And now, to try and explain us to our British cousins ~
First, see my previous post, where I try to lay the groundwork for how the American electorate could make such a disastrous choice. I blame it mostly on BigMedia. Remember! This is the same country where, in an attempt to maximize profits, television executives have attempted to eliminate the necessity of paying "real" writers and "real" actors, relying instead on deceptively large game show prizes and (sur)Reality Shows (--Ooops! sorry, we borrowed some of that from you guys!); and so, they had little else in the pipeline when they really needed it (not like you guys). And, of course, these Execs are paid by the same BigMedia who are responsible for our News. Could anyone ever have belived that the Mouse might one day have oversight of the once well-respected ABC News? (And just because I've only mentioned the broadcast media, don't think I hold the print media blameless. They are part of the problem, as well.)
Dick Jones wrote in his blog: In the UK if there exists a representative perception of George W. Bush it is one of absolute contempt. There is no equivocation here: he comes across to the majority of Britons as a man devoid of either style or content, an idiot so transparently crass that his election to the presidency & subsequent administration of the office continues to beggar belief. For more: http://blogs.salon.com/0002065/
Well, almost everyone with whom I have contact on a daily business feels the same way about W-- it's an almost visceral reaction. Imagine if you had to live here, while feeling that way! Sadly, other members of my family who live in another state (FL!), will probably vote for W. Frustrated as I am by what seems to me like Republican Kool-Aid in the water, I can't completely blame them.
They don't see the same news you do in the UK, or probably even the same news that we do as members of Salon (since I don't have cable, I live in a Faux-Free Zone). Most people don't have time for PBS or to search the internet for alternative sources, but, they really shouldn't have to. After all, we have three long-standing networks, and one upstart, as well as a bounty of cable stations. The major networks, who use (lease) our public air waves, undertake an obligation for public service, in particular by providing news of value to the public. Unfortunately, while they take seriously the obligation to their shareholders of charging exorbitant fees for political advertizing, they do not feel equally compelled to cover more than a token three hours total of this year's 4-day long conventions. Instead, they offer cable services as a substitute, but then do not really allow the public to see more than a few highlights, monopolizing the air time with witty talk amongst themselves. (Kudos to PBS's Jim Lehrer for making a better choice!)
D.J. continues: ...for most of us on this side the contempt arises significantly from ignorance of the very broad spectrum of regionally & ethnically based ideological difference that characterises the United States, representing sharp distinctions & deep divisions across the nation, &, indeed, at local community level too.
These differences are certainly the most visible factors, and, in fact, are what keep pollsters in business. The most paradoxical aspect that I've come across, is the discrepancy between Red (GOP) and Blue (Dem) States' federal receipts. Ironically, the Red States receive more federal dollars than they contribute, while the Blue States contribute more federal dollars than they receive. Yet, the Blue Staters continue to vote to pay more, while the Red Staters assert that they are voting for more fiscal responsibility and a leaner government.
Religion, class, education, gender, and geographic region, all play a roll in determining whether a state votes Red or Blue. Yet, it occurred to me a little while ago (during the California energy pricing crisis and the Enron fiasco) that there was a kind of reverse Reconstruction/ Carpetbagging thing going on. Consider that the Texas energy companies, in an environment with southern control of the GOP's policies, managed to move northern resources and money from the purses of grandmothers in California to the linings of their own southern pockets.
It's not coincidental that the "Southern Strategy" implemented so successfully by both Nixon and Reagan-- well before W-- has been a blatant subtext during this campaign, or that the brouhaha over the Confederate flag was an issue during the midterm elections two years ago, or perhaps, even that Zell Miller has voted as often as possible with the Republicans, since he feels that the Democratic Party has moved away from him. A notion that we have not been able to practice elsewhere in the world, perhaps because we have not learned it at home, is that it is a grave mistake to squash and smash a people to the point where they have nothing left. Shock and awe can never achieve its stated aim-- because those who have been left with nothing of material value will never forget it, and will fight all the harder with their less tangible resources once they perceive any opening. Ironically, it's commonly accepted that the Civil War never really ended in this country; but what is not discussed without being called a blame-America-firster, is how we replicate that same dynamic elsewhere in the world when we leave others with nothing of material value to them.
And as DJ further writes: There prevails in Britain even now a residual sense of North America as having been somehow devised by the Old Country. The somewhat inchoate notion is that because of a shared language & a set of historical significators marking seminal change in the development of American culture that have their provenance within British culture, there must beat still in the American breast a basically British heart. This curiously proprietary feeling leads to a conviction that, deep down, Americans must think & feel as we do.
First the humor: I thought we were divided by a common language... As for the rest, these points are where we probably differ in fact, if not in perception. First, I'm not a religious historian, but have heard some who are talk about the curious path religion has taken in this country, even after the immigration of the Puritans and Quakers who left England to escape persecution. Gradually, religious life and education became controlled by a particular (I don't remember which one) sect's teacher and evangelicals. Second, those who first settled the New World may have differed significantly from those they left behind when you consider the extreme importance to them of choosing their own religious practices. And, if you also consider there might be some DNA-difference in those who would undertake a dangerous sea journey in order to start a new life,... well, can those hearts really beat the same? It's a bit more complicated, though, since not everyone descends from the earliest settlers. BUT, W's family does descend from them, as do many others whose families have been prominent in American politics. I understand the sentiment, though, because I have also felt that my "countrymen" must surely feel something of what I do. But they don't--whether it is by their own choice or BigMedia's.
Finally, I must recognize that my own experience is not typical, since I grew up in a military family, and really did not get to experience the "American Dream" either.
12:03:53 AM 
|
|
