The Long View: Good Frodo and Evil Gollum

November 23, 2009 by mlq3
Filed under Article Archives

Comments

449 Comments on "The Long View: Good Frodo and Evil Gollum"

Carl on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 9:08 am

“If I were Noynoy, I’d just take all the monetary and logistical contributions and win the elections.” – SoP

**************************************************

Pocketing the contributions isn’t as uncommon as some people think, and winning the elections isn’t even necessary.

In 1998, Erap’s campaign was rolling in money from contributions. He was so far ahead of all the other candidates, that he didn’t have to spend all the money. Huge surplus funds ended up in Erap’s pockets after the campaign. Nanalo sya, at kumita pa siya.

JDV, knowing he couldn’t win the presidency in 1998, held back on his campaign expenditures. Being the ruling party’s candidate, he received sizeable contributions for his campaign. JDV lost the elections, but, money-wise, he finished in the positive column.

In 1992, Ramon Mitra knew his presidential campaign was faltering, despite being the then-ruling party’s candidate. Mitra held back on spending, knowing he would lose anyway, and held on to the campaign money instead. Before Cory Aquino assumed the presidency, Monching Mitra wasn’t known as a wealthy man. Yet, after Mitra died in 2000, he left an estate estimated in the billions, which even caused infighting between legitimate and illegitimate children.

We know of the Jose Pidal account, and how it was alleged to be surplus campaign funds. We have seen Mikey Arroyo’s defense of his purchase of a house in the U.S. Bought with left-over campaign contributions. Assuming those explanations are truthful, they only show how elections can be turned into a money-making enterprise. It is even more lucrative for the front-runners, but it doesn’t prevent also-rans from turning a profit from their campaign.

I am wondering why Hermogenes Ebdane is running for President. He knows better than we do that he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to win. But that will be a pretext to solicit campaign contributions. Given his connections with the military and DPWH, many will be forced to give something to his campaign. Not only is it a great way to make money, it’s a great way to launder hidden wealth.

Carl on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 9:17 am

I don’t know why the comment above was posted here. It was meant for the previous mlq blog. Something must’ve gotten mixed up when I submitted the comment. My apologies.

Little Fat Guy on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 9:22 am

The Lord of the Rings had really evil characters and good characters, unfortunately life isn’t the same as in books, who among the politicians is truly evil and who are truly good? They all seem, to a greater or lesser degree, tainted whether it be the brush of corruption or the color of greed or even the sins of their families.

After all, the biggest problem in this nation is the fact that our politics have long since been dominated by a few, the oligarchic families that keep our nation under their thumbs.

BTW, the person Gimli was talking to in “Twin Towers” which is book 2 of the “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy and not the “Fellowship of the Ring” which is the title of book 1 of the trilogy, was Legolas and not Elrond.

Jhay on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:26 am

So Noynoy is our so-called Frodo for now. I wonder where are the Gollums? Already surrounding him according to Serge Osmeña?

Ed Ebreo on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:31 am

Noynoy must not do a Frodo, He must do an Aragorn…

I have an entirely different role/metaphor for Noynoy playing in my mind and that is of Aragorn. The Frodos in my story are the Filipino people wanting change but are as confused as Frodo as to how to go about it. Our Frodos need to have an Aragorn to help us vanquish the evils of this country because we have a history of messing things up with our ignorance (remember Frodo trying the ring for size, etc?) Frodo is not a leader. What we need is a leader, one with the vision, power and integrity of a true leader. One who can summon the good to battle the evil. There are too many gollums and Sarumans trying to trick our people into voting for them in the next election by pretending that they are aligned with Noynoy. For him to be a Frodo without the Aragorns and the Gimlies and the Legolases is extremely dangerous. (I know I’m getting carried away with my Lord of the Rings Characters).

If Noynoy can’t be an an Aragorn, he won’t be able to deliver the Frodos of this nation to vanquish Sauron who is now threatening to go to congress and try a different way of getting to the ring of power. With minions now joining Noynoy’s quest who is to say that they won’t turn into more powerful gollums ready to overwhelm (like how they overwhelm impeachment procedures) when Sauron attempts to be prime minister?

Ed Ebreo on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:37 am

Noynoy, son of Ninoy… Return of the King… O di ba

ramrod on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 11:06 am

In the Philippine political setting, there aren’t really genuine “good” guys, just ordinary imperfect humans being asked fo perform extraordinary feats. Inorder for them to defeat evil they have to become evil, consort with evil, use evil’s power against it, etc. Some (most?) were even evil to start with and because of unexplained epiphany suddenly decided to break free from the demon’s chains and are now fighting the good fight. If this were the case all along, well nobody should have the gall to use INTEGRITY, HONESTRY, and all sorts of principles that only the genuine “good” guys possess…we shouldn’t be led through our emotional noses by words…speeches…
Inorder to avoid extreme disappointment, its better to look at all these through the eyes of Machiavelli…and hope that end is really worth the means…

stuplurkdous on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 11:09 am

“At a time when there’s a general desire to see righteousness reign in our politics, there is too great a danger of self-righteousness intruding its discordant voice, insisting, on one hand, on impossible standards for individuals while ignoring the need for a common cause to confront the greater danger.”

