'Look out! Here comes the Spider Linguist'

In late November, I received an invitation to attend a briefing by Global Linguist Solutions (GLS), conducted over dinner in Paterson, New Jersey. The company was on the verge of gaining a multi-billion dollar contract with the Federal Government to provide translation services in Iraq. As such, they wanted to meet with leaders in the Arab-American community, because their success depends heavily on their ability to recruit American citizens fluent in the Arabic language.

The goal of the meeting was not to hire me and the other attendees, but rather to seek our advice on an effective strategy to reach out to Arab-Americans at large, who would be ideal candidates to fill the many roles available.

Inviting me to the briefing were 2 individuals I know and trust: Sherine el-Abd, respected Republican activist, fundraiser, and operative who sits on the board of the Arab American Institute; as well as Jamal Baadani, a devoted US Marine, founder of the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in the Military and quite simply one of the finest public servants in the community. Both Sherine and Jamal have taken roles with GLS, which is a division of the controversial Dyncorp.

Now, one might ask, why would I, a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, even attend such a meeting? Well, because I am an American citizen, and whether I like the policy or not, it IS my country's policy and I had might as well try to make some lemonade until we can collectively get rid of this lemon. Never losing sight of the end goal, however, I brought along my Ron Paul ballot petitions and collected quite a few signatures. So let's be clear: in my ideal world, Dyncorp would be out of business and GLS would be recruiting translators for charity work and private-sector new market entry for American goods and services.

I do believe that Jamal in particular is of the same viewpoint. He was against the Iraq War from Day 1 and was deployed for highly classified missions in other countries in the region in recent years.

Headlining the meeting, however, was former US Army General James "Spider" Marks, who ran intelligence gathering in Iraq. Now he is an adviser to Mitt Romney and the key figure at GLS. Marks led a very informal discussion and was extremely eager to forge ties to Arab-American community leaders. The recruitment goals he mentioned were steep, and GLS is going to need to work aggressively to meet them. Much of the discussion became a very frank exchange about whether extremely high pay should be the key selling point to attract applicants and translators. I reached out to 2 friends in Syria who are bilingual and is are American citizens, they bluntly rejected the idea, despite the fact that the salary we are talking about would fund a nice lifestyle in Syria for more than a few years.

At the time of our meeting, the contract was still pending, but it was finally awarded on December 7, to the tune of $4.6 billion:

"As per the contract, GLS will provide foreign-language interpretation and translation services to the U.S. Army and other U.S. government agencies supporting OIF, which included embedded Iraqi translators who will operate with U.S. forces. GLS will hire up to 6,000 locally hired translators and up to 1,000 U.S. citizens with security clearances who are conversant with languages spoken in Iraq."

There was an element of the conversation that took place that night that disappointed me. How ironic that so many within the Arab-American community hiss at the word "neocon". The many Democrats among us love to equate "neoconservative" with "Republican". But few actually understand the ideological underpinnings and many haplessly spout neocon talking points in spite of themselves. The meeting was full of discussion about how "everybody in the world wants to come to America" and other such fairy tales that evidently haven't been read by my cousins in Argentina, for example.

Such talk only strengthens the neoconservative agenda through the dissolution of American uniqueness in favor of a "propositional nation" and its imperial overtones. Our community needs to better educate itself about what neoconservativism actually is and how easily it manages to integrate itself in the mentality of both political parties through feel-good talking points.

Finally, there was a funny moment as we were leaving and the topic of Ron Paul came up. I told General Marks that I was supporting Ron, and he was facetiously incredulous. I chided him, "If I have my way, you'll be out of a job!"

The Observer on the GOP primary

In addition to my appearance on Channel 4 news opposite Sascha Burns, on my recent visit to London I also met up with political reporter David Smith of The Observer, who was recently embedded with American soliders in Baghdad.

He and I chatted about the 2008 Primaries, and he is currently in New York covering the overall political scene. Smith quoted some of our various discussions in his piece on the GOP field.

