VINDICA

“Propaganda…must always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run, only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals.” Joseph Goebbels. I was struck when I ran across the above quote today. The Bush campaign seems to have taken it to their heart. The 'intellectuals' have been constantly questioning whether Kerry really is a 'flip flopper' or a 'tax and spend liberal'. However, even refuting the allegation has only reinforced the relentless monotonous message comming out of the Republican campaign. In many minds (including sometimes in my own mind), this is an election between Bush and Bin Laden. Ah hell, best of luck Kerry. You are gonna need it.

BBC remembers the Anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Related stories here and here .

William Saletan, in this Slate article writes "No doubt Bin Laden hopes to assist, or at least take credit for, the president's defeat. And no doubt the results will be counterproductive. I just hope they aren't counterproductive enough, because this is one codependent relationship the world can't afford." I feel this is probably a hyperbole. A more balanced outlook can, again, be found in the Slate Magazine. Rachael Larimore writes for Kerry supporters: "America is a nation full of intelligent, hard-working, thoughtful people. Some of them are even voting for George W. Bush. America also has its share of rabble-rousing morons. Some of them are, admittedly, voting for John Kerry. We survived Nixon, we survived Reagan. We will survive four more years of Bush." And for Bush supporters: "America is a nation full of intelligent, hard-working, thoughtful people. Some of them are even voting for John Kerry. America also has its share of rabble-r

MJ Akbar writes about the legacy of Yasser Arafat.

Continuing from yesterday's post about what would happen if the Republicans lose. The summary: Goodbye Kerry Goodbye Dean Goodbye MoveOn.org

"Nation-states, not multilateral institutions, will be the decisive players of the 21st century.," writes Martin Jacques.

Fareed Zakaria expresses his concern about the radical partisanship that has lately become the feature of American politics.

Most news media (CNN?) that try to be scrupulously non-partisan have become extremely boring. I find myself watching John Stewart for news. However, one outlet that has always been determinedly middle-of-the-road yet unfailingly interesting has been The Economist magazine. They have now chosen to endorse Kerry , but not by much.

In an earlier post I had put down what I thought would happen if the republicans lose this election. The New Republic has a much more detailed story on this idea.

This is definitely a pleasant surprise. China has endorsed India's bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Four of the five permanent members (France, Russia, Britain and China) now support India's bid. The US has not indicated its thinking yet. It would be ironic if BJP's biggest pet agenda comes to fruition during Congress rule. It is however, undeniable that it was the BJP that laid the groundwork. It is doubtful they will get any credit.

One of the best kept secrets of this election has been that many prominent conservatives are as fervently opposed to Bush as the liberals are. Bush probably cannot be defined as a conservative in the true sense of the word. Bush is socially conservative, economically profligate, and is a go it alone hawk in foreign policy . The last two definitely do not gel well with traditional conservative movement. It is sad that a great idea, based on the belief that a smaller government is better for all, has been shorn down to a stump and is now representative of no one other than the evangelical church. The conservatives have lost the Republican party. Bush has to lose this election if the real conservatives are to make a bid to get the party back. Hence we have prominent conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Scott McConnell turning against Bush. The interesting side of all this is that if Bush wins, the struggle for the soul of the Republican party will be over. The party Builder

New Yorker magazine bypasses the usual media hysteria surrounding the Deputy Defence Secretary and looks at the man and the mind behind Vision Iraq. As balanced a story as any I have seen about Wolfowitz. At the end of it, I came out understanding his viewpoint, if not agreeing with it.

One of Pakistan's leading journalist reports her experiences from Kashmir. This one certainly does not sound partisan. There is a strong feeling that she is telling it as it is.

Frontline analyzes the Congress-NCP victory in Maharashtra. In a related story, an Indian Express editorial cautions the alliance against squandering the goodwill of the people.

It is the same old story. The high flying BJP has declared itself to be in a crisis simply because it has lost two elections. The Congress lost many more, and themselves claimed to be in a crisis. Two defeats to not erase the BJP. Nor do two (narrow) victories make Congress India's eternal ruling party. There was an overreaction to the "India Shining" campaign, and now there is an overreaction to the backlash. In reality, the power equation has not changed that much. MJ Akbar presents a more balanced view .

