http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/...1329858,00.html

A series of letters received by the Guardian Newspaper.

My question is as as follows:

1. Do you feel these negative views are indicative of America as a whole?

My view is that they are widespread, though perhaps more eloquently expressed, and dressed in a garb of conservatism.

From your link:




Doesn't sound like Nationalism to me, more like localism? Countyism?


How far do you feel these views have permeated America as a whole?

How many people in America would have trouble with people from the UK getting involved in the US elections? I would imagine a great many. However, I would also imagine a great many people in the UK would take offense if the people from the US or even France decided to get involved in the UK elections. Especially if the majority of those getting involved were doing so to support one particular candidate.

From: Neils World





I would imagine that many would take offense to this involvement because at least the majority of those involved are not just saying get out and vote, they are saying get out and vote for Senator Kerry. If their motives were truly altruistic then why all the support for only one candidate?

The UK, and the world, and every poll you will find conducted abroad, is in favour of John Kerry. We can see Bush killing innocents all over the world in the name of freedom. It is just this kind of killing, for a supposed and mystical higher cause, that tyrants like Stalin did.

It is therefore obvious why the UK and Europe want to encourage those who are apathetic to go out and vote. Their motives are altrusitic is as far as they believe Kerry is best for the poor, alienated, under-represented and opressed workers of America; not to mention best for the people of the Middle East many of whom have lost their lives to the Horsemen of the Apocolapse.

All this, however, is a sidetrack from the question. But I had to adress your tangental points and refute them. Onto to your relevant contribution:



Of course, voters may resent such meddling, but the language used in some of those suggests much more than "offense" (though obviously there were many which were reasonable, sensible people). It suggests to me a hatred of Europe; a very deep feeling of amnimosity - all of which arise from a blind nationalism and allegiance first to the flag (but a conservative version of it) and second to the current President. I see a deep resentment of other nations criticising their actions, as though the US is in fact the world supreme body - the secular world's new god.

I want to know how deep and how widespread this feeling runs that is expressed clearly by some of the letter featured in the original link.

No, I feel that both the positive and negative views are indicative of America as a whole. Our opinions cannot reasonably be summed up in one or two viewpoints.

The negative views were entertaining if not G-rated. It probably made more than a few writers feel better, because I suspect that a lot of them feel disenfranchised by our system whether they would admit it or not. It is easy these days to feel some measure of helplessness regarding our foreign and domestic situations, and it is less than satisfying to merely be told that our vote is our voice. I've already cast my vote, I have worked for my candidate, I have written letters to editors of three newspapers, put yard signs in my yard, and I still feel pretty powerless.

A related subject to this foreign intervention is that there will be international observers at the polls in several states (including Florida) next Tuesday. Some people are irate about it, but I feel it is entirely fair and called-for. After all, we are a part of the organization, and we should be willing to undergo the same process we prescribe for other nations where there is more than a suspicion of election-tampering.

In both situations of the Guardian "pen pals" and the international observers, I say "Knock yourselves out" and "Let the chips fall where they may."

Well that is one heck of a leap there. Especially when you consider the fact that those letters written in a way that could suggest such "hatred" were in the minority.

When I was in the Active duty US Navy I had the honor of serving aboard the USS Suribachi, AE-21 as part of the Eisenhower battle group on a Mediterranean deployment in 1990 that ended with our battle groups involvement in Desert Shield / Storm.

I visited many ports. In everyone of them the majority of the people I met in England, France, Spain, Italy, Gibraltar, Israel, Monte Carlo, etc were nice, friendly and alot of fun. However, in every port I visited there were places where people who despised the US were, with walls spray-painted with "Yankee Go Home" and hostility towards the sailors for simply being there that in several instances rose to the level of violence.

Based on your "logic" expressed above, I should have felt that all Europeans as well as Israelis despised Americans and wanted us all physically harmed, if not dead. Which I did not, and still don't.

There are kooks in every country in the world, for the most part they make up small minorities of the populations of those countries.

I did not read all of the letters. No real need to Hucker. The basis for there resentment is best summed up in your own words:



"mystical higher cause" How very sweet.

So then, YOU were in favor of the rape rooms? YOU were in favor of the torture rooms? How about the mass graves full of Women still clutching their young. Ya liked em didn't ya'll.