"It's definitely not a healthy party, that much is clear. The root of it is that from 11 September, 2001, until now the Republican party became a George W Bush personality cult where it was follow the leader, throw principles to the wind and support the agenda, whatever it might be at any given moment.

Symptoms of that are a complete lack of leadership, complete lack of cohesion and very weak candidate line-up. If it was stronger, I think there would be more consensus on who should be the presidential nominee at this point.

The Republican party under Bush spent so much of its political capital pursuing the war that a lot of what was traditionally considered a Republican platform about fiscal conservatism - cutting the budget, looking at how to streamline entitlements like social security - just fell off the agenda. A lot of people are upset with the President over immigration as well."

Read the rest of David Smith's article. He is a quick study with whom I am keen to correspond.

One Christmas, in London, December air

I do love London at Christmastime. Just a few pictures to share from my recent trip:

First, to the left, we have Oxford Street and its lights. Now I know that Londoners think the whole thing is cheezy, but I don't care.

During the daytime, you'll find brass bands playing Christmas carols on the street as well. Both of these shots were taken near Selfridge's, my favorite, or should I say favourite, shopping spot in the world.

However, I was annoyed at the redesign of the interior - the ground floor used to have a whole section devoted to men's accessories, with lots and lots of great ties, etc. but now this has been eliminated and incorporated with the overall men's department upstairs. A bit annoying.

I also did some shopping in the Covent Garden market, which features all sorts of delicious foods and crafts. While there I enjoyed a cup of "Christmas mulled wine" with a friend - a mixture of wine and spices served warm.

But neverthless, for me London in late December is a real treat, much like 5th Avenue in NYC. Merry Christmas to all!

There won't be snow in Africa this Christmastime

Several months back, James Pinkerton wrote a cover story for one of my favorite publications, The American Conservative - a paleoconservative magazine. The piece was called "The Once and Future Christendom", and it outlined the familiar "Clash of Civilizations" between Western culture and Islam.

I found this article to be somewhat alarmist and divorced from reality. Apparently I wasn't the only one. At the John Randolph Club meeting in late September in DC, a few of the other attendees were equally puzzled by its content. When your pro-Christendom strategy is questioned by supporters of the Rockford Institute, maybe it's a bit much.

Here was the most bizarre element for me:

What of Africa? The Christian countries of Africa...need to be embraced with tough love. The immediate mission is to delineate a Christian Zone and a Muslim Zone, dividing countries if need be. All Christians, and all Muslims, have a stake in minimizing conflict; the obvious way is by separating the combatants. So a wall should go up between the warring faiths, and then a bigger wall, until the flashpoint risk of civilization clash goes away. Then, and only then, might we hope to find workable solutions within the Christian Zone.

As my readers know, I spend a good deal of my time in Senegal, in West Africa. Senegal is a Muslim country, well over 90% of its inhabitants practice Islam. Yet, its government is very secular in nature (it's a democratic republic with an elected President and Parliament), and thanks to its French colonial past, retains a strong Catholic influence. The Feast of the Assumption is a national holiday on which government offices and banks close. Ditto Good Friday, Easter Monday, etc. The pics here are of Christmas lights at Independence Square in Dakar, and sheep ready to be slaughtered for the Islamic feast of Eid al-Adha (known in Senegal as Tabaski), commemorating Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.

This is why I found Pinkerton's article unrealistic. How do we separate a Christian Zone and Muslim Zone in such a case? And why would we want to, when people get along just fine? I continue to subscribe enthusiastically to the adage الدين لله والوطن للجميع - "Religion is for God, the nation is for all."

Squaring off with Sascha Burns on British TV

I was invited by the producers of Channel 4, one of the BBC's competitors in the UK, to appear on a live segment of their 7pm broadcast this past Saturday, December 22, to discuss the 2008 US Presidential race, particularly the role of religion in the primaries.

I was live in the studio with the anchorwoman Samira Ahmed, while veteran Democrat operative and well-known pundit Sascha Burns joined from DC through a satellite feed.

