Melania not only failed to humanise her husband. She reinforced his selfishness in the eyes of the world. Newest Article Joseph Masini Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Four years ago, I regarded Ann Romney's RNC speech as what was the strongest attempt yet at humanising a man who was widely regarded by the electorate as an insensitive rich guy. As it turns out, that perception cemented itself into the American psyche, and is today regarded as a principal contributor towards Obama's November victory.

The Romneys are now boycotting the GOP convention in protest against Donald Trump's impending confirmation as nominee. Yet yesterday, I couldn't help but wonder whether Ann couldn't help but grimace and shudder as she watched her successor fail miserably at everything she had managed to accomplish four years ago: conveying her husband's clarity of vision for America, portraying the moment as a climactic distillation of his entire career, and perhaps most importantly of all, present a new, intimate, unseen facet to the politician's life story.

Despite the eventual electoral defeat, four years down the line, I still believe that Ann Romney, in her own way, roughly succeeded in all three aspects. Melania Trump failed miserably in all of them- and this is without considering the monstrosity of an error that was plagiarising from Michelle Obama. Yet, I don't attribute almost any of the blame on Melania. She just happened to be another victim of her husband's self-styled character as an anti-politician, as well as his bigotry, racism, sexism, and self-righteousness.

You see, the Trump campaign has spent the days leading up to the Convention stating over and over again that people should expect something completely different; that just like the Donald isn't a 'conventional politician', this won't be the 'conventional' political event we've grown accustomed to. Turns out that such 'unconventionality' stopped when it came to Melania Trump's speech. The format at its core was the traditional spousal address of a nominee's spouse, peppered with the glittering imagery and (insufferable) cliches which conservatives loves so much. None of this however could have possibly worked in relation to an individual whose political rise to glory has rested on the idea of American decline, and a deep-rooted distrust in the nation's people - a sort of 'patriotic pessimism', if you will.

The Trump vision for America we heard yesterday, just like so many other campaign statements was stale and anything but clear. A litany of campaign slogans were left unaccompanied by any policy statements or concrete plans. At a time when the campaign faces harsh criticism on Donald's unsuccessful ventures, countless lawsuits, fraud allegations, and questionable business practices, Melania had an opportunity to shed a light on her husband's entrepreneurial acumen and thought process. The speech was pretty much silent and vague in that respect as well. "No room for small thinking," it was stated, in a speech dominated by small talk.

Yet, the speech not only failed because it missed out on crucial opportunities, but also because far from humanising the man, she implicitly reinforced all that we already knew- and feared he embodied. In speaking about the opportunity for success and personal and professional development which her husband opened up to her, Melania exposed him as a person of two weights, two measures.  In celebrating her acquisition of US citizenship, calling it the "greatest privilege on planet Earth," we were reminded that if her husband has his way come November, millions of immigrants just like her would literally find a wall barring them from that same "privilege". In stating that President Trump would "[welcome] cooperation between peoples and nations," one couldn't help but question whether the person she was lauding was the same who revelled in division, offended nations and world leaders, and called for an entire religion to be profiled and banned.

From the palpable uneasiness of the crowd in Cleveland, it is amply clear that even the Republican base deemed the speech to present omens of disorganisation, carelessness, and blatant disrespect to the electorate's most basic intelligence, rather than the tidings of well-meaning change they were hoping for. For the rest of us, it served as definitive confirmation that the Donald Trump we thought we knew is indeed the person he really is.

Bridging the gap: The need for a holistic regional vision Joseph Masini Sunday, December 14, 2014

It is unfortunate that what should have been a fully-fledged discussion on the proposal of a bridge between our islands ended up being prematurely interrupted by the political intrigue surrounding the Mallia driver's case. Such a discussion is not only logical considering the gargantuan proportions of the project, but also essential for the development of a national consciousness on what a regionalised Malta would look like.

