One of the beneficial aspects of writing this column has been the opportunity it provides for people across a multitude of boundaries I would not normally come into contact with to reach me by telephone or Internet to chat generally or take me up on something appearing in this space.
Last week’s column generated a predictable flurry of calls. What was interesting was the split between those for and against my suggestion that University of the West Indies students should contribute to the cost of their education which saw Government’s subvention climb to $143 295 552 for 2009-10.
Whereas 100 per cent of those calling from the senior citizens cohort thought it reasonable that students contribute to help ameliorate the current budget deficit during the downturn, all of those from the younger generation favoured maintaining the “free education” template in perpetuity.
They are not amenable to reason and hurled accusations of climbing the ladder and wanting to kick it down. My comment to one, that her line of argument suggested Logic 101 should be mandatory and she represented poorly the benefits of the system she was protecting, made her resort to ugly expletives.
I have no idea what is being communicated to the current crop of Cave Hill undergraduates by their teachers. From what I am hearing, there seems to be a dearth of emphasis on the reciprocal social responsibilities of those feeding on the Cave Hill fatted calf.
At an American university, two Marxist professors hammered into our heads the mantra: “To whom much is given, much is expected.” Today, we seem to live in an unrelenting “gimme-gimme” culture devoid of the theory and praxis of reciprocity, the bedrock of both diplomacy and responsible citizenship.
I was not surprised to hear that my proposal would find no favour with the political class who would see students contributing to their education as a “reversal of Barrow’s commitment to emancipating black people”. Another student was adamant any government implementing such “a draconian measure courted disaster”.
He was happy and thankful that I have neither “political influence nor power”, consigning me to society’s margins as another one of “yesterday’s men”. Wuhloss! He was not to know it, but ironically, I brought that expression to local political dialogue when an engine-room operative in the 1990s.
The ball is now in the politicians’ court and since a turnaround in the fiscal deficit is unlikely immediately, it will be interesting to see if the subvention for 2011-12 escalates by another $10 million and whether the touted belt-tightening is only a “lotta long talk” and UWI is securely quarantined.
Feedback on an earlier column relating to United States vice-presidential candidate and 2012 Republican hopeful, Sarah Palin, was used by a visiting Connecticut friend and regular reader of this column to tell me how poorly President Obama was doing, and asked if I accepted he would be a one-term president.
He warned me to prepare for President Palin. I continue to follow American politics closely and was able to counter his Fox-type propaganda. I told him she has done nothing to shake my opinion that she lacks the mental equipment to be president and parading herself as the Republican front-runner was counter-productive for the party.
What does she bring to the party as former governor of Alaska or in her new incarnation? Where does she stand among the current crop of candidates?
In the most recent polls, Obama leads all challengers but leads her by a larger margin than any other Republican.
Citing empirical poll evidence, I pointed out that her support was a paltry 39 per cent nation-wide across all parties compared to Obama’s 55 per cent, and even among Republicans only 48 per cent believe she could beat him. Against that background, my friend is backing a clear loser.
Two years is a long time in politics, but I sense that whereas the grassroots, like in the Tea Party, may be supporters, the movers and shakers know that she cannot beat Obama, his current unpopularity notwithstanding, and are looking elsewhere.
The Republican grandees, rather than the grassroots, call the shots and judging from what they are saying, they clearly consider her unelectable. Barbara Bush, presidential wife and mother, cut brutally to the chase when she told CNN’s Larry King: “She seems very happy in Alaska. I hope she stays there.”
Another brutal comment came from Ed Rollins, Reagan confidant and Republican strategist, who said: “Mrs Palin, serious stuff needs to be accomplished in Washington. If you want to be a player, go to school and learn the issues. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious . . . . If you want to be a gadfly, just keep on doing what you are doing.”
After some cou-cou, flying fish, Extra Old and coconut water, I agreed to be my friend’s guest in New Haven for the 2012 elections to toast an Obama victory which seemed to come up on his radar.
• Peter Simmons, a social scientist, is a former diplomat.