The discussion was lively and I did my best to introduce the British audience to Ron Paul's candidacy, as you will see in the clip. Notice the opening volley about the 1st Amendment and the Establishment clause, that developed when Burns felt compelled to respond to my mention of "militant secularism".

My 2007 NJGOP wrap-up

PolitckerNJ's regional cousin, Inside Bergen, has published my thoughts on the NJ Republican Party's performance in 2007. This site, run by anonymous persons (or one creative schizophrenic, I'm still not sure...) has cut its teeth on Bergen County politics and is clearly enjoying the thrills of anonymous politco-bashing. The writing is often funny and entertaining, definitely worth a regular read.
------------------

The RIGHT message for New Jersey GOP
by George Ajjan

No doubt, the Republican Party in New Jersey had some notable successes in the recent election. To further the achievements it realized in 2007, the GOP must move forward understanding the importance of message and image: message, because Republicans must clearly explain to voters why they deserve the chance to set the state's agenda; and image, because the GOP will only win in New Jersey as a party proven to unite, not divide.

As far as message goes, 2007 presented a golden opportunity, albeit somewhat awkwardly seized by the GOP agenda set forth in Trenton. It was a mixed bag - pledges to cut $1 billion in spending were admirable, but mired in a cumbersome 9-point plan. And notably absent was a vow to repeal the sales tax increase enacted just a year ago, which should have been a no-brainer. But on the plus side, one component paved the way for future success and established a means of uniting the various factions of the Republican Party: Initiative and Referendum – using ballot questions to let the people of New Jersey decide directly on key issues.

Given the option this year, the public convincingly rejected funding for stem-cell research and another property tax "rebate" scheme – in no small part due to the effort mounted by Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, who boiled the 10-point NJGOP plan down to one sentence: Stop higher taxes – vote NO on all ballot questions. However occasionally brash his approach may have been in the past, the ballot question romp validates Lonegan's claim that NJ residents are conservatives at heart and will respond enthusiastically to a bold small-government agenda. Thus, it should not be difficult in the future for the NJGOP to unite behind returning to a 6% sales tax, for starters. The party could use future ballot question initiatives to let the voters themselves block funding for more big government programs, in spite of Democrat bosses.

That will require strong leadership in Trenton, and an incoming class of younger, sharper Republican State Senators shows promise. But if the GOP is to win over voters with a convincing fiscal agenda, our campaigns must also promote inclusion. Unfortunately, some in the party still rely on divisive tactics, including those that hint at racial or ethnic prejudice. 2007 saw two such examples, in both the primary and general elections.

Most prominently, District 40 State Senator-elect Kevin O'Toole's Republican Primary election opponents deliberately sought to make his Korean heritage a campaign issue. Simultaneously, they attempted to discourage voting for O'Toole's running mate Scott Rumana through cowardly anonymous phone calls claiming that Rumana was Muslim, which aside from being irrelevant outside of 15th century Spain, is untrue – Rumana's paternal grandparents emigrated from Turkey as Christians of the Assyrian and Armenian rites, and his mother's family is of Irish extraction. Appropriately, O'Toole referred to his team's victory as a "defeat for the politics of hate."

Fear mongering surfaced in the general election as well, as District 39 State Senator Gerald Cardinale tried to connect his Democrat opponent to terrorism because his law partner headed the New Jersey chapter of a civil rights group, the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). Cardinale sought to convince voters that the ADC was not mainstream and promoted a violent agenda, rather ironically buttressing his claim with the opinion of a radical Jewish group that has been implicated in murdering a leader of the ADC, and attempting to blow up the office of an Arab-American Congressman – not exactly an objective source.

To be fair, Cardinale points out that his campaign never attacked Arab-Americans at large, only the ADC. He also made it publicly known that he has Arab friends, which will be useful to know should he ever face Archie Bunker in a primary.

Nevertheless, Cardinale won the election with ease, because he has consistently advocated for Bergen County taxpayers and advanced a conservative agenda that suits his constituents. His last-minute foray into ethnic imagery was superfluous and irrelevant. NJ residents are not asked their opinion on Israeli settlements in the West Bank before Trenton bureaucrats fleece them; rather, Garden State inhabitants of all backgrounds suffer together in a state paralyzed by out-of-control spending and incessant taxation.