True. But it’ll be hard to ignore those impossible standards if you, or those around you, have shrouded yourself with the mantle of morality. If you’ve colored this fight as “good vs evil” then by gulay it’s going to be tough not living up to those standards. NOW if it was “mostly good vs partly evil” then Noy would have a better time explaining why it’s still all about choosing the lesser evil, the end justifying the means, and I’d ally with the devil himself if it’s for the greater good…

ramrod on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 11:37 am

I’d ally with the devil himself if it’s for the greater good…
—————————————————-

So the devil is that stupid? Well, then there’s nothing to fear then, why didn’t we do this earlier solved our problems a lot sooner?

mlq3 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 11:40 am

I dunno, think of Churchill, and his precisely being willing to all with the devil himself if Hitler invaded Hell. Yet Churchill never conceded that his fight was anything but Good vs. Evil.

mlq3 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 11:42 am

ramrod, re-check your Machiavelli, even he insisted at all times the appearance of piety must be maintained. you are confusing civic virtues with sanctity.

angela on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 2:20 pm

“Hope is what enabled Good to conquer Evil—for at the heart of hope is the humility to give all a chance to help fight Evil, without sneering at motives. A humility based on belief in redemption for those who once served Evil.”

i suppose this applies not only to ralph recto of LP but also to bongbong marcos of NP?

GabbyD on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 3:04 pm

i’m sorry, but i dont understand the point of this column. would u mind sharing? surely u dont believe that noynoy is frodo. or that redemption is a good reason to vote anyone into office.

i understand the difference between the right-ness of one’s cause, and the sin of self-righteousness.

but i dont understand the connection of these ideas to elections. all candidates are convinced of his/her own right-ness.

but all of them too believe that they are the best people who can accomplish their goals. there is certain amount of self-confidence required when running for higher office.

Karl Garcia on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 3:44 pm

BTW, the person Gimli was talking to in “Twin Towers” which is book 2 of the “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy and not the “Fellowship of the Ring” which is the title of book 1 of the trilogy, was Legolas and not Elrond.

“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,” said Gimli. “Maybe,” said Elrond, “but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.” “Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,” said Gimli. …

Source:Just google it(madami)

Carl on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 4:08 pm

“i suppose this applies not only to ralph recto of LP but also to bongbong marcos of NP?” – angela

***************************************************

It can be summed up in that tired, old cliché: “Politics is addition.”

Of course, some spin will be necessary to differentiate these political machinations from what the others are doing, and in order to make them more palatable to the public. So in order to make the tired and the old appear like something fresh and noble, this is the message that has to be sent out to the public:
“If our side is recruiting the Evil guys, it’s giving them a shot at redemption. It the other side is doing it, they’re simply advancing the cause of Evil.”

The Equalizer Post on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 5:35 pm

These gradual political accomodations are like “salami shavings”.A little shave of idealism here and there.

Sooner,rather than later,the Liberal Party will be another “Palaka”!

The ends justify the means,huh?

ramrod on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 5:36 pm

ramrod, re-check your Machiavelli, even he insisted at all times the appearance of piety must be maintained. you are confusing civic virtues with sanctity.
—————————————-

Oh, I understand now. Civic virtues are entirely different from sanctity or what John Maxwell referred to as universal principles…government is a necessay evil, and the task of leaders’ is to maintain the “appearance” of piety.
So there is a diferent set of standards for politicians?
…if this is true, I’ll burn my Maxwell books and seminar handouts as they are not applicable to Philippine real life politics…
If this is the direction we are going to, are we progressing or are we justifying lowering of standards to fit reality?

The Cusp on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 5:46 pm

Two points, Manolo. No, three:

1. If the coalition that deposed Marcos was able to take in those previously associated with him at the last minute, then admitting defections from the GMA camp is really nothing at all.

2. Normative standards of propriety are really a subjective thing. Everyone knows that corruption, patronage and rent-seeking permeates the government. Does that mean that everyone who has served in government is tainted? Where do you draw the line in the end to determine what or who is acceptable.

3. The allegory provides a very interesting mental exercise, but let us not get carried away here. I cannot imagine the camp of Noynoy making such decisions for or against something based on a work of fiction, just as I would hate for a justice quoting scripture in justifying his actions.

thenashman on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 5:48 pm

It’s really the end of the fairy tale, now that Noynoy’s camp is talking to Chiz “Boy Laway” Escudero.

Noynoy is STUPID to be talking to Chiz “Boy Laway” Escudero whose main goal in life is to dumb down the educational system. What is to be gained by inviting that narcissist and his sewage pipe mouth?

Carl on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 6:35 pm

“Churchill never conceded that his fight was anything but Good vs. Evil.”

****************************************************

Indeed, it took on not only dimensions of Good vs. Evil, but Life vs. Death, when the German Luftwaffe conducted its Blitz via the sustained bombing of Britain.

More than 50,000 civilian lives were lost, well over a million homes bombed to rubble, and countless military and industrial centers destroyed. On top of all of these, was the constant threat of imminent German invasion of Britain and the deadly V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rocket attacks, precursors of present-day missiles, which additionally claimed almost 10,000 lives.

In the face of being annihilated by the Germans, the entire British nation had no choice but to see the Germans as Evil. Being faced with an existentialist threat to their very survival, gave Churchill and the British people no choice.

Brian_B on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 7:52 pm

I’m just pissed with the movie that they didn’t think to include Glorfindel.

