Re: Chiz Escudero Ang Bagong Pagbabago in 2010

Replying to: http://filipinonewsnetwork.com/2009/11/02/chiz-escudero-and-bagong-pagbabago-in-2010/

And as if I’m not being hypocritical already, I’m going to copy paste this reply into the comment box of that article. (I deeply need to be educated in this topic since I know very little about it)

The biggest thing going against Chiz though (based only on this article since I don’t follow current events) is that he’s still playing the political game and that he hasn’t truly become viral.

The latter not so much a criticism but a thing that will hurt his image of being a maverick. (See Howard Dean for someone who wasn’t enough of a maverick and Ron Paul who was too much of a maverick just to refer to some recent American presidential candidates who lost even though they strongly represented that image and came very close to winning it all.)

Even in your article, you said it yourself.

It was a maverick “move”.

The move itself is what was maverick about it and not the candidate himself.

On the viral side of things, Chiz’s campaign is not only sorely lacking there compared to Obama’s but the flaws of his opponents aren’t as magnified by social media (obviously because the Philippines is not America) …and his opponents are also using social media in nearly the same way that he is. (a major part of Obama’s victory was that his opponents weren’t as good as he was at maintaining a good social media image AND he was still ahead in utilizing the services AND he was a media darling already.)

On the other hand, with there actually being a debate, this action could turn the tide to his favor.

On the other hand, debates don’t have as much prestige in this country.

Not only that, social media don’t have as much prestige in this country.

(By prestige, I mean people in this country in general don’t truly know and respect the necessity for these concepts.)

That said, I like this article for the amount of quotes it has (despite the lack of links) but the thought box holds and none of the words in those quotes have reputed any of that.

Some notable nitpicks:

While a lot of reports, commentators and analysts have taken to highlight the question of funding as the root cause of the Bicol solon’s departure there was something in the choice of words and the delivery of his bombshell which point to other, possibly more basic considerations. Not that funding or loyal and steady party support are inconsequential. Not at all. In fact, as the campaign comes to town, these two factors’ role will be magnified beyond recognition.

Some things even come off wrong:

Not even the Obama campaign which was touted as the most unorthodox, out-of-the-box change and people politics campaign was spared from such basic requirements. Obama battled it out within the Democratic Party, enlisted millions to the institution and in the end outspent his closest primary rival, then Sen. Hillary Clinton, almost two-to-one and nailed down his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, by outspending him at every turn which ultimately made him the biggest election spender of all time. And these millions did not come only from the ordinary folks who contributed through his array of web based funding operations but from the high and mighty who control America’s lifelines, many of whom decided to walk away from their traditional roots in the Republican Party to Obama’s Democrats.

What? There’s a reason many people perceive the American two-party system as one and the same.

…and what exactly is a “Obama’s Democrats”?

Suddenly the so-called “come from behind” candidate was strong enough to have his own faction of the Democratic party already?

Even the use of traditional here seems wrong (even when used in a loose manner.)

It’s well known that the American Republican party (especially in the previous election) has lost it’s roots and here you have a comment talking about some sort of “walking away from tradition” when the party for so long has already walked away from their own tradition (even before Bush Jr.) that it really makes me wonder whether the person just added hyperboles to what should be a straight forward comment and ended up making it sound wrong.

For change to be genuine and meaningful, the tired, old buzzwords and catch phrases ring empty. At a time when public despair and despondency threaten to break up the polity, new solutions and fresh ideas, this amorphously defined cry for Pagbabago (change) needed positing. And solutions offered had to go beyond motherhood statements..”

And yet his official site and this article also relied on buzz words to present the argument that his leaving a political party is truly representative of his character.

Most importantly, Bagong Pagbabago, is itself a buzz word.

Even the “historical examples” quote rely on a case of who lost rather than who won.

If Sen. Chiz Escudero had this historical facts in mind when he decided to sever his ties with the party he belonged to for 11 years, then he is on the right track. And if he had in mind the Obama experience of raising his own campaign funds from the most ordinary American so he will not to be totally beholden to party interests, he is on the right track even more.

This is the kind of mindset the country needs at this crucial point in our nation’s political history where wheeling and dealing by various interest groups with our elective officials have become the order of the day.

Escudero’s thoughts are very salvific or liberating. Go on and wage that battle for true and real change, Chiz.#

See? Had he immediately made these specific statements himself that would have earned him some points on the maverick scale.

As it stands, he himself allowed this statement to be a what-if by not making an immediate direction on his campaign so everything around this action is predicated on a what-if.

What if he’s just using this to put himself ahead of the race? (After all, 11 years and he wasn’t even that decisive when he left the party.)

What if he’s not really a maverick? (After all, he is using the exposure from this decision to attack his opponents instead of solidying his political positions.)

In the end, just as many see Obama as far from being true Change during the height of his electoral run. Chiz Escudero’s actions (so far) are even less so he has alot of grounds to cover to convince anyone that he is a maverick and I think articles written like these are just some of the things he is going to have to battle against.

Contrary to the perception presented in this article, being a maverick is not only a risky gambit but is a gambit where your followers (and not your opponent’s popularity) are the prime reasns for making the gambit backfire.

Yes, this holds true for Obama too where his supporters and constant media exposure created a backlash to his image.

Yet at the same time, if you’re a supporter, you want to spread the word and sing praises about your candidate too because it helps in the traditional sense.

It’s often a gamble predicated on how your voters are focused on your political positions and Chiz (and the rest of his opponents) are still more known by their name.

The plus side though is that actions like these often make you a strong candidate in the next election if the person can maintain their momentum.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: