Congress runs in my blood but this isn't the party I knew: Satyavrat Chaturvedi

Satyavrat Chaturvedi is a Member of Parliament (MP) and a seasoned Congress leader who has risen from the ranks. He was first elected for the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly way back in 1980 and since then, on several occasions, he has been elected as MLA, MP to both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and has held several important positions in the party.

He is one of the most articulate voices in Congress and is known for his original thoughts. He comes from a family of freedom fighters and thinks that Congress is in his blood. In a candid chat with Sanjay Singh of Firstpost, he eloquently spoke of what ails the present day Congress, what is the way forward, and the way he perceives the leadership of Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.

FP: The pictures out in your office is of the Congress’ who’s who. There is much talk of an old guard versus new guard conflict in Congress. If an organisational change is done accordingly, giving primacy of position to young guards, most leaders seen in those pictures will become history. Do you agree?
Chaturvedi: It never happens that way. In any party, there is always a mix of youthful energy and elderly experience. That combination is always needed. The old guard vs new guard debate is nothing new, this is not happening for the first time. This debate happened even during the times of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indiraji, Rajivji, and it so happened that both the groups had been adequately represented in the leadership. This trend will continue in the future as well.

Source: http://www.firstpost.com

Trump, Clinton campaign will be nasty—and that's good news

As the presidential election looks to be featuring two of the most polarizing candidates in modern American politics, we can expect a hard sell of potential stories and ads to try and make Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton more appealing. But the real deciding factor will once again be an avalanche of negative advertising, designed to tear down the policies and besmirch the personal behavior of the other side. Already, commentators are expecting an historical use of negative campaigning. And voters should be thankful for this.

Appropriately, negative ads and campaigns get a very bad rap. They turn off voters, demonize opponents for perfectly acceptable policy disputes and coarsen the political culture — all of these are legitimate complaints. But negative campaigns are still a breath of fresh air compared to the toxic potential of positive ads.

 Positive campaigns may be loved in theory, but in reality they are not idealized "Lincoln vs Douglas" debates, with each side courteously presenting their argument. They are instead frequently issue-free, focused on the perceived personal benefits of the candidate's previous career and sunny pictures of family.

By now, with a stream of embarrassing sex scandals hitting the papers—and with a grandfatherly former Speaker of the House now serving time due to his action related to sexual assaults—we should hope that voters won't buy into the tightly controlled stories about happy political families. But those stories, and the other inspirational pieces about rising from nothing to seek high office, are all part of the same problem of positive campaigns: They are really designed to tell as little as possible about a candidate's actual policy.



Even when they do manage to deal with issues, positive policy proposals are presented in a facile manner, frequently with untruths and a complete unwillingness to face up to the likelihood of success versus failure. Donald Trump's critics have loudly proclaimed that most of his ever-changing policy proclamations are impossible to carry out.

Trump and his supporters have said the same about some of his competitors' plans, and will undoubtedly try to use the same arguments against Clinton. The only way for voters to actually judge these arguments is negative campaigns. Positive ads will not expose the elisions. Only negative ones have any hope of blasting holes and exposing the policy weaknesses of a candidate's pie-in-the-sky plans.

But that is not the biggest benefit of negative ads. They are simply more truthful and fact-based than negative ones. Vanderbilt University Professor John Geer, the author of In "Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns," has noted that negative ads may be unpleasant but they end up presenting vastly more factual information—60 percent more on average—than the shiny happy positive variety.

What negative ads do is present a strong policy contrast for voters, giving them a chance to draw a real distinction between the two candidates. Negative ads distort information—context is always left out and they take the absolute worst possible interpretation of any action by an opponent. But they are usually very issue-based and much more precise and detailed than the positive and glowing ads in favor of a candidate.


Source: http://www.cnbc.com