To each and every one of them you would say NO, SUCH THINGS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

But guess what?

They happened in pre War Iraq, sanctioned by a Government that the Coalition disposed of. But you would have preferred that they continued until when? Until the rest of the world decided enough was enough? And Hucker, please tell me when that would have been? 3 more years? 5 more years? When?

Oh, I know you will post some "nobel" blah, blah, blah, in response, after all, what do you and the other complainers have to lose by complaining. Nothing

What was gained? At a minimum, the rapes, the torture and the Mass Killings that filled the graves.

Of course, when Bosnia needed help, when the world stood back and watched the massacre happen in Rwanda happen, you could not blame the "mystical higher cause" could you? Of course, we could have waited until YOU decided it was OK, by then there probably would have been no one left to save and that would have been just fine with you?

Sleep well in your safe, cozy bed.

I was going to ignore some of the more 'colourful' Marxist / utopian rantings presented, but this one is great.

... who of course live in a bigger house, in a safer country, with nicer things and a higher standard of living than the middle-class, un-oppressed workers in the other 200 countries. But thanks for caring.

Does anyone sincerely believe that the reaction would be any different if the Daily Telegraph had a letter-writing campaign whereby its readers wrote to Clark County that they should support President Bush? Certainly not. Is this rampant nationalism - well, OK, great. What the heck is wrong with nationalism. We are a 'nation' you know. And Clark, as Overlandsailer pointed out, is a county - vive le county I guess.

Are these views rampant - I suppose they are. There are probaby a fair contingent of xenophobic, anti-European americans, and these letters from abroad probably piqued them all. Of course, there are certainly a fair amount of xenophobic, anti-American Dutch, English, French, oe Catalunyans. It appears that freedom to hold an opinion is indeed global. So, welcome to America's Debate, where we can debate the finer points with each other.

Does this question really belong in the election 2004 forum?

It seems to me to be addressing a much more fundamental problem than who is going to win the next US election.



1. Do you feel these negative views are indicative of America as a whole?

No.

I don't think any one single point of view can be indicative of an entire nation. To even ask such a question is pretty pointless because what exactly are you asking for if not answers that accept the question as being valid..?

In truth, there is a schism between Europe and America, but it is not because one side is to blame. Europeans bear an equal burden as to how the world has evolved and America's success in the twentieth century does not make them responsible for every bad thing that happened no matter what the Guardian news paper might wish to believe.

I can agree that Bush is a disaster and should be replaced. But frankly, I find it wrong for an English paper to make any sort of attempt to influence the vote in another country as the Guardian did, and I find the linked article of e-mails to be nothing but a smoke screen designed to make Americans look bad whilst covering the Guardians hypocrisy.

If the Guardian had done a similar thing in Denmark I would be very angry indeed.

Does the preoccupation with this "meddling" not show your paranoia with foreign influence, and strong nationalistic tendancies - the belief that although your country is going and invading every corner of the earth that no one except those in your borders should have ANY influence? This seems unfair. The impact of the American election will arguably have a greater affect on the life of a innocent Iraqi than it will an average American - yet they have no say, which is why I believe it is up to other, more powerful nations to perform this function, and restore balance in an international order which is unjust and dangerous and dictated by the US, which is, whatever your political persuasion, the biggest threat to international stability.

So, now you seem to be saying that it is the job of the world to determine the leadership of America because Americans can't handle it and American Leaders effect the world. Wow, if you want letters filled with hatred in return then try writing that one to everyday Americans.

First of all, all leaders of all countries effect the world. Some moreso then others. Your own countires history will tell you that. So, Can I assume then that you support the elimination of elections worldwide and favor instead the appointment of national leaders of all countries by a world body like the UN for the good of the world? Or do you support the elimination of all individual governments in favor of a world government? What disgusting anti-nationalism.

Can I also assume that you would have no issue if Conservative American Groups began a letter writing campaign to "get out the vote" of UK citizens while promoting only conservative candidates and/or candidates that would support Tony Blair?

Do you feel these negative views are indicative of America as a whole?

