A friend of mine worked on the Hill, and invited me to go to an amusement park rented out by the Republican party for

...

WHIP FAMILY NIGHT (or was it Family Whip Night?)

God, I have a childish sense of humor.

-D

Let's hope that he indulges the state with enough pork like the Boggs Dynasty. The state has to wean itself off the drinking, eating and gambling industry. Govn't jobs for all I say.

...

Well, man, I'm not sure those are especially surprising lessons. But it's not too early to start fundraising again, I guess. Maybe that's the lesson we should learn?

Raise funds now, 4 years before the next election so that you'll be better positioned DURING the run up, and the election.

This is a bullshit model of "moving up" for people who are not Republicans. There are other ways to be involved in political life (broadly construed) other than to run for office or get hired by someone in office. This helps you avoid traps like, "To have a shot at politics you have to be involved with the money".

Even if you do want to hold office as a liberal/progressive/socialist/whatever, then you can do so at a local level, so you don't have to compromise as much. You can do a lot more good for your community there as a progressive. For example, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has done so much to help New Yorkers and he's the odds on favorite to be governor next year.

Electoral politics has a magnetic draw and you do need to build a financial and professional support base to be a part of it (like starting a business), but how you go about it is really important too.

And don't even get me started on how this isn't going to help brown people--particularly the billion or so that still live in the subcontinent.

And don't even get me started on how this isn't going to help brown people--particularly the billion or so that still live in the subcontinent.

saurav-ji,

your last sentence interests me; arguably, it's not jindal's responsibility to help anyone still ON the subcontinent. his obligation is to the constituents from his district.

i wrote my thesis on the evolution of political activism in the brown community and many of the erstwhile candidates i spoke to mentioned this very prevalent question regarding "loyalties". neil dhillon was constantly asked if he would go to congress to serve people in india or in maryland.

should electing someone brown mean that india benefits? is it insular of us to want that? unless we're interested in bettering the world, and not showing a preference between helping starving orphans in thailand and starving orphans in bangladesh, how could a politician lead without fulfilling the worst fears of the voters who doubted his loyalty in the first place?

to what degree is a brown politician beholden to...brown?

A brown politician is beholden to only his constituents, which is in this case is overwhelmingly white, conservative and wealthy for Louisiana. Throw in a few brown people in the district, my family and formerly myself are in there. It brings the old joke what is the goal of every term, to get elected for another one.
Anna brings up an interesting question about how other ethnic legislators are beholden to their ethnicity. I would have to say it’s different depending on the size and power of the constituency. Italian, Irish, German etc
 and other large ethnicities that comprise the majority of the population both have votes and money. I would love to see how legislators in the past, where the above mentioned ethnic groups were more heterogenous, reacted to specific events & legislation that affected their home countries. In Jindal’s case his constituents agree on his values and his past, his stint as secretary for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals was considered successful. I wonder what committees he will be appointed to, he seems to be gravitating to being the Republican wonk on domestic issues rather than dealing foreign policy.

annadi,

your last sentence interests me; arguably, it's not jindal's responsibility to help anyone still ON the subcontinent. his obligation is to the constituents from his district.

Okay, two pieces: one, I was responding to Abhi's argument that Bobby Jindal's rise helps us "see how the system works so that more South Asians might enter national politics" If we are interested in South Asians as South Asians entering national politics, it implies that we're interested in seeing politicians rooted in some sort of desi-American identity. And to me, a desi-American identity that has no concern for the affairs of the subcontinent is overly assimilated. So my point was more addressed to supporters of desis as desis rising to prominence.

But your other part is more interesting. I believe really strongly in local control and agree with you that politicians (everywhere) ought to be strictly accountable primarily to their constituents' and local community's interests. Otherwise, you get a lot of backlash (e.g. on outsourcing, since neither political party has given a shit about the White American working class for the past 15 years or so). I'd argue it is in the national interests of the United States (and hence constituencies') to pursue the promotion of these same principles (local control over resources, etc.) abroad in decent and strategic ways--i.e. there's also a broader understanding of being accountable to your constituency at play.

Further, since we live in a world that's not constructed to distribute resources equitably around the globe, politicians in wealthy countries like the United States (particularly progressive politicians) also should try to convince their constituents about decent things not in their immediate interests, and in rare instances to take poltiical risks that might alienate their constituents (e.g. in Darfur) to help alleviate some suffering and promote some sense of justice in the world. There's no systemic accountability to many constituencies in the United States like undocumented immigrants, much less abroad. I mention South Asia because that's where my identity's rooted, but you're right that a more balanced approach is more important and I would hope that if I were in office, I would strive to put my personal loyalties aside and address deep-seated problems where they are to the extent that I can. I don't think it's possible to be so uber rational that you abandon all your biases, even if you try, because people are creatures that are informed by their experiences, but I think you have the obligation to try as much as possible. So, for instance, I would probably try to make myself prioritize Sudan over relief aid for the tsunami.

Finally, I think that because politicians are people, they are going to have random interests that they develop and cultivate. Paul Findley, a White Christian American congressman, developed in interest in Islam so strong that he ended up writing a book on it. Similarly, DP Moynihan believed that "trains build cities" so New York's going to get Penn Station revamped at some point (hopefully). I don't think they should be condoned when they put these interests ahead of their constituency's, but everyone's going to have a pet project. More support for democracy, public health, and equitable distribution of resources in the world that doesn't necessarily benefit your constituents is not a bad one to have :)

Anyway, sorry to be so long winded about it, but that's my thought out, non knee-jerk take on this.

