On behalf of quiet Americans
Posted by: Bhoyo on 04 November 2004
There has been a significant absence from the forum in the past few days: Americans. That is partly because, over here, we are still trying to digest the enormity of what happened on Nov. 2. But it's more than that.
The knee-jerk anti-Americanism coming from Europe is despicable. It betrays ignorance covered by a thin veneer of hypocrisy and cant, of hatred and prejudice. Americans have long been a favourite target of this unthinking bigotry. Unfortunately, there have been many examples of this on the forum this week.
The American contributors here are too decent to protest. I am not an American, nor am I particularly decent, and I do protest.
There have been some honourable exceptions: Some of you continue to argue your case against US foreign policy well, but are careful to separate your views from attacks on the American people, many of whom share those same views. Others have been less civilized. I won't name names; you know who you are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. You believe in the stereotype of the "dumb Yank" without having a clue about American society in all its complexity.
Consider this: Approximately 120 million Americans voted on Nov. 2, with about 56 million supporting John Kerry. 56 MILLION. That's bigger than most European populations, let alone their electorates. The 60 million or so who voted for Bush are not all drooling, fundamentalist loonies (many are; the senior administration leaders almost certainly will be). The country is divided in many seemingly irreconcilable ways, including by ethnicity (black, white, Hispanic especially), geography, sexuality, gender, faith and socio-economics. And it's sub-divided among each of those categories. That's true in many nations; here, it's even more apparent. The country defies easy analysis, or pat generalisations. It has not given Bush an unqualified mandate to do anything, and it does not allow for instant judgments by Americans or foreigners.
Our American contributors tend to be well-informed, articulate, tolerant, witty and friendly. It's hardly surprising they've been reluctant to step back into a place where they are made to feel so unwelcome.
You should never judge a whole people by its rulers. Not the Americans, not the Israelis, not the Iraqis, the Germans, the French – certainly not the British, where NO ONE elects the head of state.
So as you listen to your favourite American music, watch American TV or movies, enjoy American authors – much of it using technology that is the fruit of American innovation, in countries that exist at least in part because of American sacrifice – take a moment to decide whether you're willing to talk like human beings about and to Americans. Or are you going to sink below the level of all that you rail against?
Regards,
Davie (edited for spelling)
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by bhazen
Thank you, Davie.
This has been a difficult few days here for many of us; facing a triumphalist Republican Party being the most galling of a plethora of galling things.
I posted elsewhere about how I'm a bit afraid of travelling abroad now, for fear of verbal abuse, assault or worse; after all, and fair enough, "we" re-elected this guy...the 2000 election could be excused as a Supreme Court abuse.
Eventually America as empire will get its comeuppance; I'm hoping that it's not to harmful too people everywhere when that happens (also hoping for a change in direction in '08). I know that my once hopeful plans for the future (as a working person) are in shreds if the Bush gang get their way.
Having said that, I can't be too annoyed at forum posters who are angry about the result; after all, about 56 millions here demonstrated that feeling.
I know the last thing you UK posters want is a big influx of Yanks, but I have started dreaming of moving to England again! Got a job for some sort of low-level paper pusher or menial?
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by JonR
Davie,
In case I happen to be one of the people you are referring to then I unreservedly apologise. I did notice yesterday that Ludwig hasn't posted for a while - I wonder if he is feeling the impact of the result more than most?
As I said earlier on Arye's thread, I have (belatedly) recognised that I have been very quick to condemn Americans for letting Bush back in, whilst conveniently ignoring our own desperate situation in the UK where we have a poodle prime minister in power and next to no-one to challenge him at the next election.
However, as bhazen says:-
"Having said that, I can't be too annoyed at forum posters who are angry about the result; after all, about 56 millions here demonstrated that feeling."
...and regardless of whether you think the attacks are fair or not, this is the Padded Cell and posters are entitled to express their opinions, however vociferous, or unfair you happen to think they may be.
jon
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by jayd
It has only today dawned on me that I've moved into a complete survivalist mode since Tuesday. I've spent every waking moment trying to figure out how I'm going to live in order to minimize the imapct of four more years of this regime on my life and liberties and personal ideals. I genuinely wish emigration was an option, but since it isn't, I've decided to insulate myself from the media, to volunteer diligently with local grass-roots reform movements, and to love and teach my children as best I can.
