I get nervous in the company of Americans these days, especially embassy people. It's not quite Hunter S. Thompson at the district attorneys' convention but there's a feeling of unease.
I have been joking lately about the divisions between Red America and Blue America. Maybe I shouldn't have -- now I can't stop thinking about it -- but probably it's true that cultural divisions are the greatest since Vietnam.
When a bunch of military attaches are present at a private party I have to assume that many of them are Red and that they might assume I am Red, too. I don't want to be like a Blue agent in their midst or something and carry on a pretence. It's not like there are any obvious cues that mark me as Blue, such as a headband or hippie glasses. So I feel like I should intimate clearly to the Reds that I am leaning Blue yet persuade them that I really do love my country -- both colours at the same time. When I do say something it can end up sounding quite odd.
The other night I was at a party -- about 20 of us were playing a Yahtzee-like dice game. Conversation flowed the way it does when there is some drinking and you are playing a repetitive game of chance with no money staked. There is a lot of conversational riffing. It is almost like clanging. It is uninhibited within the framework of the game.
There were a handful of American military there and for some reason, at some point the only thing in my head was 9/11. After all these years. I just couldn't help it. Someone said, about some food, "there's rice in it", and I turned around and said loudly, "Did you say there's ricin in it?!" I didn't, actually, but I came very close.
It wasn't even something partly in context and semi-pointed, as if someone mentioned the film "Resident Evil" and I had said, "But I thought the name of the film was 'President Evil' and it was a documentary about Bush."
It was like a kind of Tourette's syndome where I felt compelled to make insane terrorism-themed references. Or as if I had taken bad advice from a misguided guidebook to heart -- "Americans still take their 9/11 very seriously, and many will be touched when you venture interest in or touch on terrorism-related subjects".
After introductions, is it appropriate to put my hand on an American colonel's arm gently and say, "Think you'll finally catch him this year?" (meaning Osama)? All of a sudden, I didn't know anymore.
For all I know, Red Americans don't think about 9/11 on a daily basis or the potential gravity of Bush's crimes. Therein, I think, lies the problem. There's this huge elephant at the table. I guess I didn't really have the chance to talk about 9/11 and everything that stemmed from it with mainstream Americans when I was in the country.
And the reality is that many Red Americans, especially Midwesterners in the military, are the loveliest people in the world since Eisenhower. Their faces radiate decorum and decency and honour, even the elusive quality of gravitas. They can be likeable folks like the parents of a close friend from high school or something. And yet I realize that many probably truly believe that their country is doing the right thing. And that is what really gets me. I feel bad about saying it directly. So perhaps I hold back longer than I should.
At least I played the dice game for four hours and didn't make a single wisecrack about McCain and his gambling. But as it turned out, there were no hangups with the election. In fact two Estonian women polled everyone there. They asked all the Americans how they were voting. Got to hand it to them. Not "did you vote yet?" or "what do you think about the election" but "how are you voting?"
I gave them my standard reply -- I won't be voting for any more candidates; this is 2008 and there should be direct democracy. But yeah, that I liked Obama, because we're too far rrmoved from social democracy, and tax rates are ridiculously low compared to what they were in the 1970s.
I thought it was a good answer, but the other Americans blew me away, with measured answers that actually revealed nothing -- a clinic in diplomacy. But I noticed one referred to Obama by his first name.
A Blue agent, I thought.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

11 comments:
Not voting? That's disappointing.
Many people have told me that, and I wince each time.
It's something I vowed long before the Obama phenomenon and I have to stick to it.
The public is as well-informed as it ever has been in history. We have the technology for eletronic voting. It is time to take the power back from politicians. There are practical ways of doing it.
If you want direct democracy, please vote to ratify the National Initiative for Democracy at http://Vote.org, as citizens ratified the Constitution at the Conventions. It's led by former Sen. Mike Gravel.
These Esto girls were totally in check. Estonian might ask you just as off handedly: "Nonii. Ka sa hääletad püssimeeste või odaviskajate poolt?"
Esto girls? American colonels? [It was Jüri Toomepuu, wasn't it?] And then, outta nowhere, Dave Grohl appears, exacting really weird and ineffective revenge on the McCain campaign...?
Man alive, this is one smoke-filled corner of the blogosphere. Still, enjoyable.
Look, Kris, I've seen a few pics of you over the years. You aren't wearing a star-spangled lapel pin in any single one of them. That's your answer.
Historical note: Kim Philby NEVER wore his standard-issue Union Jack lapel pin. And, believe me, certain people took note.
So you're not voting because of the electoral college? What?! Now there are convictions worth sticking to...and then there are some lame excuses...and you say you love America...do you not then have some responsibilities in a democracy?
Gracie, elected representatives were a fine idea back in the days of horsedrawn carriage. It's obvious that you can't have a town hall meeting with more than a couple hundred people.
Now that we have the Internet, there is no reason that, for instance, one out of six Americans could not meet each evening online for half an hour to vote on the day's issues.
You would hear lines like I'll pick the kids up from practice right after my Tuesday night voter duty.
Now that's democracy.
NOT anointing a candidate for x years after an expensive campaign, and then trying to advance your special interest the rest of the time.
That's an insult to anyone's intelligence. And then they give us a debate and call THAT a town hall meeting. If memory serves, that was a voting method, too.
But I'll post this as an entry at some point before next Tuesday.
Jüri "Snake Eyes" Toomepuu is the Yahtzee king of Estonia. Sadly, he never made the transition to Balut, which I rule at.
Many think that the electoral college is a hindrance to democracy. Town hall meetings might be a more democratic way of governing a small town, but I'd hate to see the huge national issues of today hammered out endlessly by people who don't care about, have no knowledge of, nor understand them. If you don't like the way things are (system of voting for instance), sitting on the sidelines will never change them.
I'm not sure that I trust the general populous to make all the decisions. I mean look at Prop 8 in California. There's a good chance that it will get passed which imo is wrong. If you had left things up to the general public would we have things like the Civil Rights Act or other such controversial issues, I don't know?
Interesting discussion.
Sadly yes, there will always be a contingent of people who believe some people should have fewer human rights, and they will try to change the constitution. (Probably the same people who won't be particularly active doing their weekly voter duty on more everyday issues).
The mean-spirited Prop 8 is simply not compatible with what I would call "smart society". The absurdity to me is that people in Bakersfield or somewhere would be deciding for people in San Francisco. This is an issue that at the very least has to be left up to each county or ward to decide (if not the couples themselves).
If you're going about changing a constitution for an entire state, you should have a better reason. And there should be safeguards.
Judicial review certainly. I'm not saying throw away checks and balances or let the mob rule.
Also, a simple majority is probably not enough. It should require both a statewide simple majority and it should also be required to pass in a majority of counties (or two-thirds of them, or every single one).
But I don't see the potential for kneejerk and petty ballot initiatives as an direct argument against direct democracy.
Post a Comment