Cardinale has a strong record of opposing that trend, and should focus on making that his legacy. Similarly, uniting citizens in opposition to unaffordable big government should be the image projected by the Republican Party. Hair-brained schemes that seek to divide citizens along ethnic lines should be ripped out of the GOP playbook for good. That's O'Toole’s view:

"Republicans succeed when we bring all people together with our message. There should never be a place in our party for divisive tactics concerning Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, or any other group."

O'Toole's sentiments should have a familiar ring – in his farewell address, Ronald Reagan remarked that he wanted to be remembered for appealing to people's best hopes, not their worst fears. And so must the Republican Party of New Jersey.

The author, a Republican activist, blogs at http://www.georgeajjan.com

o --- This article first appeared on Inside Bergen December 21, 2007.

number 9…number 9…number 9…

Those willing to entertain a little "tough love" for a certain Texas Congressman, and accept a little feedback on how to improve his campaign, will enjoy this piece published today on the pre-eminent libertarian website, LewRockwell.com.

Rockwell heads the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama, named for one of the Austrian School's seminal thinkers, and served as Chief-of-Staff to Ron Paul during his early congressional career.
------------------




Ron Paul's Revolution Problem
by George Ajjan

"number 9…number 9…number 9…"
- from The Beatles, a.k.a. "The White Album"

Ron Paul has generated more political excitement than all of his competitors in the 2008 Republican Primary race combined. His fundraising success has been nothing short of breathtaking, and if he spends the millions he has raked in thus far wisely, he could emerge from the early January contests as a proven frontrunner, poised for massive victories on "Super Duper Tuesday", February 5 – a day on which 19 states hold their primaries and some 42% of Republican National Convention delegates are up for grabs.

It sounds lovely. And it should all be plausible. But Ron Paul has a Revolution problem – one that he must rectify, so that all the time, energy and money that has gone into promoting his message can achieve victory.

What do I mean by "Revolution problem"? Well, to explain it, we need to consult a concept that has been a hot topic of discussion at LRC over the past month – the "Long Tail", a marketing framework popularized by internet business models like Amazon or iTunes, which suggests that many diverse and infinitesimal contributors to revenue can have a definitive impact when aggregated. Inspired by one of his Korean students, Joshua Snyder first introduced the concept with respect to Ron Paul's candidacy:

"Ron Paul is the one candidate able to unite the diverse elements in the Long Tail. His supporters range from strippers to evangelicals; from gun-totters to peaceniks…[his] laissez-faire ideals will unite those in the Long Tail who simply want the federal government out of their lives. This is the key to Ron Paul's diverse range of supporters, and why they don't mind spending time together under the good doctor's big tent."

Gary North then followed-up, explaining the mechanics of how the Long Tail benefits Ron Paul:

"Previously, the cost of delivering information to people who have ignored politics has been high: printed pieces of paper in the mail. Now, because of the price competition of the Internet, the cost of getting your message to readers is close to free, once you have a data base of e-mail addresses…People are mobilizing behind Ron Paul because the cost of connecting with others of a similar persuasion has fallen as never before in history."

We can visualize this analysis in real life, in all of the Ron Paul bumper stickers (has anyone yet seen a bumper sticker for any of his competitors?), the signage, and most of all, the massive rallies that continue to attract hundreds and even thousands of citizens. Some are die-hard Republicans like me, some are Independents, some are Libertarians, some are Democrats, some (as Ron Paul likes to joke) are Anarchists, and most importantly – many are previously disaffected, politically disengaged, and perhaps not even registered to vote.

Given this concept of the Long Tail and its role in the 2008 race, let's have a more detailed look at what the dynamics might be, using the adapted Long Tail graph below as a reference.
On the x (horizontal) axis, we measure the distance from the political mainstream. The further left you go, the closer you are to the mainstream, and the further right you go, the more politically "quirky" you become.

