"Say the right things when electioneering...."
I have been completely mesmerised by the US Election.
I’d be the first to admit that I don’t understand the intricacies of the American political system, with all its checks and balances, senators, governors (or indeed governators), congressmen, District Attorneys, Mayors etc. etc…. but there is something beguilingly simple about the concept of the nation choosing between two people to decide who gets to be president for the next four years.
This time of course, there is extra spice brought about by the fact that we all know that last time this all came down to a few hundred votes in a single state. You could scarcely have a more potent illustration of the power and importance of every single vote. As a result millions of people are flocking to register themselves on the electoral roll – the polls already show it to be close, but these new voters could make all the difference one way or another.
The coverage that we get in the UK tends to have something of a liberal bias – George Bush is widely and routinely portrayed as some kind of incompetent half-wit. I think it’s fair to say that the majority of people over here have no understanding of how this man got elected in the first place, never mind that fact that he is standing again and has a very real chance of a second term (see the Guardian’s recent emails to the undecided voters of Clark County, and the angry response of the rather patronised and insulted residents and subsequent backtracking)
John Kerry is generally portrayed more sympathetically, but it dawned on me the other day that I actually know very little about any of his actual policies (other than that he is thought to be more pro-Europe than Bush, and that his stance on the war is different, but that he wouldn’t be pulling the troops out any time soon).
In fact, the UK coverage of the US election is rooted firmly in the electoral process and the candidates themselves rather than on the issues. We see discussions about the debates, and who came out on top, but we don’t hear about any of the issues. Usually we get to see footage of a lot of political rallies, with one candidate or another appearing with some celebrity or another… yesterday it was Kerry and Springsteen, and today it is Dubbya and Arnold…. Basically we just marvel at the amount of money being spent.
I have also been spending a good deal of time surfing around other blogs (using Blog Explosion) and there are a hell of a lot of political bloggers out there at the moment. This election is certainly raising a lot of passion, both inside and outside of the USA.
One thing I can say for sure, is that I don’t envy you the choice. There is no way on this wide world that I would vote for George W. Bush – so I guess that would make me a Kerry voter. Isn’t he just a lump of wood though? It’s all very impressive that he served in Vietnam AND can show a picture of himself campaigning for peace with John Lennon, but I just can’t escape from the fact that he married into money not just once, but twice… and can man from this background really claim to be representing the whole nation (although that can probably be said about any political candidate ever)/
I know that Britain has a strange and fairly incomprehensible electoral process, and that we don’t exactly have MUCH choice, but for the election of the “leader of the free world” this is all a bit depressing.
… and I’ll watch it all with bated breath.
Bartlett for America!
----
I will stop, I will stop at nothing.
Say the right things when electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
Ha ha ha
Riot shields, voodoo economics,
it's just business, cattle prods and the I.M.F.
I trust I can rely on your vote.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
I’d be the first to admit that I don’t understand the intricacies of the American political system, with all its checks and balances, senators, governors (or indeed governators), congressmen, District Attorneys, Mayors etc. etc…. but there is something beguilingly simple about the concept of the nation choosing between two people to decide who gets to be president for the next four years.
This time of course, there is extra spice brought about by the fact that we all know that last time this all came down to a few hundred votes in a single state. You could scarcely have a more potent illustration of the power and importance of every single vote. As a result millions of people are flocking to register themselves on the electoral roll – the polls already show it to be close, but these new voters could make all the difference one way or another.
The coverage that we get in the UK tends to have something of a liberal bias – George Bush is widely and routinely portrayed as some kind of incompetent half-wit. I think it’s fair to say that the majority of people over here have no understanding of how this man got elected in the first place, never mind that fact that he is standing again and has a very real chance of a second term (see the Guardian’s recent emails to the undecided voters of Clark County, and the angry response of the rather patronised and insulted residents and subsequent backtracking)
John Kerry is generally portrayed more sympathetically, but it dawned on me the other day that I actually know very little about any of his actual policies (other than that he is thought to be more pro-Europe than Bush, and that his stance on the war is different, but that he wouldn’t be pulling the troops out any time soon).
In fact, the UK coverage of the US election is rooted firmly in the electoral process and the candidates themselves rather than on the issues. We see discussions about the debates, and who came out on top, but we don’t hear about any of the issues. Usually we get to see footage of a lot of political rallies, with one candidate or another appearing with some celebrity or another… yesterday it was Kerry and Springsteen, and today it is Dubbya and Arnold…. Basically we just marvel at the amount of money being spent.
