Republican vs. Democrat
Is a Democrat regime better, than a Republican one, for the Philippines?
Before the United States 2008 election, specifically on 2 November 2008, Philippine Star columnist William Esposo wrote an article entitled “Why Filipino-Americans should vote for Obama.” The article appeared to imply that the imperialist stance of the United States emanated from a Republican regime.
I can agree to Mr. Esposo’s article, but not in its totality. The reasons for this is, first, that US President-elect Obama may be a Democrat but he is not the Democratic Party; and, second, that the Democratic Party is not without substantial fault in the US colonial stance in the Philippines.
To elucidate my point in the second preposition, I need to provide my appreciation of the history of US-Philippine relations.
The Philippine colonial situation in the Philippines (1899-1945) indeed resulted from a policy emanating from the Republican regime under William McKinley (US President 1897-1901). The subsequent subjugation of the Philippine Islands under the Americans was continued by Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) and William Howard Taft (1909-1913), both Republican. It was in the regime of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) that a policy towards greater autonomy, or independence, for the Philippines was entertained. It was during Wilson’s term when the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 (Jones Law) was promulgated. The next highlight of US-Philippine relations, similar to this, was in 1934, during the regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945), a Democrat, with the promulgation of the Tydings-McDuffy Act, a revised version of the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act of January 1933 (which was originally vetoed by Herbert Hoover [1929-1933], a Republican. Incidentally, Hoover was preceded by Republican presidents Warren Harding [1921-1923] and Calvin Coolidge [1923-1929], which could well be an explanation to lack of development to the Philippine autonomy during that period.). The Tydings-McDuffy Act allowed the institution of the Philippine Commonwealth and provided the timetable for Philippine independence. The ten-year period was contemplated to allow the Philippine leaders to be capable to run an independent nation under a democratic framework. That ten-year period was interrupted, however, by the Great Pacific War of World War II, in 1941.
Under the above paragraph, it would appear that real essence of democracy in relation to the Philippines was more evident under a Democrat rule than a Republican one. The problem in the argument would arise, however, from the actuation of the US after World War II, or the onset of the Philippine independence from US colonial rule in 1945.
Mr. Esposo’s article expressed that:
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what enables them to easily forget that Filipinos fought and died for the US war with Japan. That was not our war. That was a war of the US but more Filipinos died here than Americans.
What did the US do after Japan, the enemy, was defeated? Our poor war veterans remain unrecognized and uncompensated. Instead of pouring US resources to help us rise to our feet after World War II, they poured all their efforts and energies into helping Japan, the once enemy, to emerge as an Asian economic titan.
While the US was putting all the resources needed to get Japan back to its feet, the Mr. Hyde character of the US imposed on their Filipino allies a Parity Rights Agreement that opened Philippine natural resources to exploitation by American businessmen.
The problem, in the argumentation against a Republican regime, is that the Philippine Trade Act or Bell Trade Act was promulgated in 1946, under the regime of Harry S. Truman (1945-1953), a Democrat, where the 79th US Congress was Democrat by majority.
Without espousing support to the Republican Party since they are personally loathed upon, is a Democrat regime better, than a Republican one, for the Philippines?
Under an Obama administration, we have to wait and see.
*****
On the other points of Mr. Esposo’s article, I do not oppose his preposition that:
This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what accounts for their current interest to promote a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) in Mindanao even if that will mean a dismemberment of Philippine territory.
The actuation of the Republican-installed ambassador in the Philippines is suspect in the Bangsamoro problem. In general, however, due to the over breath of the US position on anti-terrorism under the Bush administration, it could be one reason for me to welcome the alternative regime.
Mr. Esposo further provided a quip:
Really, if you think logically, Filipinos ought to declare war against the US because following historical precedent we stand to gain more than if we remain their trusting friend and ally.
I would surmise that the last quip was a natural consequence of Mr. Esposo’s appreciation of US-Philippine relations. Passion has led me to espouse the same in the past as a reaction of the US’ treatment of the Philippines as a mendicant in its push to secure US interests.
My ambivalence, sometimes distrust, on US leadership in relation to its position on the Philippines, resonates in parallel to a John Foster Dulles quote (Dulles was the Secretary of State of US President Dwight D. Eisenhower [1953-1961], a Republican: “The United States of America does not have friends; it has interests.”