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
'jayd'
There's nowhere else in the world as free as the USA, nowhere else where your 'liberties and personal ideals' would be so tolerated. It's a shame you've lost sight of that.
Paul
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by 7V
Very well put, Davie. Thank you.
Steve M
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
'jayd'
There's nowhere else in the world as free as the USA, nowhere else where your 'liberties and personal ideals' would be so tolerated. It's a shame you've lost sight of that.
Paul
Paul,
Be that as it may (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), you don't really know my personal ideals. There are many many places in the world more closely aligned with the way I believe. I'd settle for a country that actually believed in separation of church and state over one whose policies are driven by a religion I do not share.
(Have you been talking to Arye, by any chance? He also seems to know an awful lot about what I've lost sight of.)
jay
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by JBoulder
Paul, you don't know ding.
Jay, welcome to Finland.
- - - - -
"the recognition of facts is the beginning of all wisdom."
- J. K. Paasikivi -
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
you don't really know my personal ideals.
That's rather the point.
quote:
I'd settle for a country that actually believed in separation of church and state over one whose policies are driven by a religion I do not share.
A rare place.
Paul
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
That's rather the point.
Let's assume for the sake of argument they involve not regularly executing criminals, not discriminating against same-sex unions, and not legislating a woman's right to decide whether to bear or not bear children. Places aligned with these views aren't as rare as you might think.
On the other hand, persons in other parts of the world may be delighted to know there is a country that does regularly allow (nay, mandate and subsidize) execution, and has a strong agenda and "moral imperative" to make same-sex unions unconstitutional and early-term abortion a criminal act. And you can get great barbequed pork sandwiches and all the beer/bullets you can swill/shoot.
The door to their heaven is open.
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Joe Petrik
Paul,
quote:
Paul: There's nowhere else in the world as free as the USA, nowhere else where your 'liberties and personal ideals' would be so tolerated. It's a shame you've lost sight of that.
Jay: I'd settle for a country that actually believed in separation of church and state over one whose policies are driven by a religion I do not share.
Paul: A rare place.
I'd argue that Canada comes pretty close to Jay's ideal, and, incidentally, Canada is arguable freer than the U.S. if, for example, gay marriage and moves to decriminalize pot matter to you.
Joe
P.S. Nice post, Davie. There is much to criticize in the U.S., but there's much to admire, too. The world often loses sight of that.
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
and not legislating a woman's right to decide whether to bear or not bear children.
The US is surely one of the most abortion tolerant states in the world? It's one of the more repugnant aspects of your culture, along with the propensity to execute black criminals. But capital punishment is falling out of favour (as I understand it) and 'Roe v Wade' may be bad law, but the way it was made is surely to be cherished.
I think even GWB supports states rights to give same sex unions similar concessions to hetero couples. (He's off message here, I wonder whether he'll recant now he's won?)
Paul
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
The US is surely one of the most abortion tolerant states in the world? It's one of the more repugnant aspects of your culture, along with the propensity to execute black criminals. But capital punishment is falling out of favour (as I understand it) and 'Roe v Wade' may be bad law, but the way it was made is surely to be cherished.
I think even GWB supports states rights to give same sex unions similar concessions to hetero couples. (He's off message here, I wonder whether he'll recant now he's won?)
Paul
Number of executions by year:
2004: 54 (with another 12 scheduled before year's end)
2003: 65
2002: 71
2001: 66
2000: 85
1999: 98
1998: 68
1997: 74
1996: 45
1995: 56
1994: 31
So this year promises roughly twice as many executions as a decade ago. (
Source)
As for your other points, we'll just have to see where things stand in four years, after Bush changes the balance of the Supreme Court. But I think it's more accurate to say that, in an election year, Bush preferred to shift the potential bad press associated with effecting a ban on same-sex unions onto the states. It isn't remotely the same thing as supporting the right to same-sex unions.
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
So this year promises roughly twice as many executions as a decade ago.