In his reply to the Leader of the Opposition's speech, the Prime Minister mentioned that he was unhappy with the current regional set-up. This followed a series of reports of mismanagement and financial turmoil surrounding the regional committees, which however constituted just the tip of the iceberg. What I see as being the foremost issue with the system is the fact that the regional set-up has been imposed without there having been a basis of a mentality which truly understands and appreciates the true meaning of regionalism. This is unfortunately just short of a cosmetic measure, and regional committees are running the risk of appearing as a bureaucratic baggage rather than a source of opportunities.

It would be worrying indeed should our concept of a region be determined exclusively by the presence of institutional set-ups. It is high time that as a nation we explore what regionalism truly means, plausibly as part of the discussions surrounding the foundation of a second republic. The option is clear: we either reach a consensus on what defines a Maltese region and determine how it reflects the principle of subsidiarity, or we would be left with no option but to eliminate the system should it be seen as redundant. Personally, the latter option is one with which I strongly disagree with, however what is sure is that the mere grouping of localities does not suffice to truly create a region.

Turning back to Gozo, the issue runs far deeper, as there is a real risk that the notion of regionalism becomes dependent on the concept of accessibility and infrastructure, such as the permanent link. It would be taunting to envision such a project as a solution to all the challenges Gozo faces. Unfortunately, the coverage appears to present this image, which is unrealistic to the extent of being deceiving. Indeed, the basis for a discussion in this regard should be a holistic vision for social and economic regrowth, of which the issue of accessibility is just a piece, albeit a central one. Analysed on its own, the issue of connectivity and all its plausible solutions can never be fully comprehended especially when it comes to determining their effect. It would be dangerous to approach this discussion with a narrow vision, and even more dangerous to connote the notion of Gozo's regional identity entirely with one side of what is a multi-faceted scenario.

Therefore I sincerely hope that a comprehensive discussion ensues on the regional character of our nation with the aim of reaching common grounds and bridging the gap which currently exists between a mentality which does not fully comprehend such a notion and the vision for institutions which truly reflect the growing need for decision-making closer to the citizens. Such a process can undoubtedly help us not only develop a more holistic vision of our nation's priorities, but also spur a rediscovery our identity as one nation. Indeed, regionalism - if successful, can make us more united.

Lejn reġjonaliżmu ta’ viżjoni u kunsens Joseph Masini Sunday, July 28, 2013

Matul dan l-aħħar xhar, kelli x-xorti nagħti sehmi fl-organizzazzjoni taċ-ċelebrazzjonijiet kommemorattivi fl-okkażjoni tal-mitt sena mit-twaqqif taċ-Circolo Gozitano: għaqda li għal dawn is-snin kollha xprunat l-identità reġjonali Għawdxija u xettlet iż-żerriegħa ta’ qawmien kulturali u edukattiv fost missirijietna. Onorat però fuq kollox li forsi din l-okkażjoni irnexxielha terġa’ tirxoxta l-argument tar-reġjonaliżmu ta’ Għawdex, li kull darba li nibdew biex niddiskutuh noħorġu b’ideat mill-iżjed validi, li bi sfortuna kbira jitmewtu qabel jieħdu r-ritmu neċessarju biex jaslu fuq quddiem tal-aġenda tal-pajjiż.

Qed nikteb dawn il-ftit ħsibijiet ġimgħat wara li faqqgħet il-kontroversja dwar jekk għandhiex tiġi stabbilita xi forma ta’ għaqda permanenti bejn iż-żewġ gżejjer. Jiddispjaċini ngħid li f’dan ir-rigward, bosta fazzjonijiet waqgħu fin-nassa tat-trivjalità fejn is-sustanza fl-argumenti kienet xi ftit jew wisq nieqsa. Mhijiex l-intenzjoni tiegħi li nidħol f’dan id-dibattitu, anke għaliex nemmen bis-sħiħ li argument irid jinbena fuq l-opinjoni studjata tal-esperti u l-analiżi tal-istess studji tagħhom, u mhux sempliċi erba’ ħsibijiet kif ġie, ġie.