Escudero=Gollum is apt only if no one does a serious intervention on Chiz.

Noynoy actually closely resembles gollum.

The Equalizer Post on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 7:54 pm

Ethics is going to fall by the wayside with a “win no matter what” philosophy.

There is winning well and winning poorly.

UP n grad on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 8:13 pm

The new buzzline I am hearing is this:
What would Ninoy do? Not NoyNoy, Noy is not Ninoy.

The Equalizer Post on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 8:13 pm

Never mind ethics. Just baby win at whatever the cost! Our smart friends in blogosphere can rationalize it for us!

mlq3 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:24 pm

Carl again, no. Because the Germans and quite a few English were prepared to spare the British and their Empire. It was Churchill who insisted it was a fight between Good and Evil to the extent that the British had to fight even if it meant risking annihilitation and loss of empire.

mlq3 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:25 pm

Can’t disagree with your observations or your cautioning against overextending metaphors, Cusp.

mlq3 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:26 pm

Ramrod, no. Let’s separate Maxwell (whom I haven’t read so I can’t comment) from Machiavelli who was interested in power regardless of whether or not a prince was intrinsically good. He recognized goodness required a nod even from evil.

mlq3 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:29 pm

i’m a big believer in redemption, it’s what i’ve been advocating since 2005.

mlq3 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:32 pm

angela, it’s a general parable one can apply to anyone and any cause one believes in also.

ramrod on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 11:03 pm

From the way NoyNoy handled himself during last night’s interview we could already see a glimpse of his leadership style. Personally, I still adhere to good/bad, wise/unwise, right/wrong, open/close, etc. logic, nothing in between. I find easier to make decisions that way, especially if you use existing policy as basis or an agreement of some sorts. If its not black its white…
If we’re to swim in the same muddy water in the next administration, we might as well swim with the best (experts in swimming in muddy water) swimmers. This is looking more and more to me as someone’s project in image building gone sour (or someone’s half slip showing) and if nobody noticed this before I really don’t know whats going on anymore…
Regardless of what everyone is saying, my personal biases aside, Gibo seems to be the logical and sensible choice. I never liked the guy, then again, I don’t need to like him to admit I’m wrong…

mlq3 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 11:21 pm

why what did you find objectionable to his responses?

ramrod on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 1:04 am

why what did you find objectionable to his responses?
—————————————————

Not objectionable, for the most part Noynoy accomplished what was asked of him…what I see is mediocrity, lack of confidence (as seen in his bearing), lack of focus (as seen in his shifting eye focus), seeming lack of conviction, and incoherence. I had to replay the video thrice before i could get heads or tails of what he talking about…he’s the type of person that I will not hire based on the initial interview alone…what most people I believe are clamoring for is someone with a good heart regardless of past achievements, he hasn’t shown much of this either…he’s not a firebrand like his father nor charismatic like his mother…maybe I’m wrong, maybe I haven’t seen what most people see in him yet…I’ll promise to keep looking…

The Equalizer Post on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 2:13 am

Winning at any cost has infected all sports.We find it particularly offensive when it involves our political leaders in this country.This mirrors the breakdown in ethics in our culture.

BUT, what is most SICKENING, is when our so-called “idealistic” candidates adopt the same philosophy!

d0d0ng on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 2:22 am

Very well done, Manolo. Amen.

Jhay on, “So Noynoy is our so-called Frodo for now. I wonder where are the Gollums? Already surrounding him according to Serge Osmeña?”

Serge Osmena is the gollum who is both good and evil. His first reference to the evil Mafiosi was the first salvo. As Carl have repeatedly tried to paint Noynoy as Mafiosi based upon Serge Osmena’s Mafiosi claim but failed. It is easy to see that Osmena can no longer define Noynoy nor Gollum can define Frodo.

d0d0ng on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 2:54 am

Ed Ebreo on, “Noynoy must not do a Frodo, He must do an Aragorn”

Despite that Frodo is the principal character of the book, people failed to grasp this and identified more with the flashy character of Aragorn. Simply stated, Aragorn could not do the job of Frodo.

d0d0ng on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 3:21 am

“Carl again, no. Because the Germans and quite a few English were prepared to spare the British and their Empire. It was Churchill who insisted it was a fight”.

This is correct. Lord Halifax and other lords had the appeasement mentality to save British from the inconveniences of war. It would have been more tragic for British and the world if not for Lord Winston Churchill who stood up to the greatest challenge at that time.

d0d0ng on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 3:45 am

“Not objectionable, for the most part Noynoy accomplished what was asked of him…what I see is mediocrity, lack of confidence (as seen in his bearing), lack of focus (as seen in his shifting eye focus), seeming lack of conviction, and incoherence. I had to replay the video thrice before i could get heads or tails of what he talking about…he’s the type of person that I will not hire based on the initial interview alone”.

In short, people are looking for persona like Hitler or Marcos (that can sell an ice to the Eskimo) but not their deeds.

“It’s really the end of the fairy tale, now that Noynoy’s camp is talking to Chiz “Boy Laway” Escudero.”

But this is the persona that voters are looking for. To Noynoy’s credit, these varied personalities can get the vote but they have little to decide on what the president can do or cannot do.

Mike H on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 5:21 am

Speaking of evil …. no fantasy, real-life events, Filipinos of Mindanao.