Oh hell no. America has all kinds of views. :-D

As offended as some people may be about the responses remember this: just 'cause someone with a justifiably angry disposition in the Guardian's case--Putin was unsettling enough; shuckydarn there goes his invaluable endorsement if his special forces smuggled the Iraqi explosives to Syria!--makes it to a popular website and expresses him/herself in a lowbrow way, it doesn't mean they're representing or speaking for *you*.

Truth be told some of those emails make me crack up. Their idiosyncrasy is so similar to the satirical website WhiteHouse.org's portrayal of Bush it's like a bonus read!

America is not 'invading every corner of the earth' and I don't see how your point can stand when it relies on such generalisations.

I don't understand how a desire to be independent of the political interests of other nations (and their newspapers) is in any way an expression of 'strong nationalistic tendancies'

And I don't see how two wrongs make a right.

I've not debated much lately because so many people have gotten downright rude and obnoxious with each other over this election. As we can see from this Guardian article/experiment, this extends over the UK now as well.

Hucker, you have provided no basis for these negative sentiments being widespread or rampant in the U.S. Do you have any basis for asking this question of us other than one article from a poorly written rag like the Guardian?

What can be proven is that people are willing to be jerks to each other when they can safely hide behind the anonymity of their computers. The rude letters sent to the Guardian were likely written by the same people who come on forums like this and try and flame others. The rudeness comes from a need to be noticed, even through negative attention, in a world where it is becoming increasingly hard to be heard.

Zealously nationalistic people are not the majority in the US by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, we may be protective of our system. There is nothing wrong with that, as moif better detailed than me. You, Hucker, seem to be trying to connect a certain love of country with conservative-based, zealous nationalism and I just don't see the connection. Most Americans, when talking face to face, are decent people and at least willing to hear each other out without a punch to the face.

Trolls are trolls are trolls and we all would be better off not feeding them.

I am not here to advocate anything. I am merely pointing out that the outcome of the US election prfoundly affects the rest of the world more than any other. I personally, therefore, have a duty to encourage voters to not vote Bush as I believe he is the root of this suffering. Perhaps American's here are starting to undertsand how it feels to have somehting imposed on you, in the same way the Iraqis are? Does this not enable us to empathise with their rejection of the American Invasion? Nevertheless, the fact that the arguments here are getting sourer, and more ad hominem, shown by the fact you had to highlight somehting about my own country, proves that such talk makes you feel very defensive - and the only reason I can presume originates is in Nationalism.

I would still like to know your answer to this question. If faced with similar acts yourself would you take offense?




Now who has gone off topic? This is definitely a subject that should have it's own topic (again), and does not belong here. However, as someone who has been there, I can say with certainty that the MAJORITY of Iraqis are glad we removed Saddam, and glad we are there. They would of course like to see us out as soon as possible, as would we. But they do realize that a level of security needs to be established before we can do so. To completely pull out before the first elections would be irresponsible of us.

Sorry for also going of topic but I simply could not let that go, and I am prepared to accept whatever sanctions (if any) that might result from this action. but will bribes help? (See as I have said in other posts I feel personal responsiblity is universal though I never said I wouldn't try to beat the system )

edited to add something I missed, then edited again because I misread what I missed the first time :

Darn I missed something, thanks Moif



Actually, it was an attempt to point out how the leaders of all countries effect the world. My mention of your countries history was not meant as a slight against you or the UK, it was just a point to illistrate that all nations have the power to effect other nations.

The point is, that unless you feel it is perfectly OK for other nations to involve themselves in your elections because you country can and has had a negative effect on other nations at times, then as far as I can tell what you're really saying is that America is bad, and needs to be fixed by "us", yet no other country is bad and in need of fixing. Seems a bit biased to me.

Is nationalism wrong? Not in my opinion, though extreme nationalism can lead to extreme actions that harm others. Such can be seen at a soccer / football if you prefer game at least a few times a year in Europe.

I for one am proud of my country and my countrymen. That doesn't mean I blindly support anything my elected officials do, as should be obvious when one considers my stance on the Presidential election and the US political parties in general. It does mean that I will not accept "meddling" in US elections by other countries who would never accept then same "meddling" from us.

Hucker



What is it you think the Americans have imposed on the Iraqi's that they weren't already subject to for the last three decades?

