This is the third time I have tried to write this post. On Abe Lincoln's advice - when one is angry and writing on it, get it all out exactly as you feel it, then rip it up and start over...it helps one get their thoughts aligned and not be too loony about it all - I wrote it early in the week then didn't post it. I tried again Thursday, and it still came off too nutty.
Perhaps, I will just have to deal with the fact that I am a nut. I am so angry about what the UK Guardian has been doing in recent weeks concerning our election that I still feel like a vein might burst at any second. Of course, by waiting this long, the story has evolved considerably; however a new story of theirs today indicates that they did not learn their lesson, and that they simply do not understand the first thing about the civil exercise of democracy.
Long story short, the paper bought an undecided voter list in a county in Ohio and pushed the idea of having people around the UK and the World take names off this list and write to them and tell the Americans all about how they feel concerning our upcoming election.
This is so far beyond the pale, and so subverts the democratic process, it shows what a complete state of ignorance the Guardian is. I have always thought they were yellow, and they make no bones of their pro-Kerry bias; there is no doubt in my mind that their aim was to try to persuade undecideds not to vote for Bush. I am voting Kerry, but I can tell you that if was an undecided leaning to Kerry and I got a note from some sanctimonious British person telling me Bush sucked, it would absolutely make me pause and consider voting for Bush.
How is that possible? Quite simple. The only thing Bush has been saying that has made any inroads with me is his line on not needing a permission slip from the rest of the world to protect ourselves. Iraq may have been a major blunder, but after seeing how the world treated us when we felt threatened, I am convinced that isolationism is right for us, and that we must only act with ourselves in mind (clearly we cannot count on anyone else but the UK, Aussies, & Italians.) Bush has done very very well with his anti-Global-Test stuff, and Kerry would be crushed if he ever said that he would need UN or world approval before acting. I feel quite at home right now following a radically isolationist bent.
How the geniuses at the Guardian missed this entire line of debate I don't know. How these erudite curators of world thinking missed one of the biggest undercurrents to our national debate is baffling. What on earth made them think that there would be anything approaching a productive outcome to their campaign? Ask any American what the effect of having UK liberals join a letter-writing campaign against Bush would have had, and I seriously believe 99% would know that this kind of thing would absolutely backfire and hurt Kerry. The Repugs have made incredible hay out of the idea that the world supports Kerry. Reminding Americans of that is free ammo for the right-wing.
Of course, The Guardian doesn't really care. This is more for their own enjoyment. Or at least it was. Now it seems the backlash has been a bit much for them, so they are wussing out. They are also lying through their teeth to act like it is a handful of right-wing bloggers crying out. I heard ABC News cover it on their national radio broadcasts, and the reporter was right to take a "can you fucking believe this???" tone with it. I don't think anyone can accuse of the ABC News national reporter pool of right wing bias.
Like most Europeans, the Guardian fancies themselves as the ones who will do the thinking for the entire western world. Americans are always accused of ignorance and a lack of understanding of history; and it is just like the Guardian to imagine that it is their job to jump into our election and sort things out for us. Such an effort reflects a complete lack of understanding of US history and the American political dynamic; one can only call it a rookie mistake. No one with even a basic grasp of our culture would suggest their campaign as a good idea.
It is worse than being just a bad idea however. It is an effort to undermine democracy, and at root, it feels like the first step towards much more sinister ideas and actions. The key for me here is their attempt to frame this effort, and I quote directly, as a "citizen to citizen" campaign. The word citizen has no application or definition other than as a political definition for members of a society or political grouping; and the use of it by The Guardian has no purpose but to equate - in this US election - the political opinions of the registered voters of Clark County Ohio with anyone who can afford an airmail stamp overseas. The gall is mind-boggling. The disrespect for the basic tenents of democracy are frightening. Once you decide that the other guys institutions aren't worthy of respect, especially the ones they set up for themselves democratically, there really isn't much left to prevent justification of more direct interference in the other's political process. In essence, it is no different than the crap thinking used by Bush himself in the invasion of Iraq.
So much of the clacking done around the world about the US is based on a total ignorance of the US. Additionally, Euros and Asians alike make the error of assuming that Americans simply don't know how the rest of the world feels, and that if we just knew we would alter our course. Certainly anyone who saw even 5 minutes of the debate got to hear Kerry's lament of all the worldwide opinion against us. beyond that, there is no shortage of access to the opinions of the world, and I am quite sure if one were to poll the country as to whether or not they are aware that we are disliked, you would get 70-80% who would not only know it, but could put their finger on specific reasons it is so.
We do know how they feel, and ours polls reflect inclusion of that understanding. It is not because we don't know how they feel that we act as we do, it is because we do know. Bush scores big points everytime he denegrates the UN's opinion, Europe's opinion, and the media's opinion. The Guardian and their ilk couldn't possibly play into that sentiment any more than they have if karl Rove put them up to it.
