I told you it would be a bad idea if I joined this thread. I see a lot of assumptions being tossed about here, about my intent and about Judith's earlier, and it's the exact reason I hate discussing politics online. Someone will always get hurt over some perceived slight. I also fail to see how my comments about English government are unnecessary. For better or for worse, our two fates as nations are intertwined, and you can usually tell one's future by the other's present.
Taking offense to a comment which is not only not directed at you but obviously does not apply bewilders me. You and Stuart are obviously fine examples of what every country's populace should be. You are informed, you know the ins and outs of your candidates, you know their faults and their strengths, and you're both civil. How did what I write appear to apply to you or Stuart? I'm not completely tactless, if I didn't like the design or color of your teapot I certainly wouldn't say.
You accuse me of dismissing the British, yet I think it's you who dismiss me. It's easy to make assumptions from thousands of miles away - no, I am not unaware of the implications that statement regarding my own opinions of British government and its relationship with its populace - but you mistake my forceful tone as that of an agendist or someone with hidden motives. In fact, it's quite the contrary, I love Britain. I want to live in Britain. I admire your government. I admire your people's strength. I admire the British spirit. I admire the workingman's attitude much more than our own. I admire the way in which, at one point in the recent past, your little island produced nearly everything it used itself with very little importation. I admire the way Parliament operates. I admire the civility, however superficial it may be, your politicians possess. I also admire their candor. For being a few thousand miles away, I do my best to be as painfully aware of your country's successes, as well as its shortcomings, every bit as much as my own, if not more aware of them, as I view England as a more intelligent, harder working, harder playing, more creative version of America (there's more than meets the eye with my phrasing of this statement) that is slightly freer of corporate influence and corruption in the higher ranks. This is to the point where most of my artistic consumption is British, from the books I read to the music I listen to and the television I watch (perhaps not movies, though), I've lived with British expatriates and I spend a good amount of time communicating with British citizens. I also frequently used to wake early to watch Parliament argue. An expert? No! I never could be. Someone completely in love with your country, everything it is and could be? Yes!
I said earlier I wasn't completely tactless, and I'm not: I'm deeply sorry if anything I said affected you, Stuart, or any of our very fine British friends. No strings and no qualifications, I'm just plain sorry. I hope not to step on your toes again in the future, but if I should be careless (or mischevious, as moira knows far too well and knows I can be), I hope that maybe you'll forgive me as a flawed but incredibly passionate person that loves your country far more than his own. Reading Stuart and your thoughts on English government has been incredibly interesting and informative, not to mention the way in which you both communicate. It's fascinating, to be honest. Distinctly British. I hope that neither of you stop your wonderful 'banter.'
--
Kevin, I'm very glad you chimed in! While you and I disagree on the electoral college's usefulness and pertinence, I fully support your idea of forcing the electors to be apportioned. It is the next logical advancement from the current system of all of a state's electors voting for the candidate which wins majority in their state. I still argue that you will always be fighting the battle of populace v. legislature, but at least your idea would shift the focus away from swing states and onto the nation as a whole. Partially. Anyway, are you sure we're more politically aware and literate now?
The Simple Life was a hit show, after all...
Again, foot in mouth, it seems. I'm sorry if what I wrote cuts close to the bone. It wasn't my intention. I only wanted to highlight the fact that between the general populace's thirst for revenge (under the thin veil of justice) and the media's penchant for sensationalism, America turned into a raving mob. Bush and company certainly fed and milked the hysteria for all they're worth and Gore would've had a much more measured and steady response, but would things have been much different? Afghanistan is guaranteed, and it might only have been through Bush's familial ties to the Saudis that allowed us to have such easy access to the middle east.
In the end, we might have traded Iraq for harsher emissions regulations and higher gas taxes. We might have a better plan for renewable energy. We would've traded one agenda for another, and nearly all of Gore's plans would lead to higher oil and energy costs. We could argue all day long about the resurgence of Russia, but it would have happened at some point, if not now then in ten years. My point was never that things would be just as bad under Gore (I feel they would be, simply in different ways), just that it would have been business as usual in Washington. There are a million what-ifs - from "Would Gore's dilly-dallying over invading Afghanistan have allowed bin Laden to get away?" to "Why is abortion legal but swearing in music not?" - that I can't answer, but I suspect Gore's reality would have been just as harsh on America as Bush's, if for no other reason than we, the people, demanded it, and our government, Europe, Asia and the UN, gave it to us.
Maybe I've given up on people, the cynic inside has won and the lover inside has died. That's such a sad train of thought.
--
Lastly, regarding Sarah Palin, our media's take has been very interesting. In public, many members of the media are polarized: she will either sink the McCain campaign or serve as its lifesaver. In private, the rumor mill as well as discussions overheard, recorded or made public indicate that the overwhelming view is largely negative, that her career is destroyed and that she is an awful choice made by a candidate simply being given his turn so he gets out of the way. I won't bother commenting on their private thoughts except to say that I'm surprised they aren't airing such thoughts. I'd say it's a good thing that our media is taking a more journalistic (see: unbiased) approach, except it's still business as usual, just a bit more sterilized.
What are the British journos saying?