewhat amused that Grace Poe has been well situated by her team as the preferred alternative candidate to Binay and now Duterte. Well done, though Chiz Escudero saying she is the exact opposite of all the other candidates was more than a bit entertaining — so easy to spin negatively. The problem for Poe? Her survey numbers no longer speak to position as the presumptive alternate candidate of choice. That late slide, coupled with her lack of real machinery, hints at this. Granted, her name carries cache, as she enjoys pointing out, and her story remains compelling, but I think we ignore the importance of the LP machinery in driving her to the top in 2013 at our folly. She still has the name, but she lacks both the Aquino rub and the LP ground network this time around. How far will the name take her before people wonder if that is all she has is a looming question. More to the point, does FPJ on his own bring out the vote enough to counteract the ground game of more seasoned and connected political structures?

This question looms for Duterte as well. There is a rather reductive sense of whether volunteerism trump machinery. I think that rather worryingly overlooks that every candidate has a volunteer structure in place, though some are stronger than others. For Duterte, it is whether this sort of fanatic adoration he inspires is enough to drive people to vote en masse on May 9. While rumors persist that he has the Marcos machine backing him, or Arroyo as the case may be, so far his campaign has been marked by rabid demagogic populism, and a rather pointed fixation on the only candidate who has a strong machine behind him (along with the resources of the administration) coupled with a volunteer network.

The economy matters most to me in this election. Simply, we are in a far different space today than we were in 2010. Then we were coming out of over a decade of corrupt politics, where our institutions were so degraded as to be almost non-functional. Any gains made under Cory and Ramos in terms of rebuilding our institutions (ignoring Ramos’s rather poor, though undiscussed, track record in corruption) were quickly whittled away by the Estrada/Arroyo administrations.

We needed breathing room. We needed time to work some things out of our system. We needed untainted leadership with a focus on anti-corruption to start rebuilding positive domestic and international sentiment towards the country. We needed this badly as our reputation, originally burnished by the 1986 EDSA Revolution and buoyed by Cory’s beloved image internationally and Ramos’s comfort on the international stage, had badly faltered from 1997-2009. As relatively unremarkable a record he had prior to running, Benigno Aquino III provided us with that breathing space. And in many ways, I believe his administration achieved that; especially when we consider the low base we came from. That does not mean it was all wine and roses, and there were some dramatically and depressingly low points during the last six years, on the balance there were marked improvements in key, critical areas, not least of which involved our economic and fiscal space.

Yes, we are in a far different space today than then. Now we need to build on those gains and expand them as much as possible, while shoring up the weak areas for the betterment of all. This is where the idea of continuity and stability come into play; but, I have never been a fan of just that. Of course we need continuity, but anyone can provide that, just as long as they do not rock the boat and continue the projects that have been started under this administration. That is a pretty low bar to set.

Doing just that does not add value to our national bottom line, nor does it promise success in the future. Because, while continuity could continue our momentum, the fact is our national growth story is not writ in stone. Global headwinds exist, diplomatic waters need to be charted, and domestic instability always seems to be around the corner. A president for the foreseeable future needs to have the experience to navigate those currents to maintain our growth trajectory. We cannot bank on the momentum continuing no matter who we put in office. As a matter of fact, it won’t.

Thus, for me, we need experience, we need some sort of concrete, reviewable vision and platform. We need the ability and skills to concretize the gains made. Neophyte does not do it for me, especially when ‘neophyte’ is coupled with almost mind-numbing intellectual errors and ideas for addressing our economic short comings. Nor does the vapid call for mindless, amorphous change (hobbled by rather questionable ideological partners) compel either.

I have my own ideas on what needs to be done and I know which candidate best articulates them for me.

Going into this election I decided to place a premium on published platforms and policies; only one candidate came through. The rest? They relied on a hodgepodge of promises, cribbing liberally from other people’s work, flat out promising the moon and the stars, and even just saying they’ll steal other people’s work and ideas. There is something to be said about actually taking the time to create an overarching, integrated, and well-considered platform of policies and a vision for the future. Publishing a platform puts it out there for everyone to see; it concretizes beliefs, hopes, and dreams in ways that carefully manufactured motherhood statements and vague promises ever can.

I just realized I had forgotten to say who I am voting for: Mar Roxas and Leni Robredo. This is not meant to be a surprise (since I rather buried the lede). I have been pretty upfront about it in other spaces (especially Twitter), but I think it is important to disclose. While this entry is not an unbiased analysis of the election and it does not attempt to be, it is important to make sure that disclosures are provided.

Also, I like the idea of tandems. I never like the idea of mixing and matching candidates, especially when those tandems are usually closely intertwined. For example, a Poe/Robredo tandem sounds tantalizing on paper, but the realities of politics dictate that Robredo will be sidelined under a Poe administration in favor of Poe’s preferred running mate (and long-rumored Machiavellian figure), Chiz Escudero. Tandems should matter. Granted there are some out of convenience or connivance (Santiago and Marcos for one), but tandems that are thought out and interlinked in terms of governance platforms should be respected.