Madasser Mangudadatu, a member of the ARMM-Regional Legislative Assembly . . . said they sent their sisters and the lawyer to file the COC for his brother.

“We were confident that they are not that type of persons (to kill women) so we sent all our ladies, that includes our eldest sister and youngest sister and some of our relatives, all women, believing that they will not kill them because they are women. But we made a big mistake because they did not spare anyone. they killed even the women, and children”.

The victims — women, children, media.

d0d0ng on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 6:00 am

The Maguindanao massacre is the latest tragedy of President Gloria Macapagal administration -unequivocal support behind Governor Andal “Zaldy” Ampituan of Maguindanao. The victims are kins of rival clan who were trying to file COC to challenge the Arroyo’s man in Maguindanao.

Such brazen act stems from political patronage enjoyed by the Ampituans from the President, with Ampituans goons integrated into the Maguindanao police force. Standing order to the military is to prevent retaliation by the rival clan with the state of emergency declaration.

The misplaced order to the AFP is to disarm, instead to capture the perpetrators dead or alive in the interest of justice.

This is how political patronage works for President Gloria Arroyo and her (in)justice policy.

J_ag on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 6:56 am

Can GMA redeem herself? Yes but that would entail prosecuting her husband and exposing herself. Would the better nature of her angels allow her to do this?

Not very likely..Her animal nature prevails..

During election season the motto guiding everyone will be “Pragmatism going amuck.”

Elections is a form of civilized warfare to gain power. When Cory was alive and she saw the need to fight the government she did not hesitate to take to the streets. However she could not get many of the people today gravitating to Noynoy to follow her.

We elect our autocrats every six years. All the minor autocrats know they will have to reposition themselves and bet on who will take the crown.

The one who they perceive will take it all during the last month of campaigning will win the crown. That is when the real shifting will occur. The locals will send the signals during the closing days on who is the more likely to win. The candidate with the most effective communication systems in place will triumph.

Elections are not about ideals and principles. It is simply about fear and greed. Right now there is this underlying fear that we are a ship in tatters without a captain. Every candidate wants to become the pied piper.

One thing we have to thank GMA for is taking this country to the depths of hopelessness about the role of government in the scheme of things.

At a time when effective governments are holding the global economy from disintegrating we are seeing what may be the final disintegration of the Philippine government.

Hence we are looking for mythical personalities to save us.

Cory’s halo covered up many of the sins of her administration.

ramrod on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 8:45 am

In short, people are looking for persona like Hitler or Marcos (that can sell an ice to the Eskimo) but not their deeds.
————————————————

Not really. Maybe a Lee Kuan Yew. At least someone with a clear vision, conviction, methodical background, discipline, and the eloquence to communicate all these so that people will follow. Personally, if we didn’t know Noynoy was the son of Ninoy and Cory, would we even follow him?
Gibo could have easily won points by attacking Gloria earlier on and claim epiphany and work for redemption. If he continues to show the same degree of professionalism, win or lose, he is undoubtedly one of those potential leaders we allowed to get away from us.

The Cusp on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 8:54 am

I sort of agree with those who oppose admitting the gollums of this world, but for a different reason. I personally do not think that the fight is between light and darkness, but that is not to say the majority of supporters do.

I just see this election as a tussle between groups of the elite. Except that the dominant one is using a narrative that has mythical dimensions. So the worst thing that can happen for that candidate is for his narrative/message to get muddled or incoherent.

Meanwhile, you have very articulate candidates on the other end with very coherent messages. In the end, the race could tighten up due to this factor: Noynoy’s message gets bogged down with petty infighting, while the underdogs might sharpen their message and present themselves as honest and/or competent alternatives.

The Cusp on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 9:26 am

In the end, even if we assume the possibility of “redemption” for the Rectos of the world (something that I don’t think is necessary since I don’t see him as guilty of anything-but that is beside the point), one would have to judge the fall-out of such a move and compare that with the gains brought about, in this case by securing the Batangas and pro-Vilma vote.

I guess as Buth Abad said, it is “case to case”. With each gollum, one would have to determine the baggage and the carriage that they bring in with them to see if it is a “net plus” or “net minus” to the bandwagon.

The way I see it, too many transactions like these could cost Noynoy in the end, in terms of quality support. If gaining power is all that really matters (as the Cojuangcos think – since even after EDSA I, they were willing to accommodate even the worst offenders of 3G politics (guns, goons and gold) into the LDP tent), then you would give equal weight to an idealist vote lost and a purchased vote won through local networks.

Carl on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 9:46 am

“Carl again, no. Because the Germans and quite a few English were prepared to spare the British and their Empire. It was Churchill who insisted it was a fight between Good and Evil to the extent that the British had to fight even if it meant risking annihilitation and loss of empire.” – mlq3

*****************************************************

The pacifists and the appeasers underestimated the fierce pride and nationalism of the British people. This was a very proud nation, which fought off the Spanish empire, rejected the impositions of the Roman Catholic Church, established its own global Empire and took pride of its mastery of the seas. Since the late 19th century, it was already paranoid of Teutonic ambitions, and these proved well-founded with the advent of World War I.

Churchill was among the politicians who understood British nationalism and the mentality of the British people. He knew that the British people would never give in to appeasement, and that they preferred to fight, even if it meant annihilation.