For better or worse, the coalition, under US leadership has given Iraqi people the first chance they ever had (since Britain artificially created Iraq) of finally being allowed to determine their own future.

Even some one opposed to war on moral grounds cannot simply dismiss the possibility of a better future unless they themselves are harbouring feelings of anti American sentiments that they wish to express.


You say you have a duty. To whom might I inquire?



Then how does that reflect on you since you initiated this thread?
Does that make you nationalist?

Do you feel these negative views are indicative of America as a whole?

Of course not. I believe that, somehow, this mission on behalf of The Guardian attracted the most passionate... and ignorant of the US.

When I saw this letter, I laughed for a second... and then I put my face in my hand and only imagine how this is seen by the subscribers of this rag in the UK,



....The best and the brightest. As I do share this person's point of view (minus the historical innacuracy and expletives), I surely don't wish to be lumped in with those who share his "ugly American" attitude. So, no. I do not believe that this is indicative of American feelings as a whole. (To be honest, there were almost as many "thank you notes" as there were tirades so in essence the question is already flawed.)

That being said, I think the motives behind this scheme are biased and antagonistic.. This is a left-wing paper which appears to back Kerry. So as OS pointed out, there looks to be a lack of support for the system itself, as opposed to voting for someone.

As far as being antagonistic, what better way to stir up the pot and target a county (that was almost dead even in 2000) in a battleground state in the American heartland (where a lot of your conservatives would reside)? No matter if my suspicion is true or not, the motive of this project is certainly not in the best intrests of Americans.

Personally, I think they have no business tell me, or my neighbors (regardless of political affiliation) who they should vote for. You might as well have a Mexican newspaper tell Americans how to vote on illegal immigration inititives. And we certainly know what the British reaction would be (and it would be a just one) if we decided to sound off to them about who they should vote into Parliment.

The series of letters were a response to messages sent out from citizens of the UK, in an attempt to influence the vote of individual Americans. I am going on a leap here and assuming that the message was likely not very favorable of our current policies and president. So…I think these negative views are indicative of an average human response to criticism from an absolute stranger.

If I received such a message, I would have read it and either given back a polite response, or simply ignored it.... 90 percent likelihood I’d ignore it. On the other hand, a person who felt strongly would most likely respond negatively. How many people respond so well to criticism they thank the provider of the sentiment? Hint: FEW. So, no, those letters aren’t representative of Americans as a whole, they are representative of human beings responding to criticism from absolute strangers on their personal e mail accounts (or mailboxes, whatever).

I would say that if Brits truly want Kerry to win then they had better stop writing American's letters suggesting who they should vote for. As a stubborn society itself Britain should realize that telling American citizens how to vote is going to spark a counteraction. Americans are the exact type of people who would vote against their conscience if they felt they were being pressured to make a choice..just to make a point.

Please stay out of our politics. Any suggestion by a foreign nation on how to run our domestic lives will be rejected and rebelledagainst.......Maybe Iraq is more like America then I suspected.

Why not turn the question around and ask if the Guardian's attempt doesn't smack of "negative euroweenieism"?

If Brits, Franks, Gauls, Huns, Swedes, Swiss, Vikings, Danes, Angles, Saxons, Slavs, Estonians, Kiwis, Aussies, Brazilians, Samoans, Russians, Cossacks, Sikhs, or anybody else wants to influence our elections, there's two easy ways:

1) Do something stupid to *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** us off. (there's a word for this, its "meddling")

or

2) Move here, become a citizen, and then vote.

Which do you think is both wiser, and more moral?

The arrogance of the Guardian, which, btw, is legendary, is beyond the pale. And what's even more of a mystery is why anybody with half a notion of human nature would actually believe this would work. Do you REALLY think Americans are that stupid that we have to be "informed" about the attitude of the rest of the world?

And WE get accused of imperialism... sheesh!

1. Do you feel these negative views are indicative of America as a whole?



I think the expressions of resentment of an outside entity attempting to influence an American election are indeed pretty indicative of America and Americans as a whole. While some of these expressions are somewhat "creative" in nature and most Americans wouldn't express themselves in quite that fashion, I do think the thought process behind them is genuine and widespread across the political spectrum. At least I hope it is.