Huwa “pont” ieħor li jaffaxxinani u jinteressani, għaliex l-effetti tiegħu iħollu u jorbtu l-mod kif inħarsu lejn il-gżejjer tagħna. Il-kunċett reġjonali mhux sempliċi teorija politika, użata biex ittaffi xi ftit mis-saħna tal-movimenti separatisti, iżda hi skola ta’ ħsieb li jekk adottat sew isir raison d’etre tal-poplu tar-reġjun u tal-pajjiż. Fi kliem ieħor, reġjun mhux biss xi titlu mogħti lil parti minn pajjiż sabiex ninstemgħu u nidhru sbieħ. Dan ikun biss applikar miskin u fażull tal-kunċett – daħk fil-wiċċ. Reġjonaliżmu veru hu dak il-kunċett milqugħ, imħaddan – u mifhum min-nazzjon kollu.

Hu hawn fejn nixtieq nuri t-tħassib tiegħi. Nemmen u wisq nibża’ li l-kunċett reġjonali, speċjalment dak fir-rigward tal-gżira Għawdxija, mhux biss qed jiġi użat mingħajr ebda attentat għal konsultazzjoni tassew miftuħa, iżda saħansitra qed jiġi abbużat b’mod espliċitu bħala buzzword komda li faċilment timpressjona l-imħuħ ta’ dawk li ma jifhmux l-implikazzjonijiet diversi tal-kunċett. Xi kultant naħseb li qed niffissa fuq din il-possibiltà, però nemmen li qatt mhu biżżejjed li nemfasizza l-bżonn ta’ għarfien vast u pubbliku  fuq kunċetti bħar-reġjonaliżmu. Dan kelli ċans nitkellem dwaru f’post ftit xhur ilu.

Hawn ma rridx ninftiehem ħażin. Naqbel kompletament u assolutament mat-twaqqif ta’ istituzzjonijiet reġjonali bħall-Kunsill Reġjonali taż-Żgħażagħ, u iżjed ‘il quddiem it-twaqqfi mill-ġdid tal-Kunsill Reġjonali għal Għawdex. Dawn huma bżonnjużi u jirrispondu tajjeb għall-bżonnijiet ta’ żmienna. Fl-istess waqt però, ma nistax ma nesprimix id-dubji serji tiegħi dwar kemm il-poplu Malti u Għawdxi tassew jifhem l-għan aħħari ta’ dawn l-azzjonijiet x’inhu: dak li Għawdex isir inqas piż u iżjed pilastru: reġjun fil-qalb, u mhux fil-periferija tat-twettiq tal-politika nazzjonali. Kif kelli l-opportunità nsostni iżjed minn sentejn ilu, fl-ewwel post fuq dan il-blog, reġjonalità applikata ħażin, jew mhix mifhuma mill-poplu tagħti art fertili biżżejjed biex jispuntaw is-separatisti, li l-ewwel jidhru redikoli, iżda bil-mod jiksbu l-momentum meħtieġ biex iwaqqfu movimenti bħal dawk li qed nassitu għalihom fil-Katalunja u l-iSkozja. Ma nara l-ebda triq fin-nofs. Huwa tajjeb li l-Gvernijiet- kemm dak preċedenti u dan preżenti għarfu li l-futur ta’ gżiritna u ta’ Għawdex jinsab fir-reġjonaliżmu. Però issa irridu naraw li din it-triq jimxiha kullħadd, b’viżjoni ċara u għanijiet ben definiti minn qabel.

Ma nemminx li huwa tard wisq biex isir dan. Għalhekk nappella sabiex jinbeda l-proċess li permezz tiegħu inkunu nistgħu naslu għal politika ċara – u bil-volontà tajba ta’ kullħadd – kunsens dwar x’viżjoni reġjonali għandna jkollna għall-pajjiż tagħna. Semmejt lil Għawdex b’mod partikolari għaliex hu r-reġjun l-iżjed ‘ovvju’, iżda waħda mill-punti li żgur iridu jitqajmu fid-diskussjoni huwa l-idea ta’ reġjuni oħra, li mhawnx qbil jekk ħadmux jew le mit-teorija għall-prattika. Konvint li b’reġjonaliżmu imħaddem tajjeb, igawdi r-reġjun, u jissaħħaħ il-pajjiż: rigal xieraq lil dan in-nazzjon li se jkun qed jiċċelebra t-tnissil tiegħu fix-xhur li ġejjin.