And Churchill was proven right. In the years leading to World War II, Churchill was a washed-up politician. He had seen better years, and was considered a crank and a zealot. Some viewed him as an extremist. But Nazi incursions into Eastern Europe caused the British people to think twice about Churchill’s views. As discontent grew over Lord Chamberlain’s appeasement policy, Churchill became more and more popular, until he took on a larger than life personality as the champion of British pride and nationalism.

So was it a case of the tail wagging the dog? Definitely not. The British people were wagging the tail. Churchill only gave voice to the nation’s proud, stubborn and unyielding character. Churchill had read the sentiments of the British people much better than the other politicians. During that period, he was in synch with the mood of the times.

And, just as Churchill was in synch with the people during World War II, he quickly fell out of step with the times after the Allied victory. In 1945, Churchill was defeated in elections.

mlq3 on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 10:20 am

there’s an interesting study done by john lukacs of britis public opinion during that time and particularly during what he considers the critical period of may 1940 when britain teetered on the brink of surrender. british public opinion teetered as well; it was churchill who crystallized what the fight was about, on two realms: among his fellow officials and among the public. else the british public was inclined to throw in the towel too at that point.

mlq3 on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 10:23 am

Well, also, Serge has been pretty unequivocal, he continues to support the Aquino-Roxas tandem, it’s the senate slate he’s distancing himself from.

president of the philippines on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 10:31 am

President GMA is an angel in disguise.

Brian_B on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 11:11 am

Manolo, ORCS at it again in Mindanao.

benign0 on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 11:29 am

Referring presumably to the ‘Isang Tanong Isang Sagot’ program…

[...] for the most part Noynoy accomplished what was asked of him…what I see is mediocrity, lack of confidence (as seen in his bearing), lack of focus (as seen in his shifting eye focus), seeming lack of conviction, and incoherence. I had to replay the video thrice before i could get heads or tails of what he talking about…he’s the type of person that I will not hire based on the initial interview alone…what most people I believe are clamoring for is someone with a good heart regardless of past achievements, he hasn’t shown much of this either…he’s not a firebrand like his father nor charismatic like his mother…maybe I’m wrong, maybe I haven’t seen what most people see in him yet…I’ll promise to keep looking…

Again Noynoy merely accomplished “what was asked of him” in the same way that he now runs for president because it was “what was asked of him”. Nothing new in that concept by now as I believe many have already highlighted this rather glaring trait of his to jump only when kicked in the arse. And as far as arse-kicking goes, Pinoys for their part don’t have much of a foot for it.

Indeed, the more disturbing thing to note now is the nature of the questions that were fielded in this program — something that is highlighted in a recent blog post by BetterPhilipines

The presidential aspirants came and they seemed all ready to be grilled, to be asked the really tough questions. But, instead, they were made to answer mostly “motherhood” questions that naturally elicited “motherhood” answers. Here are the questions asked (condensed and loosely translated from the vernacular). [... list of sample questions follow]

If these represent the best of what our “expert grillers” can cough up, one begins to understand why our politicians behave the way they do and get away with as much as they do. They see no reward in performing at a level beyond what is asked of them by their constituents.

Even modern day hero Efren Peñaflorida given the driver’s seat stepped on the gas with a flaccid foot asking the question “How can one be a hero?”

As Borat say, “Izza nicccce.”

Oh, and by the way, perhaps it might be worth noting that these bozos from which we need to select our next leader are major sources of ad revenues for GMA and ABS-CBN.

Sayaw, Pinoy, sayaw.

67xray on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 11:53 am

Apart from the questionable wisdom of using a Tolkein fantasy as a guide to public policy, I’m not so sure the “Noynoy as Frodo” metaphor is all that complementary. The “hero” in this story:

*Is one who, reluctantly, does what he is told to do. After first trying desperately to pass the responsibility on to someone else.

*Nearly succumbs to the temptation of ‘evil’ numerous times, only to be saved in the nick of time by stronger personalities.

*Nearly screws up the whole thing in a variety of other ways, only to be saved by his wiser, more determined friend. (Mar take note: you’re going to be very busy)

*Eventually only succeeds not because he faced ‘evil’ head-on and won, but because a few thousand other people were busy getting killed to keep ‘evil’ distracted so the poor schlub had a chance of making it.

Really, it’s not something that inspires a lot of confidence when the preferred candidate of the author has to be described in terms of a fictional character, and especially not one that has readers of the book and viewers of the movie (I myself am a big fan of Tolkein, but really) either feeling sorry for him or being disgusted with his weak and selfish attitude most of the time.

ramrod on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 12:15 pm

Once again benigno comes in with rather disturbing insights…then again he’s been at it for a long time already, mostly very irritating to us “proud-to-be-Pinoys” and searchers of the holy grail of Philippine politics. Here we are, after clamoring, shouting, stand offing, etc. for change, and then seeing its more of the same…

Nick MacYavelley on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 12:18 pm

“Ramrod, no. Let’s separate Maxwell (whom I haven’t read so I can’t comment) from Machiavelli who was interested in power regardless of whether or not a prince was intrinsically good. He recognized goodness required a nod even from evil.”
- – - -

MLQ, Machiavelli – in his book – very clearly stated a preference for Good. His main point, however, was that by simply being Good, by itself, is not enough. From his observations (which happens in reality), “bad people” will always resort to dirty tricks that will often get them winning over the “good guys” who may be too idealistic or naive.