Americans of all political philosophies are for the most part fiercely loyal to their country, and proud of it. We have our differences in how we want to do things in this country to be sure, but I think those differences are born out of a desire from all sides to do what's best for America. As we have seen here in this forum, we fight among ourselves and at times can get downright nasty about it. But that fight stops at the water's edge and when someone from the outside starts messing with our internal affairs, there is going to be a pretty strong reaction against it from both sides of the aisle.

No. You will find the majority of Americans on these boards respect and appreciate opinions from everyone everywhere. I'm betting the swing voters populated within those final, important states are just fed up with this election. Any angry posts by them are probably out of frustration rather than anmosity at our European allies.

There are those, however, that do hate other countries with a passion. Their passion is shown by the bile they spew in letters, as displayed in your initial post. Remember, though, that it takes the passionate to write such angry things. The normal american doesn't care enough either way to write anything. Silence from the silent majority is indicative of what america as a whole feels. As you have already stated, they are largely apathetic or hold big opinions with little interest.

Ok, it's not entirely on-topic, but this is really interesting. America FREQUENTLY intervenes in the internal affairs of other countries; both in the form of private involvement and government initiatives. Yet for some reason the resentment this generates is either ignored or underappreciated. Just thought that was interesting...

In response to the question for this debate: the sort of vitriol that Hucker seems hung up on is hardly indicative, nor is it probative. The Guardian's efforts were obviously imflammatory, so it is no surprise that it would generate a heated response. It tells us nothing, except for the fact that people in Britain can be just as immature as people in Ohio.

The Guardian thing was satire - the paper new exactly what would happen when a group of left-wing British intellectuals wrote to Ohioans (?) telling them to vote for Kerry. It was really just a cheap way to try and increase readership of a paper whose sales have been slipping recently. The point is, that Americans write back a bunch of rude letters, calling us 'spineless limeys' or whatever - the Guardian prints them and then their readers get to feel morally superior to the massively more powerful country on the otherside of the Atlantic...


Personally - as a Scot - although who wins in the US is important to us - (as it is for the world ) in that the US policy affects everyone...we would never interfere with someone else's election! That would be shockingly rude....



The Guardian is NOT indicative of British public opinion as a whole. As I said earlier, its sales are in decline - the British, generally are fairly central politically, whilst the Guardian is very left leaning (a bit too Michael Moore-ish).

The point is, that, you make fun of Britain in your media, we make fun of America in ours. I wouldn't go and get all upset about it.....



(The thing with Britain is - we know how to really annoy you guys. Its fun - thats why we do it....this board seems to be a fair indication of how irritating you find it when the UK tries to tell you what to do....so, we would be failing in our duty as Brits not to take every opportunity to tell you. Annoyed Americans are funny. )

You're right. We are every bit as stubborn and I'm sure that the British public would of responded in the same manner as some of the replies the Guardian got. And if the public didn't I guarantee you the tabloid press certainly would of.
I followed this experiment with some interest. The journalists involved in no way expected it to get as big as it did with letters not only being sent from Britain but from all over the world. As a barometer of how important this particular US election is outside of the Sates it is quite telling.

I would also point out that in G2 it clearly states that these derogatory letters were in by far the minority. Most were polite whether grateful or insulted by the letters. (it's just that they're more fun to read )

I think the reaction and the comments made in here are far more indicative of people here in America. Hucker said some pretty inflammatory things and yet no one got disgusting..I know we got rules around here to keep us in line..but still I think the reaction this got here shows a lot.

I have most of my family in UK and jeeez I have heard this kind stuff for yrs and yrs and yrs...no need to get so worked up about it...Just everyday exchanges in my book..much like ...
"How's the weather...fine and yours? Well it was good until you Americans started blasting that space shuttle up ..it has an effect on our weather you know" <----the common responses you get when chatting with my nan

No. As you can tell from the responses in your link there are many who are grateful that our first cousins have taken an interest in this election. Maybe just a bit misguided but an interest none the less.

One of the great things about America is the Guardian could have workers near the voting locations handing out pro-Kerry literature. At least in my home state the only real law regarding this is you must be a certain distance from the actual voting machines. Other than their lover-ly accents voters probably wouldn’t notice they were English.