On the y (vertical) axis, we have the number of available votes in the GOP primary.

We have to trace the gray line to match up the number of votes available for the various positions, and how far from the mainstream they may be. For example, at the origin (where the 2 axes intersect in the lower left corner), we are at the political mainstream, and thus there is the largest number of votes available (the gray curve is at its highest point).

As we trace the gray curve, however, we see that as we move away from the mainstream, the number of votes available decreases.

We can use this graph to understand what it will take to win the Republican Primary by calculating the area under the curve (the colored regions). In green are all the voters who exist at or close to the mainstream. These are individuals who love watching Fox News, agree with Rush Limbaugh's talking points, and adore the soothing sound of Mike Huckabee's "elevator music conservatism". Their attention is focused on "regular Republican" issues like life, family, guns, borders, security, taxes.

Naturally, these are the voters to whom Ron Paul's peers pander at every opportunity. Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee risk injury racing to the microphone to boast about who loves God more, who will be tougher on the "Islamofascists", who cast more meaningless procedural votes that supposedly "cut taxes", etc. And they do this because the winner will be the one who captures the most green on the graph above.

Then there is the yellow region. The voters contained herein may get their news from LRC, not CNN. They may understand monetary policy. They may question their leaders and display a healthy degree of skepticism. They may reject jingoism. And a million other diverse statements might characterize these voters, or might not. The reason they are shown in yellow, however, is because probably under normal circumstances, they would not be voting at all in the Republican primary. In any other year, the graph would cut off abruptly at the end of the green region, and the candidates would have to duke it out for the largest share of the green area.

So, it naturally follows that when the MSM reports their latest polls, they are only picking tiny drops from the vast green sea shown on the above graph. The flaws in that approach and the misleading nature of political polling have been well explicated on LRC; but more importantly, polling "likely Republican voters" entirely ignores the yellow region – the Long Tail.

Quite simply, the Long Tail shown in the graph above belongs to Ron Paul. (notice the shape differs slightly from the standard Long Tail diagram, because the total area under the curve is finite, capped at the number of people who we could reasonably expect to vote in the 2008 Republican Primary)

So place the yellow region over the green one. It's considerably smaller, but still respectable. But the fight doesn't end there. It's not a 2-man race: yellow vs. green. Far from it. The green area will be cut up 6 ways, and depending upon how those 6 divisions look, the addition of the yellow area could be decisive.

This is the power of the Long Tail and its contribution to Ron Paul's presidential aspirations. Notice, the word is contribution, not characterization. This is where misapplication of the Long Tail concept can lead to trouble. An entertainment industry blogger named Ryan Holiday jumped on this point, taking issue with Joshua Snyder's initial relating of the Long Tail to Ron Paul's campaign.

"On Amazon, the one person in every town that likes Finnish Death Metal can be aggregated into a sustainable consumer subset. Borders, however, can't afford to stock product for a single fan. This naturally guides them towards products that appeal to blocs of people much in the same way that Durverger guides us to just Democrats and Republicans and leaves no room for Libertarians…

What works on the internet does not work in US political elections. That is what Ron Paul supporters don't understand…let's be honest, he might be running in the
Republican primary, but he's doing it as a Libertarian, as a third party."

Bretigne Shaffer took Mr. Holiday to task, and for good reason, although I must say I do very much like his analogy between buying music and casting votes. However, I think he has confused the nature of Ron Paul's campaign. First of all, (as if it needs to be stated again) Ron Paul IS a Republican, he has been elected 10 times as a Republican, and he will be on the ballot in 50 primaries/caucuses as a Republican, competing against all the other Republicans with whom he has participated in the Republican debates.

Secondly, Holiday misapplies his own analogy. Ron Paul already IS on the shelf in Borders. His product is well-stocked. In fact, when you walk into the store, there are 8 CDs on display, and Ron Paul's is one of them. Granted, 3 or 4 of those CDs are specially promoted by the store's managers to attract buyers, and the store clerks rave about them – but Ron Paul is there nonetheless.