Aside from the fact that a choice of running mate matters as well. It gives insight into priorities and preferences in terms of governance and future plans.

A few months ago, a prominent regional banker discussed the four leading candidates and their likely impact on the economy if they are elected. His discussions were informed by the opinions of regional financial players and investors.

Rather unsurprisingly, Mar Roxas was seen as the candidate offering the most value add to the economy. Consensus was that he would grow the economy at a more measured pace, but the overall effect of his policies would be deeper and broader — not just growth, but expansion. Electing Roxas signals to the region and the world that the Philippines is finally on a path towards long term sustained growth. In other words, we are maturing and open for business. Roxas will work to create a more or less level playing field.

That is rather reductive, you could say, but from an economic and investments perspective it is rather understandable. Roxas is the only one who brings legitimate national and international economic experience to the table. He’s a seasoned negotiator in multilateral trade talks, a known presence who has a grasp of macro and micro economic theory that none of the other candidates can even touch. As well, Roxas has a long history of intervention in what will be critical areas over the next few years: promoting and enhancing MSME inclusion, attracting and locking in foreign investment, negotiating multilateral trade agreements (ASEAN integration is looming), institutionalizing required legal interventions to improve our competitiveness and infrastructure capabilities, and even addressing tax burdens (though his hedge on “wait till after elections” was a bit of a cop out). Yes, he may be seen as ‘slow to decide,’ but more often than not, his decisions on a broad policy scale are correct. A Roxas win shifts us from a ‘buy’ to ‘overweight.’

Again, rather unsurprisingly, Binay was the next preferred candidate. He was seen as someone who can grow the economy rapidly, but without the depth. Shallow growth, hobbled by likely corruption and questionable favoritism. Binay is a known presence and commodity; to get anything done you have to deal. And some businesses will deal. The playing field will be rather unequal, but overall we can survive a Binay presidency, and likely will even improve somewhat. Makati has for years. A Binay presidency shifts us from a ‘buy’ to a ‘neutral’ with positive bias.

In third place was Grace Poe. Simply put, her grasp of macro-economic policy, as well as her ‘solutions’ leave much to be desired. She is woefully out of her depth when it comes to understanding the needs of the Philippine economy; her solutions are almost laughably simplistic. The Philippines will survive her presidency, but neither will we grow or expand. We will muddle along, the same old policies will be implemented, more or less. But any sort of meaningful interventions will be lacking. Of note, though, is the concern that her benefactors/backers, as well as Chiz Escudero, will exert during her presidency. It’s a well-known ‘secret’ who is backing her, and those names give people pause. We will survive Poe, unless certain fears come true and she turns out to be GMA 2.0. There are already shades of that with her micro-management-esque promises of ‘war rooms’ and ‘Malacanang’ in the province. She shifts us from a ‘buy’ to ‘neutral’ at best.

That leaves us with Rodrigo Duterte. The man who can single-handedly erase our gains for the last few years; who can send us back to the proverbial stone age. His grasp of the economy and the broader needs of the Philippines is almost laughable. From his promise to ‘borrow’ Php60B to fix transport in the Metro Manila to his promise to halt all infrastructure projects for at least one year to his threats to dissolve Congress, Duterte is a walking, talking avatar of destabilization and the politics of hate and exclusion. After six years of relative political and social stability, we face the very real possibility of collectively shooting ourselves in the foot.

A Duterte presidency demonstrates to the world that the Philippines is far from ready to be a major investment destination, as a matter of fact we are already feeling those effects now. The Duterte Jitters are real. And the region has been worried about it for months. Duterte shifts us from a ‘buy’ to a ‘GTFO.’ Coupled with a Marcos vice-president (also a possible reality), a Duterte presidency would (and will) spell doom for the country.

Oh, by the way. All this talk about investors not knowing Duterte? Untrue. Prior to his announcement, Duterte joined a number of roundtables to informally discuss and present his vision of the Philippines and to make the case for his brand of ‘federalism.’ This was in the works for a while.

The impressions above have been borne out by each individual candidates performance before the Makati Business Club. Their speeches provide a snapshot into their strengths and weaknesses as candidates; perhaps far better even than their performances during the debates.

One of the ‘darker’ notes surrounding the Duterte compulsion is what his candidacy really means. Yes, he is running on a ‘platform’ (such that it is) of anti-criminality, but the methods he has utilized and is espousing are terrifying in their implications. This is a man who has no qualms about using extrajudicial means to eliminate ‘petty’ criminals. He has promised to empower the military and the police to do just that, at their whim. With his broad support in the A/B/C categories, this can only be interpreted in one way: A war on the impoverished. This is class warfare at its most brutal and depressing. Rather than seeing the impoverished (those who are forced into a life of crime because of a lack of opportunity) as partners in development, men like Duterte (and those who support him) see these ‘criminals’ as something to be exterminated — sub-human and beyond redemption. Duterte has become the avatar of our collective worst impulses. We are faced with the reality of a blood-thirsty misogynist as our next president. That reflects on us collectively.