L-opinjonijiet huma dawk personali tal-awtur u ma jirriflettux fuq l-għaqdiet li hu membru fihom.

Lessons from Tony: Analysing the similarities between two "New Labours" Joseph Masini Sunday, March 24, 2013

As a new, yet keen follower of British politics, Joseph Muscat’s election as Prime Minister, and the circumstances in which all this happened, immediately reminded me of Tony Blair’s similar rise to power over a decade ago. While others were busy comparing Labour’s campaign team to that of U.S. President Barack Obama, I felt that we shouldn’t have to cross the Atlantic to be able to draw up some similarities. In fact, I had already started working on this post when last Sunday I saw an excellent article on the Times of Malta, reaching the same conclusions as mine. Instead of comparing the speeches of newly-elected Prime Minister Blair and Muscat, I would like to discuss some lessons which, in my humble opinion, could be drawn up by the latter from his British counterpart, who incidentally (or not), endorsed him just two days before the 9^th March election.

New leaders. New parties.

What first strikes you is the remarkable resemblance between the two leaders, and the magnitude of the changes they made as soon as they rose to power. Both Labour parties in 1996 and 2008 respectively were suffering from a serious case of electoral fatigue and a set of principles which had become more of a shackle than a driving force. What both Tony and Joseph did in their parties is to declare that “this is a modern party living in a world of change.” At the time they rose to power, both leaders had the young age, experience, and backing necessary to perform changes of unprecedented proportions in both size and effect. It is not only modernisation, but a complete revamp of what the Labour party stands for, with Blair’s ditching of Clause 4 reflected in Muscat’s heavy update of the party statute. In doing so, the two understood something very profound about politics; that if one is to change a nation, he must first be willing to change the party. This realisation, right from the very beginning, proved to be an effective, winning formula for both leaders, who had over twenty years of conservative rule to back their arguments for thorough changes.

Huge landslides, huge responsibilities.

It is widely reported that when Tony Blair got briefed about the breathtaking magnitude of the Labour Party’s landslide in the evening of May 1^st, he simply muttered “what the hell have we done?” No one knows (yet) what Joseph Muscat had to say at 11.30 a.m. of March 9^th, yet the result obtained was of very similar proportions. One could only deduce that the sense of unreality which hit Blair’s campaign team was also felt here in Malta, where not even the party could have ever imagined the type of majority it would get.

However, that sort of feeling could be potentially dangerous when a new government is formed. The Muscat cabinet must make sure that it does not get itself lured in the same trap as the Blair administration: that of thinking that one could manage a country with the same way as one has previously managed a party. The needs of the nation are extremely different from those of a party, yet having a majority of over half of the electorate could lead oneself to believe that what’s good for the party is now good for the country. This is what Tony Blair had to face in his first few weeks or so, before coming to the understanding that both elements must be kept as far away from each other as possible, even if this upsets the party delegates. Muscat must do the same, or he will inevitably have to face an Eckolson scandal of his own, where the affairs of the party get entangled in those of the state. And there is absolutely nothing good which could come out of such an entanglement.

“Campbellian” media management.

For ten out of the twelve years of Blair rule, Alastair Campbell dominated the media, spinning it in ways unprecedented in the history of Number 10. Sometimes getting too much limelight; more than he ever wanted, Campbell was not only Blair’s press secretary, but also his most trusted friend and confidant. When I heard that one of Prime Minister Muscat’s first appointments was of Kurt Farrugia, his party press chief, I couldn’t but draw up a conclusion that he understood something which Tony Blair had realised from the start: that the media has the power to glorify governments, or more commonly, bring them to their feet. A strong press manager has become absolutely essential, and with all due respect to the ones preceding Mr. Farrugia, few are better at understanding the current media landscape than the new man at Castille.