The first (attempted) roundup of leading conservative opinion. Unfortunately, I could not find too many writers who could fit the description. Please let me know of other authors. Of course, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage cannot be counted. Their arguments tend to be more emotional than logical or informative. Pat Buchanan has published a piece about how the US can get out of Iraq . Two observations regarding this: 1. Conservative opinion (abusive opinion aside) tends to focus more on how to get the job done. Liberals seem to analyze the past endlessly and complain about wrong choices. I looked through the archives and noticed that Pat has been opposing the war since way before it started. But nothing of 'I told you so' mentality seeps into his writing. This is a striking contrast to the works of most liberals that I am familiar with. 2. Pat and his brand of Right was opposed to the war. The Left obviously was too. So who supported it? Is the non

Taegan Goaddard's politicalwire.com informs us that Clinton has set his sights on becomming the UN Secretary general. Full story can be found here .

This is the first of, hopefully, a periodic roundup I plan to do of the latest publications by leading liberals. I plan to follow it up with leading conservative opinion to provide balance. Rabble rousing, however, will be ignored. Chomsky published Understanding the Bush Doctrine which basically criticizes the US policy of millitary buildup. Howard Zinn published Our War on Terrorism where he, refreshingly, provides possible strategies for liberal action to get the US out of Iraq. Refreshing because his genre of writing has the unfortunate tendency to crib without saying anything constructive. "I believe that the American people's natural compassion would come to the fore if they truly understood that we are terrorizing other people by our 'war on terror.'"

Tony Judt talks of the strange reluctance in America to accept the fact that it has always been developing into an empire. However, he cautions that even if the American Empire is beneficial to everybody, other people will not accept it. "As Raymond Aron once observed, it is a denial of the experience of our century (the twentieth) to suppose that men will sacrifice their passions for their interests."

Kerry gets tough on the campaign trail, including a Mohammad Ali-esque "George, is that all you've got". He also hits out at the Bush health plan ("He says, don't get one if you're healthy. That sounds just kind of like his health care plan to me: hope and pray you that don't get sick."). It is good to see Kerry barring his fangs, but it is also a little sad that a campaign that is above the belt no longer seems to stand any chance.

Are we living in a post truth era where "whether something is believed has become more important than whether it's true"? This piece, a review of Ralph Keye's book "The Post-Truth Era", explores the issue. Another piece , this one by MJ Akbar, begins quite dramatically with an assertion on the same theme. "Since the only functional law of democracy places perception above facts, logic can only be a secondary guide to the fate of fortune hunters in an election." says Mr. Akbar.

A strange thing happened today. Weltanschauung is a word I had never heard before, and on a single day today, I saw it in print in two completely unrelated places here and here . For the curious, the definition from Dictionary.com is attached below... Weltanschauung - [German  : Welt, world (from Middle High German wërlt, from Old High German weralt. See w-ro- in Indo-European Roots) + Anschauung, view (from Middle High German anschouwunge, observation, mystical contemplation  : an-, on, at from Old High German ana-; see anlage + schouwunge, look from schouwen, to look at, from Old High German scouwn).]

John Kerry made a comment during the presidential debate about taking America to war only if the issue passes the "global test". Esteemed correspondent Al Antispinner caught up with him in at the after party and quizzed him about this comment. "You don't expect me to go to war based on the opinion of cowboys do you? If I do that, hawks everywhere else get upset. We are going to war anyway, all I am saying is why not throw a few bones to the hawks before we do?" asked Mr. Kerry. He later seemed worried about his remarks "You are not going to report that are you?", he asked. Meanwhile it was clear that the president's team started the pre-planned victory party even though victory was not apparent. "Kerry's credibility gap has turned into a credibility canyon", said one aid. When told that based on what had just happened he sounded ridiculous, he looked as lost as Bush did at the debate. One of the Republican