Funnily enough, his straight shooting tough guy image only goes so far - He’ll insult and antagonize our allies (USA, Australia, India, Singapore), but will roll over and show his belly for countries like China. He’ll demand transaction histories and open accounts from his competitors, but will resort to legal trickery and obfuscation to evade answering questions transparently of his own alleged malfeasance.

This was a loose collection of thoughts on the election. By no means was this supposed to be comprehensive or in any way in-depth. But, leading up to Election Day I thought it would be interesting to write them out, to review them for my own consumption as much as anyone else’s.

I’ll be upfront, I do not know any of these candidates on a personal level, though I have seen them give speeches. Nor, to be frank, am I much interested in getting to know them on that level. I doubt I’ll ever want to grab a beer with Duterte, watch a movie with Poe (In the Malacanang FPJ Memorial Film Room), or take a stroll through a country garden with Binay. I may enjoy arguing economic policies with Roxas, but that’s just because I am a bit of a nerd and policy wonk.

Personal comportment though, does matter to varying degrees. I can easily overlook someone being pikon or a bit of an asshole, I couldn’t care less if someone hides their chain-smoking habit or whose kid rocks ridiculously fugly sneakers. I do care if someone is a raging misogynist who thinks that a beautiful woman’s role is as an assistant or who believes that rape is a laughing matter or extrajudicial killings are a matter of course. These things are not equitable, nor should they be.

At the same time, we are voting for leaders. But, then again, that also depends on how you qualify and quantify leadership.

I will vote for Roxas and Robredo on May 9 with an absolutely clear conscience. These aren’t compromise votes for me, anymore than any vote in any representative democratic election is a compromise vs conscience vote. On the whole, I happen to agree with their understanding and position on most key issues. I firmly believe the tandem is well suited to one another and their platform of governance reflects this synergy.

As trite as it is to say, the Philippines is at a fork in the road. I know which path I prefer, yours may differ. Either way, if you can, please vote.

See you on May 9.

partiingshot

"One of the ‘darker’ notes surrounding the Duterte compulsion is what his candidacy really means. Yes, he is running on a ‘platform’ (such that it is) of anti-criminality, but the methods he has utilized and is espousing are terrifying in their implications. This is a man who has no qualms about using extrajudicial means to eliminate ‘petty’ criminals. He has promised to empower the military and the police to do just that, at their whim. With his broad support in the A/B/C categories, this can only be interpreted in one way: A war on the impoverished.  This is class warfare at its most brutal and depressing. Rather than seeing the impoverished (those who are forced into a life of crime because of a lack of opportunity) as partners in development, men like Duterte (and those who support him) see these ‘criminals’ as something to be exterminated — sub-human and beyond redemption. Duterte has become the avatar of our collective worst impulses. We are faced with the reality of a blood-thirsty misogynist as our next president. That reflects on us collectively. Funnily enough, his straight shooting tough guy image only goes so far - He’ll insult and antagonize our allies (USA, Australia, India, Singapore), but will roll over and show his belly for countries like China. He’ll demand transaction histories and open accounts from his competitors, but will resort to legal trickery and obfuscation to evade answering questions transparently of his own alleged malfeasance. "

Sigh.

boiledleather

As a critic, I have to watch a lot of things that I don’t particularly like. I don’t begrudge anyone who watches movies and television or who reads for pleasure the decision to stop when something’s not fun anymore. But as a critic, I think it’s important to preserve the distinction between saying that something simply isn’t for me and drawing a more definitive conclusion that something is a poor artistic choice. You can assert the former, but you have to argue the latter, using the text and the language of the artistic form at hand. For me, the scene of Sansa’s rape was tremendously unpleasant, but the care taken in the staging, acting and shooting of the scene made it impossible for me to regard it as lazy or slapdash. And I didn’t find it gratuitous in the way I might have felt if I saw “Game of Thrones” as simply a sprawling, quasi-medieval adventure or an ensemble Golden Age drama, sort of a mash-up of anti-heroes culled from “The Sopranos” and awesome women inspired by “Mad Men,” with dragons for an extra fiery kick. Instead, this scene felt of a piece with the way I’ve always understood “Game of Thrones” and George R.R. Martin’s “Song of Ice and Fire”: as a story about the consequences of rape and denial of sexual autonomy.

partiingshot

‘Game of Thrones’ has always been a show about rape - Alyssa Rosenberg, The Washington Post (via boiledleather)

if I saw “Game of Thrones” as simply a sprawling, quasi-medieval adventure or an ensemble Golden Age drama, sort of a mash-up of anti-heroes culled from “The Sopranos” and awesome women inspired by “Mad Men,” with dragons for an extra fiery kick

That is straight fucking fire

(via boiledleather)

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

The Flayed Man