Meaning: he is in the Republican debates, he is constantly interviewed on news networks, he is profiled by every major print media outlet, and he has even appeared on "The Tonight Show" and "The View" – it doesn't get any closer to the far left portion of the green area of the graph than that.

In addition to those mainstream gigs, though, Ron Paul has a huge presence in less traditional forms – like the massive internet dissemination of his message, the hundreds of YouTube clips of his speeches, congressional sparring with Ben Bernanke, etc.

So there is both green and yellow within Ron Paul's grasp. His "Greatest Hits" album is readily available on the shelf in the local record store (the mainstream portion), while his rare cuts, studio outtakes, and live jams can be purchased online (the Long Tail portion).

This seems an ideal situation in which to market, or in this case, campaign. So where's the problem? The problem is that, for a solid conservative Republican like Ron Paul, the Long Tail should be gravy, not beef. Despite having an impeccable record on all of the core Republican issues on which his competitors pander, he is polling only in the high single digits – an insufficient amount of green to win.

He needs to make better use of his product placement and get more casual buyers to pick up "Ron Paul's Greatest Hits" off the rack. The CD needs some slicker packaging. It needs some 5-star reviews smacked on the cover. And the listening station needs to feature some catchy choruses and snappy melodies, not spacey jams.

Granted, it was his focusing on less mainstream elements that captured the Long Tail for Ron Paul, and won over the hearts and imagination of many people that have become his core supporters – the "Ron Paul R evol UTION". It is thanks to them that he has been able to raise an incredible amount of money, and make himself a real contender. But now he must tailor his message toward the green area. That doesn't mean for a moment that he ought to compromise his principles or abandon his message. He just needs right now to play to the mainstream audience. No one in the race is more pro-life, pro-gun, pro-small government, and pro-borders than Ron Paul. Those are the hit singles. Once people hear those, they'll acquire a taste for the other outstanding content. I know I did.

So what is Ron Paul's Revolution problem? Well, it's a bit of a double-entendre that refers to the recording of The Beatles (better known as "The White Album") in 1968. John Lennon's classic track "Revolution" was the source of some debate, as originally Lennon wanted to include an avant garde segment tacked on to the melodic rock-n-roll tune, an idea resisted by Beatles' producer George Martin. Thankfully, it ended up as a separate and not-quite-mainstream track called "Revolution 9".

The point is: Ron Paul CAN win the Republican nomination for President. The Long Tail of voters, which loves his willingness to talk about issues no other candidates will, can push him over the top. First and foremost, though, is the limited government ditty he's been singing since 1976, for which all Americans can, should, and WILL love him.

For now, Ron Paul should stick to the hits. We'll happily wait for the inaugural ball to hear him play "Revolution 9".

George Ajjan is a Republican activist and the creator of REDchoice, a 2008 Presidential GOP Primary poll based on conjoint analysis. He blogs at The Aleppine Elephant.

o --- This article first appeared on LewRockwell.com on December 14, 2007.

A Chemistry quiz for Howard Fineman

Newsweek reporter Howard Fineman says:

"Attention must be paid to Dr. Ron Paul, the 110-proof libertarian in the Republican race. He's had a surprisingly strong online fund-raising push and now has at least $10 million in the bank. In Iowa, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, he's got 8 percent support among likely GOP caucusgoers, and he's a legit wild card in more-independent New Hampshire."

What, I wonder, does it mean to be a 110-proof libertarian?

"Proof" is double the percentage by volume in a solution. So is Fineman saying that Paul is 55% Libertarian by volume? What, praytell, comprises the other 45%? Republican? Conservative? Water? (is he just a watered-down libertarian?) If you distilled his political views, at what point would he become azeotropic?

Can Fineman please tell us what proof Republican Ron Paul was in 1976, when he supported Ronald Reagan for President and was a delegate for the Gipper at the Republican National Convention?

Better yet, what proof Republican was Rudy Giuliani in that same year? He was a Democrat until 1975, than conveniently became Independent, then became a Republican to support Ronald Reagan when it was safe to do so - AFTER Reagan won the Presidency in 1980.