Your figures arguably show a downward trend from a peak in 1999-2000. This is more clear on the graph at your source.
I couldn't see details of sentencing and commutation rates, or whether the American people in general are becoming less gung-ho about capital punishment. My impression was that nowadays Clinton wouldn't need to execute the incapable in the cause of a Presidential campaign.
(I assume Julian's a little excitable tonight.)
Paul
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
There was a flurry of excitement around various boards earlier today regarding CNN's website naming their jpgs in a somewhat derogatory sort of way. If you go there now it will all be neutral and blameless.
OTOH here's some evidence, for your general edification.
Some people think this shows intrinsic media bias, I think it it's amusing. But there's probably some junior web chap contemplating his future. Hopefully his/her new-found notoriety will enhance his/her future employment prospects.
Paul
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Bhoyo
Jon:
Your apology is as gracious as it is unnecessary. However, and with respect, you may have misread me about what is said in the Padded Cell (or anywhere else). I agree with you that vociferous expressions of opinion are all part of the fun; it's when arguments sink into a stew of ignorance, prejudice and intolerance that the problems begin.
You never have to look too far for examples of those particular traits. There will always be those who crawl out from under their rocks and demonstrate a remarkable ability to miss the point entirely.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Your figures arguably show a downward trend from a peak in 1999-2000. This is more clear on the graph at your source.
Paul,
I saw that too. Here's hoping it continues.
Jay
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by ejl
Isn't the whole idea that any of us are obligated to feel proud or ashamed of our nationality completely unfounded?
Pride or shame in normal contexts presuppose that one is responsible for the action or outcome at issue in some meaningful way. In the case of nationality, that responsibility seems to me entirely or almost entirely lacking. None of us, as far as I can see, were responsible in any way for our place of birth. And even if we've chosen our national identity, we're hardly responsible for what that identity amounts to.
Morevoer, I don't think any of us individually have much power over the direction and actions of our respective countries, frankly. I know we're told we do, but I don't see it. For instance, I don't think any of us could have significantly affected the last election in our home country, even if we had directed our entire effort at doing so.
Aren't national identities convenient conventions that some people use to manipulate others into acting in a certain way? From an early age we're conditioned into identifying with our little schools, churches, sports clubs, etc. We may come to crave the feeling of comfort and belonging that comes with this "identity", so that as adults we continue to seek the comfy feeling of being part of the "right" group. Once we've do so, we make it possible for people cynical enough or clever enough to use that identification to manipulate us for their own ends; to the point of asking us to kill or be killed.
What are the arguments for national (or ethnic, or religious) identifications being something other than bare conventions? The only arguments I can think of came from Nazi propagandists and "racial scientists". They were, of course, utter crap.
O.k., -- Foucaultian rant over.
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by matthewr
Hey Eric,
How did, if you don't mind me asking, you vote on Alabama's amendment to the state constitution to allow state funding for the promotion of the shrimp industry?
It's this sort of slightly surreal, leftfield weirdness that makes me want to spend some time in the red states in the middle of America. The blue states on the edges would never have anything as oddly diverting on the same ballot as the Presidency (or perhaps they do and its under-reported here)
Matthew
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Andrew Randle
quote:
about 56 million supporting John Kerry. 56 MILLION. That's bigger than most European populations, let alone their electorates. The 60 million or so who voted for Bush are not all drooling, fundamentalist loonies
The mistake was not voting for Ralph Nader.
Andrew
Andrew Randle
The Hi-Fi Doctor
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by ejl
quote:
How did, if you don't mind me asking, you vote on Alabama's amendment to the state constitution to allow state funding for the promotion of the shrimp industry?
Matthew,
How on earth did you know about that?
The answer is yes I did.
Alabama's state constitution is antiquated; it was basically constructed in 1901 to insure that a small group of powerful whites stayed in power. The way they did this was by legislating on everything that they could, with the effect that local counties and municipalities have little power. In many cases, local government must beg the entire state for approval for roads, advertising for their local industries, and other simple things.
I always vote yes on these to give the poor bastards what they need.