I have several British friends that I converse with regularly and hang out on English Football message boards. We Yanks are often accused of having no irony and we take things at face value. When many received this message from the Guardian I can understand why they couldn’t see the forest because of the trees.

To me the real message here is we’ve alienated our allies to the point where they feel it’s necessary to get involved in our election and rid the current administration. Obviously some didn't get the subtle message and felt differently.

While I applaud their efforts and concerns, there really is no place for foreigners in our election process. There are other ways to send us the message and unfortunately Tony Blair may get that message in the next UK election.

Edited for spelling (twice. )

Well, I opened the link, and I didn't see a commonality of opinion - there seemed as many letters expressing gratitude or polite disagreement as indignant or offensive anger.

On a lighter note, the thing that surprised me most was the almost universal American perception that the British have bad teeth. This may have some basis in fact, but the impression I get is that Americans assume that no Brit over the age of 20 has a single undecayed tooth in their head, or that toothbrushes or dental floss are looked on with suspicion as tools of the Dark Side or something.

Which made me laugh (displaying my wrecked dentition for all to see). Personally I blame the late Queen Mother - a public firgure with teeth made from green suede should never have been permitted to smile in public.



You're wasting your breath. I've been trying to point this out regularly ever since I got here. Americans get irony, sarcasm and all the other thinds we wind them up about. What they don't get, and don't seem capable or willing to get, is the concept of winding someone up itself.

My pet theory on this is that America was founded by Europeans, mostly British, whose ancestors fled persecution at home. Now, some of that persecution will have involved actual physical danger, for sure. But, I don't believe that the British national character has changed so much in the last 400 years that the vast bulk of it will not have involved mockery and what we euphemistically called "taking the mickey". People with an innately low threshold for mickey-taking will have been predisposed to think escaping to a New World was a good idea, and to have avoided indulging themselves in it when they got here.

In this, they ensured that in the 21st century, their New World descendents would not notice that Guardian articles like this were primarily a vehicle for the Old World descendents of their perscutors to laugh at them.

This idea, (and this post) will, of course, come across as colossally patronising to American readers, who may well feel an upswell of indignance. British readers will most likely think it's hugely funny. QED

Actually, thinking about it, I think the whole tooth thing is America's attempt to play the same game. For which you get an A for effort, but - really - the one thing more evident in the British sense of humour than mickey-taking is self-deprecation. You will have to do better than that.

The best tack to take to wind up the British is to play up to our real weak spots. Like, for example, that we're no longer important or even useufl.

The best response to this letter campaign that would really infuriate the letter writers would be to completely ignore it. Don't reply, don't even acknowledge them. To the British - the emotionally undemonstrative British, paying attention to someone is evidence that you respect them on some level. If you dislike or disrespect someone, you ignore them altogether. (Telling them you're going to do so doesn't work, as it acknowledges their existence.)

As Jaime perceptively pointed out, responding to a troll is to give them what they want - attention. (Which, given the opening post on this thread, makes me wonder why you posted at all, Jaime )

I personally don't have a problem with someone saying that they don't like the way something is going in America, but that's just me. I want the UN to be more involved in peacekeeping, if the United STates ever lets them. I'm as patrotic as the next person but i feel that America gets involved into too many things. We have way too many pots on the birner and now there all overflowing. Most Americans don't like it when another country try to get involved in our business so we should stay out of theirs.

I just finished reading the following article on Slate magazine about the influence a letter campaign started by British readers of the newspaper "The Guardian" had on the one Ohio county.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109217/

A few of my favorite portions of the article are the following...



I guess this will probably spell the end of "The Guardian" getting involved with american voters. The message seems to be....BUGGER OFF!

Do you know what "bugger off" means? The British do:
Urban Dictionary definition of "bugger"

Kindly watch your language. Some of us know what this means. Suffice it to say, "Mind your own business," or "Leave us alone, foreigners." Isn't that what you really mean?

It was within the right of the Brits to try to influence the election. God knows the leadership of many countries have sought to influence U.S. elections before. This was a quaint effort to do so, and I highly doubt that anyone was really hurt by these letters. Where's our sense of humor?

