There needs be some explanation of this diary’s title, I suppose. So, let’s dispense with that first.
America. Well, here I have to apologize to Canadians and Mexicans. I really mean, in place of America, the US. But you see, ‘Americans’, out of habit however ill-informed, usually those in the US, means the people within the borders of the US (sans illegal aliens, naturally). Now, as to what that, were it true, would make Canadians or Mexicans in terms of a geographic reference, I confess to having no idea! So, I apologize to both Canadians and Mexicans beforehand, for I will use the term ‘America’ or some variant thereof, when in fact, I mean the US, or some variant thereof.
The other part that may be in question, ‘From Here and There’, warrants some explanation, too. But it is too long for an introduction; so if you are curious, you will simply have to read on a bit. At this point, I will only say it relates to a viewpoint, one from standing in the middle of the stew, and one from well outside the pot, so to speak. Enough said above the fold.
I have thought about many things I might wish to say, but finally, I have come to the conclusion that a question-answer format may be best. Yes, I will interview myself! (Naturally, in so far as anyone is interested, I will later respond to questions from others, as well.)
Q: Before exploring the ‘Here’, to what does the ‘There’ refer?
Ans: The ‘There’ refers to the fact that I am an expat. I am a US citizen, from birth, but I live in another country, out of choice. GWB had nothing to do with my emigration, nor did any political consideration (GWB was not president when I emigrated, though his election in 2000 would certainly have solidified and speeded my decision!).
‘There’ also refers to a point of view. You see, by being an expat, I am the beneficiary of points of view that are not US-centric. It would surprise the average American on the street, perhaps, to learn that America is not necessarily loved or viewed as beneficent throughout the rest of the world (6 billion vs. 300 million). Nor is GWB globally revered or loved or respected; in fact, through much of the world, he is despised, even if it is not said through public organs.
Q: What about the ‘There’?
Ans: Due to circumstances, I happened to be in the US from 11 Sep, 06, through 18 Nov, 06. So, I had an opportunity to view the elections from within the country. That is the ‘there’; the US is both ‘home’ and ‘there’ to me.
Q: Did you vote?
Ans: No. Yes, there is a right to vote, for sure. But there are other legal ramifications, as well. Ask any lawyer about questions of ‘domicile’. Such questions can be obfuscated by even the simplest of acts, and it is important to me that any question of my ‘domicile’ be squeaky-clean. Voting is one of many acts that can lead to questions of domicile.
I am sure that I am not the only expat in that position, yet I think there are few who understand it, from a broader legal position.
Q: What was your take on the election?
Ans: I was in Tennessee the entire time of my visit. It was the dirtiest and most abysmal campaign for the Senate that I have ever seen. Corker repudiated the ‘call me Harold’ ad, and apparently it did not originate with from his campaign. Yet, he capitalized on it, even after it was taken off the public airwaves, for the MSM kept running it (as illustrative, even) and kept it before the public. In that sense, the MSM acted as Corker’s champions. So, a fourteen-day (or so) ad had legs with the MSM that made it an ad throughout the election period. Free advertising, courtesy of the MSM. And I noticed a similar tendency in other elections, not just Tennessee.
Aside from that, I did notice what I think were some definite trends, of what I think of as trends. Surprisingly, although Democrats claim victory, I think the trends would have held in any case. The trends were issue-based, not party-based. It is the stupidity of Republicans, clinging to a failed president and stay-the-course that gave the House and the Senate to the Democrats, not the overall brilliance of the Democratic Party, although there are some exceptions to that, John Tester and Jim Webb being two, I think.
Q: Trends? As in?
Ans: I saw several things, correctly or incorrectly. The first, of course, was a general dissatisfaction with Iraq that covers a whole host of things, but most of all, the incompetent handling by the administration of virtually everything... ranging from contracting and profiteering, to military strategy and tactics, to troop rotations, to a Pollyanna attitude about it all, to the lack of clear goals, to blatantly lying to the public, and even more. The American people are not happy with an ‘open-ended’ war which has no conceivable culmination, yet drains the nation and its resources without end in sight. That is not even to mention the moral aspects, or legal aspects... both of which are only tenuously defensible, at best (though personally I consider indefensible in any case).
Then there was the domestic scene. I think that people have tumbled onto the paper façade of Medicare D, and maybe the changes to bankruptcy law. And in talking to people on the street, including business owners, it was clear that what they were seeing does not equate to the Bush rhetoric on employment, inflation, wages, etc. To the man on the street, that was all hogwash, for government figures (which are manipulated) had no relation to his or her experience in a day-to-day sense.
There was also the issue of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. Now, maybe the average person I talked with could not articulate the erosions and abrogation clearly, but they were clearly recognized in some general sense and felt. Frankly, a large percentage of people that I encountered were frightened, and rightfully so, IMO. They were frightened of government power, from the Federal level down to the level of the local police. They were frightened of their own government and its organs, from all levels... and there is something fundamentally wrong with that. And I sensed that people are beginning to see that, that there is something dreadfully wrong.
And I think there was a genuine concern among many as to the status of the US in the world, its standing among other nations of the world. The destructive policies of the Bush administration, re detentions, renditions, torture, unilateral imperial actions, etc., do not go down well. The public seems more attuned to the need for moral leadership and international cooperation than does the administration.
There are a myriad of other things that I saw, as well. But these will do for starters, yes?
Q: What does this mean for the new Democratic majority?
Ans: The field for action that will advance the Democrats advantage with the voters is so broad that it is like ‘shooting quail’, or ducks, or whatever. But there are a few key issues, IMO. Among those is restoring honesty and integrity (no more tolerated ‘Dollar Bill’s), tightening ethics with no more ‘waivers’, new commitments to honesty and open government, no longer hiding behind ‘secrets’ and back-room deals, a new commitment to transparency, and ACCOUNTABILITY. Those would be starts. But I feel strongly that even if there is some resolution to Iraq and other foreign policy quagmires, if the issues of honesty and transparency are not addressed, it sill all be for naught, as far as the party is concerned.
The other broad issue that will be defining is the one of fiscal responsibility. That earmarks be transparent and debated. That they be subject to rejection. That the budget be balanced and the national deficit be reduced. That there is recognition that if the government goes belly-up financially, that is end-of-game, and nothing else matters.
And then there is the issue of people mattering, once again. No, not nameless, faceless statistics, but that REAL people matter, individually. It is time for Representatives and Senators to know that when they vote on matters, it affects absolute and real people, not some chart on a wall or some graph. It affects flesh and blood Americans, and often, people of flesh and blood even a world away.
Q: Your final thoughts?
Ans: As one final thing, I would say that Democrats in the House and Senate have a rare opportunity. If they work for the PEOPLE, and communicate that intention clearly, even if GWB exercises his veto power, the Republicons will either grudgingly support those steps or will be cast as obstructionists. Still, it depends on a Democratic commitment to honest, open, and transparent government. Any thing short of that, IMO the Republicons may well experience a new ascendancy, for there will be no clear choice between the two.
Q: Are you a political analyst?
Ans: No... only a man in the dark like most everyone else, but hoping for a better, more humane, more caring world.