The purpose of Machiavelli’s “the Prince” as stated in many areas of the book where Machiavelli states his own preferences for “good” is to provide leaders who WANT TO DO GOOD and BE GOOD a realization that they must be realistic and aware of what keeps a leader in power, so that such “good leaders” can continue doing good. That, in fact, the intrinsically good leaders may need to resort to dirty tricks or at least be AWARE that their enemies may be wanting to resort to dirty tricks against them, so that they won’t be toppled and thus can continue doing good.

It is not true that Machiavelli was interested only in Power. He studied the dynamics of Power to present those important and essential points by referring to historical examples and it was his hope that intrinsically Good leaders thus make themselves aware of such points so as to prevent them from being toppled by nefarious power-grabbers.

Noynoy is unfortunately too feeble-minded, naive, and dependent on his parents’ fame to be a good leader. In real truth, it does not matter what good intentions Noynoy or some of his backers may have. If Noynoy acts as a wimp and can’t get anything done, it’s all for nought.

Better to have a selfish bastard whose by-products of his/her actions are beneficial to the people than to have an angelic wimp who has no actions (and therefore no benefits) or may think his/her actions are good but actually they harm everyone.

(think of the 1987 Cory Constitution: Full of Good Intentions, protectionist economics, idealistic system. In the end, we end up with a system that discourages foreign investment due to protectionist provisions, and a system that has turned out to be CHAOTIC and favors personalities over policy programs.)

In short, intentions (and whether the leader is intrinsically good) don’t mean anything: what matters is whether the actions of that leader BENEFIT the people.

What good will Noynoy’s “intrinsically good” character (in fact, that’s only the spin!) do if he can’t fix the economy, upon which everything is based? (no funding, can’t do anything!)

mlq3 on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 12:18 pm

we all look to literature for answers and things to ponder. we also take away different feelings, your response to frodo most definitely is very different from mine when i read it.http://www.quezon.ph/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=all#comments-form

67xray on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 12:47 pm

“your response to frodo most definitely is very different from mine when i read it”

——

Obviously. I think we can agree to disagree on that, that’s the beauty of literature. Nevertheless, I think drawing parallels to real life from it is often invidious. I’ve read many different interpretations of Tolkein’s world, but they all draw the common conclusion that it reflects his perceptions of society in different aspects, from different times throughout history, and from a very English point of view. That makes the opportunities to ascribe other reflections to it very limited, and easy to misapply, as I think you’ve done here. But of course we can agree to disagree on that as well.

Nick MacYavelley on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 12:55 pm

MLQ3,

Maybe it’s time you started looking more at reality and history (from a realistic, than an idealistic perspective), rather than looking literature for answers. The problem with using literature as one’s primary source for answers is that it often provides a highly romanticized, idealized, and Author’s bias-based view of the world.

Guess what, MLQ3, the real world isn’t really about Good and Evil. It’s about the interplay of numerous different peoples’ interests and self-interests. On the micro scale, “Good” means beneficial and “Evil” means detrimental. On the macro scale, the objective “Good” is whatever it is that contributes to the Greater Interest of the Majority without harming the greater interests of the innocent minority. And on the macro scale “Evil” is that which clearly (and in the long run) negatively affects the majority, whether or not it benefits a minority.

Remember, Manolo, even if a person does something for selfish reasons and it benefits him, IF it so happens that there are by-product effects of his actions that benefit the majority, then that is Good.

Good intentions, bad intentions: TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in the grand scheme of things.

Good results: That’s the only thing that matters.

Hope you learned something new today, Manolo…

mlq3 on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 2:54 pm

the problem with this and your previous comment is you categorize one (lotr) as lit and another (the prince) not as lit; but beyond propsing machiavelli’s virtu and going down the road of fuhrerprinzip, there is still the problem of the individual ruler’s going beyond that. though i did raise the point of the ultimate goal taking into consideration individual good or bad intentions which suggests the need for compromise and pragmatism but in healthy and not all-consuming doses, it being equally unhealthy to insist on utter pragmatism but to loath compromise on the other hand confusing it with a betrayal of higher goals and values.

Carl on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 3:23 pm

“If gaining power is all that really matters (as the Cojuangcos think – since even after EDSA I, they were willing to accommodate even the worst offenders of 3G politics (guns, goons and gold) into the LDP tent), then you would give equal weight to an idealist vote lost and a purchased vote won through local networks.” – The Cusp

****************************************************

Aside from taking in notorious warlords like Chavit Singson, the Josons and the Dy’s, the Cory Administration, through Peping Cojuangco, brought into the LDP tent aspiring political tough guys who had the street smarts to fight “fire with fire” and to win elections. The Ampatuans were among the street smart toughies enlisted by the Cory Administration, as per the Philippine Daily Inquirer, dated today:

“The Ampatuans and Mangudadatus have reigned in Maguindanao politics since 1986 when the revolutionary government of then President Corazon Aquino appointed officers-in-charge to local elective posts of mayors, municipal, provincial and village legislators, as well as governors and their deputies.”