But I'll tell you: the crude responses Americans sent back probably didn't help international relations, either.

Paladin...

I'm sorry if I offended your sensibilities...I mean that in the most sincere way possible.

I put in the word because i've heard the phrase used before both on AD and in other settings by British and I was trying to have a little fun with the English using one of their own phrases.



I guess the English are the only ones we can assume were trying to be "quaint" in an effort to be funny?

Again, my apologies.

Apology accepted.

I did not think that you were aware of its meaning.

I am not guiltless when it comes to coming across less than civilly. Although my choice of words would have been different, if I were a Bush supporter in Ohio getting that kind of letter from a Brit, I would have probably put the writer in his place. Instead, I found it somewhat amusing because I was a Kerry supporter.

My question is as as follows:

1. Do you feel these negative views are indicative of America as a whole?

My view is that they are widespread, though perhaps more eloquently expressed, and dressed in a garb of conservatism.

[/quote]


I honest to goodness about fell over after reading the caption: "Dear Limey......" I believe that the sentiment regarding foreign interference inour elections is correct. The voracity of the view is not as widespread. Personally, I see nothing wrong with them sending comments to our voters, at the same time, they shouldn't be surprised that a few letters would be more "lively" in content.

1. Do you feel these negative views are indicative of America as a whole?

Of course not, any more than the views of The Guardian are indicative of Britain as a whole.




It is an interesting point though - if another American tells you how to vote and gives you the reasons why, is that better or worse than someone from another country telling you how to vote - and giving their reasons why?

Either way someone else is interfering in your affairs. I think it is interesting that a British writer expressing his opinion is somehow very much worse than an American writer doing the same. You could argue that the American writer has a more valid claim to expressing his opinions - but we're all liberal democracies here - if we are countries that claim to share universal values such as the freedom to express ourselves, then the right of a Briton to express his or her views should not be any less than the right of an American to do so.

Secondly- IF America was an isolationist country that was NOT the only superpower and actively spreading its culture, influence etc across the globe, then there would at least be some (small) weight behind the argument that other nationals should keep out of its affairs.

However as everything America does has large ramifications for people all over the world, then isn't it acceptable that they should try to influence the vote using whatever (reasonable) means at their disposal?

I suppose a crude precis of my argument could be:
'We'll stay out of your affairs when YOU stay out of ours!'

-- I did say crude--

To add to Ptarmigan's point, it should be pointed out that the American President (whoever it is) now automatically claims the title of "Leader of the Free World". This is nice unless you happen to be one of the non-voting non-US citizen members of the "Free World" that doesn't get any say in who their defacto "leader" is.

Its also insulting to have a man with no foreign policy experience, who didn't even have a passport until he became president lean across the podium and lecture other world leaders including your own about the way the world works. So, "blowing off steam" and writing a few letters to voters in Ohio that don't seem to care as much as you doesn't seem too over the top.

1. Do you feel these negative views are indicative of America as a whole?

... Are they? Nope.

America's Debate has proven to be a place where a wide variety of opinions flow. I have no reason to believe that the rest of the world is any different. However, I'd like to say I was shocked at some comments made at British people.

I most certainly understand your feelings. I'm not of the political leanings that those people possess by any means. At the same time, I believe the contempt is mutual. Being given wrong directions in Paris, having some triple-layered-dyed punk in Germany burn a flag or the statue of liberty in effigy-all examples of how the ugly side of their respective nations are just as bad as ours that picked up their pen to respond.

Thank you for your response, Nebraska29. I know what you are talking about, since my wife (she's American) has been exposed to the scorn of French people (my own folk!) many times.

I just can't bear bad comments, wherever they come from. They are so ignorant and hurtful. In that sense, AD is a good place to have a civilized debate!

I don't think it's really fair to make any judgements on these letters without knowing their motivations. We can only see the responses here, not the letters they were responding to. That's a bit one-sided, isn't it?

Letters from 3 prominent Britons

I missed this when it actually happened - but the Guardian asked its readers to send letter to Clark County offering advice on who to vote for (the Guardian is quite left wing, so this means 'Kerry')

An explanation of the project

Why non-US citizens should get involved

Its all detailed on the Guardian website, but I hope these links helped!