And just to be a little more honest from my gut, the knee-jerk take:

Yeah, he should be accountable to his desi identity, however that plays out for him (supporting the subcontinent, supporting Christ, whatever). It's only honest as a person.

As a resident of Louisiana, my hands are still sore from the excessive wringing prior to our last gubernatorial election. My main dilemma was based on what you guys discuss here, namely Jindal serving Indians (Indians in America, and not India's citizens) vs. local constituents. So, as an exercise in therapy, I wrote an article about it and the relevance of the issue to Louisiana politics in general:

http://vatul.net/articles/2003/11/taming-of-bobby-jindal.html

Let me know what you think.

I took a look at your article. To be fair, I have never lived outside the Northeast, so I don't really know what it's like to be desi in Louisiana or how alienating it is. However, for me, it's not even a contest as to who to vote in choosing between my values and my ethnicity. Even if internally I'm proud or appreciate that a desi is getting some props, the political force that Bobby Jindal is actively promoting is destructive and my actions are not going to support the agenda he's chosen to align himself with.

Yeah, Saurav, that's the conclusion to which my writing exercise led. You have to go with your values. Hence my disappointment that a lot of Indians here registered themselves as Republicans simply to vote for Jindal and not for his party.

One thing you should know about the south, however, is that candidates who refer to themselves as Republican and Democrat aren't necessarily down with their adopted party's values. Add to that the way business is done "differently" on this side of the Mason-Dixon line and you have yourself a political picture that is as clear as a bog.

Subtext: I don't know WHO to vote for here. Oooh, ooh, pick me to move back up north.

I grew up in Tamil Nadu, and there was a politician from Bangalore who used to stand in elections in our constituency. There were always questions raised about "loyalty", and he responded in the classic way politicians do : by becoming more virulently anti-Karnataka than everyone else.

That's the way with Jindal too. Agree or not, his Indian origin is a handicap for him in a state like Lousiana, and he responds similarly - by becoming an ultra-conservative hawk. Yeah, my parents are from there, but see I pray more than you all do. To be fair to him, that's probably the only way to succeed as a politician here. Unless you are from a constituency full of Indians, you can never flaunt your Indian origin and expect to win.

The thing that bugs me the most is the India Abroads and Rediffs treating every politician of Indian origin in the US like they are going to somehow represent India. Jindal and the others who win here are just American politicians who happen to be brown. Good for them, but I am not going to get my panties in a bunch over these guys winning. They won inspite of their Indianness, not because of it.

One thing you should know about the south, however, is that candidates who refer to themselves as Republican and Democrat aren't necessarily down with their adopted party's values. Add to that the way business is done "differently" on this side of the Mason-Dixon line and you have yourself a political picture that is as clear as a bog.

Trust me, I'm aware. I semi-seriously think about starting a secessionist movement from the South on an almost daily basis. My understand is that the Democrats suck and the Republicans are scary.

In New York, we have an analogous similar divide as the one nationally (metro NY vs. upstate), although lesser in...scale, I guess is the word.

btw what's seva for AIM? is it associated with hindutva groups? i noticed that they got funding from IDRF.

-s

In the south, it mostly boils down to money and nepotism, a very good-ol'-boy way of gaining power. Even the African-American community here, for their visible Urban League dinners and UNCF fund raisers, is terribly divided into the haves and the have-nots. When people express an intent to visit the third world to see how the "others" live, I tell them two things:

1. (inside voice) "Oh my god, I am going to sucker punch you if you use the phrase third world to me in that condescending tone of voice."

2. (external voice) "Save the money and visit America's own patch of squalor, New Orleans. The wage and living gap, poor roads, political corruption and general chaos put equally-populated Indian or Chinese cities to shame." This comment always seems to elicit gasps, looks of disdain, etc. A lot of Americans are so out of touch with their own country.

Still, there is a certain charm to this place, as there is to a slum right next door to a delicate mansion in India. Keeps it real.

=*=

AIM for Seva is short for All India Movement for Seva (as you well know, that means "service"). My family's guru, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, started this organization in response to Indians leaving their country and not doing much to help their people back home. I like to think that it is more of a service than a charity organization, and there is a difference - charity implies a certain high-handed remoteness, service adopts more of an involved "today for you, tomorrow for me" mentality. AIM gets money from Indians living inside and outside India to send poor village kids to boarding schools (where they are kept educated instead of being pulled out by parents who want them to work, etc.) and to provide job training for abused and unemployed women, among other things. Read the contents of the website some more to find out what's going on. Please do help if you can.

The organization was created by a Hindu swami, but is quite secular, which is the way it truly should be, in my opinion. As opposed to certain groups who do "aid work" in India in exchange for souls and the like.

*phew* Long comment.

Well talking about dhayanand saraswathi. He was discovered as Hindu teacher of Vedanta and Sanskrit. He studied Sanskrit under Professor Veera Raghavacharya and Vedanta under Swami Pranavananda and Swami Tarananda. Swami Dayananda has been teaching Vedanta in India for five decennial
----------------------------
Garrett

widecircles