Efforts to update the state constitution have met with resistance from conservatives who gripe about "tradition". As it is elsewhere, "tradition" is often code for keeping the minorities out of it.
Eric
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by sonofcolin
quote:
The 60 million or so who voted for Bush are not all drooling, fundamentalist loonies
Hehe. Not all, but still quite a fair number!
Having lived in the land of the free for a number of years in such wonderful places as Topeka Kansas, and DC I have some rather amusing memories of such drooling fundamentalist loons! Joking aside, each and every one of them has always been exceedingly pleasant with it and I have never been made to feel un-welcome wherever I have been.
Although I do not agree with the politics or ideals of the current administration, I do understand the reason why it appeals to so many americans. It really isn't so suprising to me that Bush won. The majority of people who voted for him couldn't give a f*ck about Iraq as long as it doesn't turn into the same sort of bodybag count as Vietnam. Bush appears to be doing something to keep america safe (despite how wrong or deceptive this may be). The notion of saving lives through preventing terrorism is a very powerfull tool and a tactic that will always grab the attention of the casual listener. Trying to explain the notion of risk of terrorism to a native Topekan and comparing it to the risk of driving a V8 SUV is no easy task! Sadly, Kerry had nothing really concrete to offer these voters and it showed. Osama's appearance on the eve of the election must have been a godsend to Bush and I'm sure they'll be exchanging xmas cards this year.
I can understand why people may want to leave the US due to this result, but I think I'll be staying (unless the INS tell me other wise!) Besides, you've got more chance of being blown up from "Friendly fire" outside of the US than from within!
Freedom, liberty and the patriot act for all!
Peace
Colin
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by sonofcolin:
quote:
The 60 million or so who voted for Bush are not all drooling, fundamentalist loonies
Hehe. Not all, but still quite a fair number!
Colin:
Agreed. As I wrote: "Many are; the senior administration leaders almost certainly will be."
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by ErikL
Davie,
I appreciate your diplomacy and the thought behind your lengthy post. Thanks.
I was frustrated reading the US Election thread once Kerry conceded, because I saw in those posts what I was newly rejecting within myself- a liberal elitist viewpoint. I was frustrated because some were measuring Americans on a European axis- Bush’s foreign policy and anti-terror blunders. But that missed what was most important to the majority of voters Tuesday- social values. Social values ranked #1 among voters in the heartland, whereas Iraq ranked #4 (based on info I read very late Tuesday). Even many Democrats are social conservatives, and many Bush voters recognize that Iraq is a mess and the economy has struggled. Compounded atop that misunderstanding, I was frustrated that many judged Americans (in some cases all of us) based on what I perceived to be the notion that the American population should want what Europeans, etc want for the rest of the world and for Europe, etc (not for the US itself) and if they don’t then they’re inferior/unsophisticated/evil/greedy/etc. Finally, I was frustrated by the disrespect aimed at the US democratic outcome because it came from some who preach against bigotry and who talk about the importance of accepting all points of view and about embracing differences. On a personal note, this last one bothered me the most because recent introspection concluded that I’d become an anti-Bush-supporters bigot who speaks against bigotry on every other topic.
The above might sound like I'm defending the system and people I passionately spoke against the past few months, and I am. I can't argue against the largest number of voters ever to elect an American president. But I can argue against Bush and his policies, and I can share my thoughts with moderates and help build bridges the next few years. It's the only way forward for us on the left, as I see it.
Erik Ludwig
Seattle, Washington
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by ErikL
Matthew,
In Washington state we had an oddball initiative on the ballot for the installation of 18,000 non-tribal video slot machines at bars, restaurants, etc as a means to lower property taxes. The mentalist behind it once argued that the machines would neither take share away from tribal casinos, or increase gambling in the state.
Luckily he, and it, were defeated.
Posted on: 04 November 2004 by Bhoyo
Erik:
Keep the faith, my friend. It's not over for Democrats or Progressives. The Labour Party in Britain went through many years of being told it was permanently unelectable. (Possibly not a good example, given what's happened with Tony Blair and New Labour).
Anyway, ErikL is waaaay better than Ludders.
Regards,
Davie