So far, nothing has happened to Americans that has forced us to bend to the will of other countries; no boycott or censure has created any real impact (frankly, I have heard that the weak dollar has fueled a buying boom in US real estate by overseas people - especially Euros), and paradoxically, I think those wanting to impose their will on us had best hope it remains that way.
Most of the criticisms of the American way of life I have seen against us from overseas come from narratives and stories we have uncovered by ourselves, about ourselves, and based on our criticisms of ourselves. We are an open society that allows foreign media to observe us unimpeded, but even so, very little of the grist-for-their-mills that I have seen is based on primary research from the overseas media. It seems they simply scour Google news or what-have-you, and then they spin it to taste. Should we be put in a position where an outside country does make a dent (say Peter Jennings reporting on something massively damning of us turned up by the BBC), I think our process of self-examination and criticism will turn turret and be applied elsewhere.
I do not believe there is a foreign government or culture that can withstand the kind of blood-in-the-water scrutiny our media can produce when it is in their interest to do so. I think the UN Oil-For-Food corruption is the first look at what that process will look like, though I don't think this is the breakopen case. Even so, the despots running the UN seem unaccostomed to the types of inquiries they are now getting from the US press. We don't look at the world's political processes now precisely because no one here gives a shit about any other country's dirty laundry. If there became a market for this, I am not sure other societies have the stomach for it. They certainly don't seem to. Once the UN investigation is done, it will be interesting to see how the American press reacts. I think that we can do for hard news what the UK & Italian papparazzi does for gossip; and I think people there will be shocked the first time they get hit by it.
Ideally, it wouldn't come to that. However, I think it very well should. I think it is the height of hypocrisy for the world to complain so bitterly about us, yet still sponge up so much of our commerce and culture. If they truly want their voices to be heard, they would need to impact our economy. Boycott our trade and make us a pariah state like was done to South Africa and is being done to Israel. They simply must divest themselves of us for their protests not to ring hollow. It will hurt my country in the short run for this to happen, but I really think it is best. Voting with the pocketbook is not materially less important that voting with your ballot.
They also need to stop using our rhetorical paradigms for framing the debate. They need to stop using the elements of pop culture indigenous to us. They must not provide validation for us in any channel. I think it is false to make a split between our culture and our politics in this case. They need to get to the business of creating a viable alternative to that which is American, or is of the American seed. If Bush wins, what possible excuse could they have? What possible distinction would there then be between our politics and culture? Everyone here will be paying the taxes that fuel it all, so which of us will be innocent of Americanism?
At the end of the day, if they really believe they are owed a voice in our political processes, they will need to take the project seriously, study the dynamics of our political culture, and then decide how much they are willing to put at stake to become players. In the case of the UK, they certainly have enough on their own plate since they are up to their necks in Iraq just like we are. I have seen nothing to indicate Blair is about to lose. If the Guardian reader really wants to drive their point home, ousting Blair would seem a logical pre-requisite. That would be a shot across the Bush Bow.
Should the Brits make a compelling case for having an equal vote in US presidential elections to that of the residents of Clark County Ohio, I would then be obliged to make the case for my participation in their process. As a resident of Brooklyn, I can assure you I will never be able to vote for a House Rep or Senator that isn't staunchly pro-Israel. The dynamic between the US and Israel - the whole middle east to be honest - is absolutely a creation of British politics circa 1920, and the failure of the UK 2004 to clean up the mess they created all over the planet. Is there any doubt we were hit on 9-11 in part because of our support of Israel? If I get to the root of that problem, I find British colonialism, so that is an opener.
Then there are the other UK-spawned sinkholes mucking up world politics, many reuquiring the resources of my county, and thereby, my taxes. The longest running civil war on the planet is in Sudan. That civil war, like many of the wars in recent African history - is based on the absurd borders drawn by the Brits back in the day. Zimbabwe is another British offspring that has devolved into barbarism in the aftermath of their departure, further de-stabilizing Africa and encouraging other nations to act the same way. India and Pakistan still don't agree on the borders given to them by the Brits, and they are easily the countries most likely to engage in nuclear war with each other. Hell, the fucking Rock of Gibraltar is still being disputed between Spain and the UK.
But why limit the idea just to the World v. the US? I say South Africa, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Argentina, Hong Kong and the Maori in New Zealand all should get a vote in the UK. And while we're at it, the Algerians, Vietnamese, Ivory Coasters, Quebecois, Syrians, and Haitians should get a vote in France. Is there any doubt that their current lives aren't the product of the French political process? The Congolese vote in Belgium? Brazilians in Portugal? Surinamese in Holland? Rwandans in Germany? Dominicans, Mexicans, Hondurans, Phillipinos, and Columbians in Spain? Ethiopians in Italy?
It's settled then. As soon as I can get started with a list of the names and addresses of undeclared voters in Khartoum, I think we will finally be on the way towards getting this problem solved.
Posted by rudayday at October 23, 2004 03:21 PM