I have also been spending a good deal of time surfing around other blogs (using Blog Explosion) and there are a hell of a lot of political bloggers out there at the moment. This election is certainly raising a lot of passion, both inside and outside of the USA.
One thing I can say for sure, is that I don’t envy you the choice. There is no way on this wide world that I would vote for George W. Bush – so I guess that would make me a Kerry voter. Isn’t he just a lump of wood though? It’s all very impressive that he served in Vietnam AND can show a picture of himself campaigning for peace with John Lennon, but I just can’t escape from the fact that he married into money not just once, but twice… and can man from this background really claim to be representing the whole nation (although that can probably be said about any political candidate ever)/
I know that Britain has a strange and fairly incomprehensible electoral process, and that we don’t exactly have MUCH choice, but for the election of the “leader of the free world” this is all a bit depressing.
… and I’ll watch it all with bated breath.
Bartlett for America!
----
I will stop, I will stop at nothing.
Say the right things when electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
Ha ha ha
Riot shields, voodoo economics,
it's just business, cattle prods and the I.M.F.
I trust I can rely on your vote.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
posted by swisslet @ 13:07
5 Comments:
At 2:23 pm,
LB said…
it's very close, though, and people are getting extremely excited/agitated/angry about the whole thing. It's a bit like the UK, there are areas which basically always vote pretty much the same way and so the whole thing tends to be decided only by a few areas (our "marginal seats"). What is interesting this time round is that some of the areas that have seen a large population increase (and therefore are allocated a greater number of electoral college votes) are in the Bush areas. Surprised? No, me neither.
At 2:53 pm,
Teresa Bowman said…
Heheh. Must be National Radiohead Week or something.
All the media coverage of the US election is just making me angry - but then, media coverage of *anything* tends to get me angry. Basically it seems to me to come down to a) personality (John Kerry not appearing to have any to speak of, and George W making like he's everybody's best buddy) and b) East Coast intellectuals and members of indie bands trying to encourage people to vote for Kerry while the ordinary everyday people in Texas and suchlike wouldn't dream of voting for anyone but Bush, and probably wouldn't take kindly to an East Coast intellectual or a member of an indie band wagging their finger at them and telling them who to vote for. (Understandably.)
Personally I think the presidency should be decided on the outcome of a game of poker. It can hardly make things worse than they already are.
At 4:03 pm,
John McClure said…
Get Your War On sums it up nicely with this I feel.
At 4:19 pm,
Teresa Bowman said…
I only just now followed up your links to the stuff about the Guardian's e-mailing exercise (which I hadn't heard about until now - the only paper I tend to read these days is the NME) ... jeez. What a stupid thing for a British newspaper to do. I used to have a certain amount of respect for the Guardian but I have to say it's taken a severe knocking now I've read that.
At 5:57 am,
Aravis said…
Each of these branches is accorded equal power: Congress creates laws, the Executive branch (which the president heads up) enforces the laws, and the Judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the law fairly and impartially. The responsibilities and abilities of each are intertwined so that none of them has more power than another. Congress and the president work together to create laws, balance budgets and make appointments. The Supreme Court interprets the laws and uses our Constitution as the basis for most of their decisions. They can decide that the laws created in Congress or a presidential act are unconstitutional and illegal, and therefore overturn them.
As for last election, Gore won the popular vote, Bush (arguably) the electoral vote. These are not the same thing, and it's the electoral vote that counts. The popular vote is the actual votes cast. The electoral is a collective thing. Personally I think we need to get rid of this antiquated system whose reason for existence itself no longer exists, namely the difficulty of traveling to more remote parts of the US at the time of its inception.
We are also supposed to have more than two choices for president at election time. Actually we have three this year; Nader is running even though he doesn't have a prayer. We have more than two political parties. Over the past couple of decades however the other parties have been marginilized and forced out of the limelight. They are no longer invited to the debates since the management of the debates switched hands. The don't receive the same financial support, especially since the country has become so polarized between the two main parties. This is what Nader is fighting so hard against. I'm not voting for the man, but I do admire what he is trying to accomplish by campaigning.
Sorry if I bored you. You just seemed genuinely interested in what is taking place here and in trying to understand how we got ourselves into this situation. This was just a surface explanation but I fear still more than you were probably looking for.
Happy remote election viewing!
Post a Comment
<< Home