Yes, this Bilbo-Gollum rigmarole is really old hat. Good vs. Evil? Nonsense! It’s all about winning. That’s why jokers like Richard Gomez are being enlisted into the LP. To be sure, everyone else is doing it. The difference is that Manolo would want to embellish politics as usual, and portray it as a battle of Good vs. Evil.

mlq3 on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 3:50 pm

you will have to look at the ultimate balance. if you enter the fray you cannot even to conceive of doing good unless you win. you do not go into battle if you intend to die, unless unless your death makes possible an even greater victory.

and again, things are a continuum. the question is were the ampatuans what they were in 1986,and also, what accounted for their spectacular increase in power since 2001.

The Cusp on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 7:42 pm

To borrow a quip from another trilogy, only those who practice the dark side like to deal in absolutes.

I’m glad that Manolo now sounds more like someone more concerned with positive rather than normative politics. Narratives are a good way to frame a race, nothing more.

Behind the scenes real politic is what determines the real nature of the campaign. Any good one needs idealists to sell the dream and pragmatists to man the trenches.

Let’s assume every local politician is only interested in endorsing someone at the national level in order to milk him for favours post-election into office.

It would be good if the winner gains an even distribution of supporters across the country so that no one locality gains an unfair advantage in bargaining for projects. That way they cancel each other out. Taken in this light, the current bandwagon effect would result in a more equitable distribution of the “spoils”.

The Equalizer Post on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 8:11 pm

Reality is stranger than fiction…

A blogger asked the question :”How much does the EQ Post get paid for “attacking” Noynoy’s opponents?”

On the other hand, the OFFICIAL Noynoy Facebook site (c/o Leah Navarro) has banned the EQ Post from posting comments on its site.

Such is life…

Nick MacYavellee on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 8:49 pm

MLQ3,

Are you afraid that others will see your views for what they are?

I see you suddenly turned on the automated Moderation here on your site. I guess that’s why your site was down. Too many dissenters, right?

Well, let me tell you: Maybe you can just decide to RE-EVALUATE your thought processes. Don’t just go with your gut or make a choice, then later on use your brains in order to defend it – it being a mistake in the first place, but you then need to defend it because you fear losing face.

SO THAT YOU DON’T LOSE FACE, why don’t you choose the argument that makes the MOST SENSE in the first place???

This is why you’re currently painted into a corner, Manolo. Sayang… You know a thing or two: you’re well-read/well-informed, but there’s something with your thought process that makes people snicker behind your back.

It’s because you choose to be an apologist for points-of-view that don’t make sense.

The Noynoy campaign is a logically-untenable stand. But you threw your support behind it, and frankly, you can’t really defend it at all. Kaya puro bola na lang. That’s a problem, Manolo.

Be what you should be, Manolo: A TRUE INTELLECTUAL.

Nick MacYavellee on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 8:51 pm

MLQ3,

(Was your site down for a few hours? I couldn’t get this comment up as your site seemed to have suddenly disappeared until just now.)

Ok, then let’s be more clear-cut about it, then: Fiction versus NON-FICTION.

You need to stop looking at Fiction purely as a basis for how to look at the world and get yourself more into what’s really happening out there.

Do you know why the Philippines is mired in mediocrity and stasis? It’s actually because of too much of an infatuation with Good versus Evil, Manolo. More specifically, it’s too much of a fixation on Good Intentions versus Evil Intensions.

But guess what. Intentions are largely irrelevant insofar as Results are what matter. Good Intentions that result in Evil Results get ultimately trumped by Selfish Intentions that yield Good Results.

If you were to really look at things objectively, there really are no “Evil Intentions.” Each and every person does what he/she does because he/she thinks that what he/she does is Good or at least for his/her own benefit. The difference is the scope of this “Good.” A person who does something that others think is “Evil” is probably doing it because to him what he does is “Good” or to his benefit. Thus, what is “Good” – especially in terms of intentsions – is usually subjective.

If, however, Filipinos became more OBJECTIVE and thus eliminated too much of this infatuation with “Good verus Evil” in the realm of intentions, and instead focused purely on OBJECTIVE RESULTS, the vigilance of Filipinos would be more properly focused on getting positive and “Good Results” as opposed to focusing on looking at what appear to be “Good Intentions.”

The real fact is that when Filipinos look at “Good versus Evil”, what they actually look at are “Altruistic versus Selfish.” However, just because an act benefits its agent (its doer) does not necessarily mean that it is Evil for others. An act that benefits its doer CAN indeed benefit him/herself (the doer) as well as the larger community.

Far too often, focusing ONLY on “Good Intentions” yields disappointment as good intentions alone do not always get the job done. And corollary to that, Manolo, Selfish Intentions do not always yield “Evil Results”, that is, results that are to the detriment of the wider community.

You might wish to look at how Communism, fueled by Altruistic Idealism and all sorts of Good Intentions fared in the grand scheme of things when it came to truly making a better society for the people living under it. For all the rhetoric of Altruism spewed by Communist cadres during its heyday, Communism has unfortunately done more harm than good. It killed more people not just through political violence, but more so through the adoption of wrong economic policies that caused mass starvation because of highly idealistic ideas on ensuring equality of the people.

But as soon as China reversed the policies of Mao and moved towards Capitalism, observe thus, how a supposedly Self-centered economic system focused on the individual accumulation of wealth has thus caused China to improve the general lives of millions of people better than misguided altruistic idealism has.

It is obvious that you have a bias against pragmatism or realism. I assure you that such a bias is not just misplaced. It is destructive and it ultimately is what causes a greater EVIL in Philippine Society.