Yet there are some core lessons which Campbell admits to learning during this decade of riding the media wave, among which was the fact that he sometimes became an unwilling protagonist in the sophisticated spinning campaign of the press and Number 10 alike. Though we do not have the sort of sensational media that is present in Great Britain, PM Muscat’s media team must be careful to develop a strong and healthy relation with the press, which however must remain controlled and limited by a strictly-defined boundary, in order to avoid the same problems Blair’s staff had to face. Choosing seasoned journalists to act as press chiefs in various ministries is also a wise decision, which however needs to be contained to just dealing with the media, and not interfering in the day-to-day running of the Government, as Campbell and his staff were accused of doing in the late nineties.

Avoiding a “Brown” revolt:

This last point I would like to draw attention to is one which haunted the Blair administration from the very first moment he set foot inside Number 10: Gordon Brown. Making him arguably the most powerful Chancellor in British history was not enough to quench the latter’s thirst for power which increased as his ‘friend’ Tony progressed on into the second, and finally, third term. One can argue that Blair had to face two ‘Iraqs’: one overseas, and another at home, with his own Chancellor and his arrogant staff.

Despite the enormous Labour majority obtained by Joseph Muscat, which for the time being renders the Government in an extremely comfortable position, the status-quo must not be taken for granted. Actually, the new Prime Minister has quite a challenge ahead, having to balance the desires of veteran MPs to involve themselves in what might be their last chance to govern, and giving a chance to the new blood in the House to revitalise our political arena. Seeing the sort of Cabinet which was chosen proves that PM Muscat has understood the importance of doing this sensitive balancing act, which however must withstand the test of time.

In a Government, the worst thing that can happen is having someone like Gordon Brown and his coalition of backbench dissidents, who kept the Government unsure till the last minute on whether legislation will go ahead or not. While a nine-seat majority is extremely comfortable, it’s not completely safe, and loyalties must be checked at all time, without having to resort to shameful and humiliating acts and offers of appeasement, which end up discrediting the Government as a whole.

Conclusion:

It’s clear that expectations are high for this Government, as they were for Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ in 1997. We must indeed wait and see, however one must also be careful not to expect too much. Labour’s manifesto is one of the most ambitious we’ve ever seen, and the mandate is extremely clear, to say the least. If wisdom and good management truly dominate over the division and confusion the Blair government had to endure, we are surely to see a successful experiment led by Prime Minister Muscat, which- who knows, could even last for more than one term.  

Discussing a relationship which is stronger than ever: My interview with H.E. Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley Joseph Masini Saturday, February 16, 2013

Photo Credit: Anthony Grech

Looking back at the past year, one of my proudest accomplishments and most memorable moments was definitely the opportunity to discuss matters of US-Maltese relevance with the Ambassador of the United States to Malta, H.E. Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley. Miss Wistanley’s character struck me for her honest openness, humble approach, and the respect she has towards the relationship between our two nations: a relationship which at the time of the interview (July 2012) had just been given a powerful boost by then Secretary of State Clinton’s visit.

This was truly the moment in which I felt that I must delve deeper when it comes to following US current affairs, something which I am still doing as best as I can to this day. I am truly grateful to H.E. the Ambassador, as well as her staff, for their help and strong collaboration. I look forward towards a possible update to this interview in the near future. 

Listen to the full interview below: 

Building a sense of real security in America: My position on gun control. Joseph Masini Thursday, January 17, 2013

On Wednesday, President Obama finally showed an admirable level of courage, determination, and commitment to the American people when he finally took action and started addressing the issue of gun control in the United States. Finally, after years of hijacked politicians and rampant lobbyism, a Washington Administration is facing this challenge head-on, and showed its determination to stop exaggerated use of firearms which has been plaguing the nation for ages.