If Filipinos can learn to be more Pragmatic and Realistic, then Filipinos would actually be more RESULTS-oriented and OBJECTIVE.

The good result of this, Manolo, would be that Filipinos would be more discerning about the abilities of people or groups to achieve results that are ultimately BENEFICIAL to the wider majority.

And if you are alright with it, allow me to give you some very constructive criticism on your latest reply to me:

“but beyond propsing machiavelli’s virtu (sic) and going down the road of fuhrerprinzip, there is still the problem of the individual ruler’s going beyond that. though i did raise the point of the ultimate goal taking into consideration individual good or bad intentions which suggests the need for compromise and pragmatism but in healthy and not all-consuming doses, it being equally unhealthy to insist on utter pragmatism but to loath compromise on the other hand confusing it with a betrayal of higher goals and values.”

I mean no disrespect, but it seems to a huge number of people who have read your response with me that you’re actually trying to intellectualize your way out of the corner you painted yourself in. In short, nambobola ka. Really, man, it’s totally convoluted and circuitous double-speak. Get to the point, dude.

By the way, Manolo, if you are not going to use a keyboard with the ability to place a diaresis-umlaut on vowels that require it, you MUST spell “Führerprinzip” (with an umlauted u) as “Fuehrerprinzip.” A “ü” is fully interchangeable with a “ue” just as an “ö” is fully interchangeable with an “oe”, etc.

Now here’s where realism and pragmatism come in. If you had actually been a more staunch advocate of realism, pragmatism and the scientific way of arriving at conclusions which is:

1) suspend all conclusions based on preconceived notions, suspend premature judgment
2) analyze all relevant information
3) make appropriate conclusions only after all the appropriate analysis has been done

…then you probably would not have had to resort to pambobola and the “intellectualization” you tried to attempt.

Besides, if the majority of the people in Germany at the time were realistic and pragmatic, as opposed to being easily manipulated emotionally by Nazi rhetoric (resulting from their defeat in WWI and the crushing measures imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles), they would not have been seduced by Hitler, and Germans would have been appropriately vigilant to guard against the Idealism (albeit morally reprehensible) of National Socialism. Had that been the case, the Nazis would have just remained a fringe group and would not have achieved the power they achieved thereby bringing Hitler to power.

In like manner, if at least the MAJORITY of Filipinos were realistic, pragmatic, scientific in arriving at their own views, and RESULTS-oriented, then Filipinos would be vigilant against empty promises that do not make sense. Filipinos would actually demand for solid plans from their leaders (especially those WANTING TO BECOME LEADERS), and make appropriate decisions. Truth be told, truly analytical people can actually tell if the plans of a leader (or a candidate) are achievable, feasible, and will bring out the beneficial RESULTS that are promised.

Sadly, Filipinos are not realistic nor are we Results-oriented as a people. There is too much of a misplaced emphasis on Idealism as well as Intentions, and in fact, Realism and Pragmatism are actually frowned upon as being too “scheming.”

Worse, it’s a big stretch to wish for the ordinary Filipino majority to become Realistic and Pragmatic if people like you, Manuel L. Quezon III, actually disdain Realism, Pragmatism, and an orientation towards Results.

As it is, Philippine Society’s overemphasis on Idealism means a major disaster for our society as hardly anyone will really be truly vigilant about demanding for real beneficial results, and instead, everyone will just be content to ask for platitudes and motherhood statements like “Good versus Evil” and all sorts of empty rhetoric.

You can do better than than, Manolo. You’re supposed to be well-read. Now it’s time for you to use your logical faculties to arrive at more realistic conclusions rather than act as an apologist for the situation of naïveté and focus on intentions that has continued to yield mediocre results.

Your Pro-Noynoy advocacy is obviously based on Idealism and a focus on “Good Intentions.” Well, there’s nothing to show that Noynoy will achieve good results, and no one – not even you – are trying to frame it in a Results-oriented way, because you can’t! It will surely invite more critics to bore holes into Noynoy’s lack of ability in achieving results.

But again, if you – Manuel L. Quezon III – can’t see that, then even ordinary Juans, Pedros, and Marias won’t see that. And we’ll forever be prisoners to mediocrity.

Consider, Manolo, that since Philippine Society asks only for Good Intentions, then that’s ALL IT GETS: Good Intentions, “Good Rhetoric”, and pambobola suffice.
MLQ3,

Ok, then let’s be more clear-cut about it, then: Fiction versus NON-FICTION.

You need to stop looking at Fiction purely as a basis for how to look at the world and get yourself more into what’s really happening out there.

But guess what. Intentions are largely irrelevant insofar as Results are what matter. Good Intentions that result in Evil Results get ultimately trumped by Selfish Intentions that yield Good Results.

(continued)

The Equalizer Post on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 9:15 pm

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli

Take it easy on Manolo.I may not agree with what he says BUT he has been a most gracious host of this site.

I leave you with a reflection:

“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends… that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”Adlai Stevenson

Reality is much stranger than fiction in Pinoy Politics.

mlq3 on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 10:09 pm

nick, dreamhost went down, and most of the blogs hosted on it. and this blog has had the spam karma plugin for quite a few years now.

as for the rest, unfortunately your views are your own, and not mine, and so i cannot be you, as you wish me to be.

Nick MacYavelley on Tue, 24th Nov 2009 10:39 pm