My personal position is extremely clear and simple, I believe. This is what I wrote in a comment on Facebook, answering to a person who accused me of “saying that... good civilians cannot use guns, while criminals can get them illegally from black market?”:

“I cannot accept that the greatest nation on Earth has fallen to a seemingly-endless viscious circle of gun use. We started off by assuming that guns were created to protect us. This is true indeed, yet, you must remember that when the Second Amendment was adopted, it took around a minute to load one single round. Today's fire arms can commit a large-scale massacre in that time-span. Thus the major problem is that the Constitution and the subsequent legislation, are not any more in tune with today's reality; in fact, they have not been so for decades now. Yet, the gun lobby in the US has used this fault to gain more power, and quite literally hold Washington lawmakers at gunpoint. They are arguing that weapon misuse can be solved by "a few more guns in our schools, libraries, churches, and gardens. They seriously believe that the problem is that there are not enough guns.

I say nonsense. Overuse of guns has led to hundreds of thousands of injuries, and countless deaths. Furthermore, this is only an American phenomenon. Why this frenzy to buy guns? Why this lack of trust in the authorities, which I believe is the root of this fixation? It’s this what citizens need to address, for the sake of themselves, but most importantly, their children. Regarding your comment, I believe that President Obama has today managed to find a balance, though much more is needed in my opinion. I think that easy access to guns must be limited to everyone, with more serious background checks being conducted to assess any innate fears, fixations, or instabilities in the would-be buyer. Furthermore, let’s stop saying that shooters prefer attacking schools due to the “gun free” policy. This is a nonsensical argument, as no shooter has ever admitted this, and considering that most gunners end up dead themselves, they are not so fearful of getting killed, as long as they reach their aims. Finally, let’s get Congress to stop being held hostage from the NRA and start reducing this ticking bomb in the hands of unknown civilians, which we cannot yet identify as being “honsest” or “dishonest”, as you put it.”

I hope that during his second term in office, President Obama will continue this drive towards a more civil use of guns, so as to secure a real sense of security and protection for the American men, women, and children.

A (wonder) boy named Paul Joseph Masini Thursday, August 30, 2012

Second of a series of commentaries on the Republican National Convention 2012 currently underway at Tampa Bay.

Yesterday’s GOP Convention session was definitely one of the most memorable in living history, mainly due to the high-profile speakers who took the stage, including Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose speeches surely managed to appeal to the most conservative of the party’s grassroots. Yet the show centered around the new boy on the block: the Republican pride of the moment Paul Ryan, whose keynote acceptance speech raised the bar and seriously lowered all remaining hopes Democrats had that this convention will not be a game-changer after all. Quite the contrary, Ryan’s speech defined the issues and image the Republican campaign will be taking from now on.

A note on Rice’s speech:

Condoleezza Rice appeared to Republicans as a surprisingly reinvigorating figure, managing to disconnect herself from the rest of the Bush administration and injecting her audience with a sense of national pride typical of the Republican base.

By recounting the horrific tale of 9/11, of which she had to carry an enormous burden, she immediately set the tone for what was to be a speech focused around Obama’s lack of clear-cut interventionism, which, in her own words is leading everyone to ask “where does America stand” in a world dominated by the Arab Spring and the growing threat of Iran. One couldn’t but see the difference being pointed out between her strong, leading, quasi-menacing approach, and her counterpart Clinton’s softer, more reluctant stance, based on dialogue and soft-core diplomacy, rather than more tangible force. “We do no not have a choice,” Rice said to a raging applause, “we cannot be reluctant to lead, and we cannot lead from behind.”

Therefore, by portraying America as a force which is currently failing to guarantee stability and convey trust, Rice also accused the Obama administration of being ungenerous with the global community; of not fulfilling its role as the defender of peace around the world: an argument which surely sounded sweet to the ears of the hard-core Republican. Moreover, she attacked Obama’s government for its lack of focus on free-trade agreements and pooling further into energy resources, along with its constant borrowing which, she declared, is undermining the American dream: the “idea” that “it doesn’t matter where you came from; it matters where you’re going.”

The passionate address struck a chord with unwavering party supporters; something neither Paul Ryan nor Mitt Romney can afford to do in such an open manner, aware of the fact that they need to garner as much independent voters as they can possibly get.