Calling All Non-Americans (Not to Be Confused with Un-Americans)

[queerbychoice]

In a recent comment on my journal, Mikie suggested some revolutionary new methods for improving the American governmental system, including the following:

Americans should not be allowed to vote in American elections. Europeans should vote for the American government in their stead, until such time as the US media has become sufficiently freed from government controls and their schools wrested from the propaganda mill that the American public can even know enough about the world they live in to have a meaningful opinion about anything. This will also require that the Americans introduce a new system of government known as democracy in place of their bizarre two-party oligarchy.

It now appears that Mikie is not the only person to come up with an idea along these lines. In fact, Loz recently pointed out that there is in fact a website now conducting The U.S. Election for the Rest of the World: an election in which only people who reside anywhere other than the United States are allowed to vote on who should become the next U.S. President. Currently, Ralph Nader holds a small lead over John Kerry, and Bush is barely even in the running at all. Unfortunately my own preferred candidate, Dennis Kucinich, is handicapped by the fact that the website owner cruelly neglected to include him on the ballot until hundreds of frustrated voters conducted a write-in campaign to get him added, but now he's on the ballot. I'd like to help give him some more votes, but of course as an American living in America I'm not allowed voting rights in this election.

Are you a non-American? Or even, like Mikie, an American currently living outside the U.S.? Go exercise your voting rights! Vote in The U.S. Election for the Rest of the World, and show us Americans how voting ought to be done.

Comments

[jaq.livejournal.com]

It's all too confusing for me.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

But we Americans are counting on you to rescue our political system!

[imperfectmanx.livejournal.com]

We're non-American, though currently residing in the US. The Fiance actually also came up with the idea that the rest of the world should also have a right in voting for the American President, seeing how the American president seems to be nosing around in everyone else's business. Sure, Americans vote for who they think will be the best for their country, and their economy and their health-care and what-have-you. But rarely do they realise that their decisions are affecting the rest of the world way more than they should.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Hate to say it, but, for instance, the Czech television stations are far more directly under the control by their government than US stations are- there was actually a scandal a few years back in which the Czech version of the FCC was ragging on stations for their political content.

Moreover, Europeans know jack shit about the actual candidates- last time I was there, a whole lot of people thought that Arnold Schwarzenneger was running in a presidential election. And they liked him, because all they knew about him was that he was Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's true that non-Americans know more about American politics than Americans know about any other European country, but Americans know more about their own politics than Europeans do. Really.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

I don't at all doubt that Americans do know more about American politics than non-Americans, and some countries also do have a less free media than the American media - but Americans are also much bigger supporters of American imperialism than residents of most of the rest of the world. And I'm just saying: if it'll get the results that this website's election is currently getting, I'm willing to run with that.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

The point is, that if your grounds are that American media is controlled by the government, well, it would be sort of weird to have people with even -more- government-controlled media voting for the American president. Even if you restrict the group of voters to European countries, which are far more democratic than most other continents, a lot of those countries fail the "government not owning the media" test.

Then again, I despise Ralph Nader for reasons independent of the "stealing votes from democrats" phenomenon. So I guess I'm more willing to take issue with the strategy because I don't like the results. I'll admit I'd rather have Nader than Bush, but yeah. And probably when you include the billions of non-Americans who don't have Internet access, you'd get vastly different results anyway.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

I'm no Nader fan either, but I'm at the point where I dislike Kerry even more than I dislike Nader. And I can't really fault the non-Americans for not voting Kucinich when they weren't given him as an option.

And I'm saying that my grounds aren't that the American media is controlled by the government. Those were Mikie's grounds for suggesting the idea (or rather, a part of Mikie's grounds for suggesting the idea - another part of Mikie's grounds was just that non-Americans haven't been successfully trained into the idea that they have to always vote for one of the two major-party candidates in order not to throw their votes away, when the huge number of Americans fearing to throw their votes away is part of the reason why third parties have so little power), but not my grounds for liking the idea. My grounds for liking the idea was just simply that I liked the results. Or rather, I liked them as well as I could like any results when they only gave Bush, Kerry, and Nader as options.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Ok, this makes more sense. I still dislike Nader more than I dislike Kerry, but that might be because I'm trying to make myself like Kerry enough to vote for him in the November election. I'd happily vote for Kucinich if he got the nomination, too, though I'm pretty sure I didn't agree with either of them terribly much when I took that "which democratic candidate should you vote for?" test. I didn't even think I agreed with them more than I agreed with Sharpton.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

I really can't make myself like a guy who apparently "fell in love with the concept" (this is a quote from one of his friends) of offering the vice presidential nomination on his own ticket to pro-life Republican John McCain.

I am officially declining to decide who I will vote for this November until Election Day morning. I've done this twice before, once when I decided on Election Day morning to vote for Gray Davis in his first gubernatorial campaign instead of for the Peace & Freedom Party candidate, and once when I decided on Election Day morning to vote for Socialist presidential candidate David McReynolds against Al Gore in 2000. Both elections were painful and the lack of votes for the Peace & Freedom Party candidate against Gray Davis actually caused the Peace & Freedom Party to get thrown off the ballot for the next two elections, which was the most painful thing that's ever happened to my electoral experience. This November's going to be very painful too, unless Kerry gets a big enough lead that I can feel safe to just hate him freely.

[chisparoja.livejournal.com]

Hate to say it,

no you don´t :p

but, for instance, the Czech television stations are far more directly under the control by their government than US stations are-

no they´re not :p Czech TV actually criticizes the Czech government!

there was actually a scandal a few years back in which the Czech version of the FCC was ragging on stations for their political content.

the American ¨version of the FCC¨ did exactly the same thing a few years back, and a few years before that, and before that, and this year, and every year, and there was no scandal at all, and there never is! how about the firing of the reporter who did the expose on use of nerve gas in Vietnam? the banning of Michal Moore´s new documentary? the media laws in the US prohibiting journalists from reporting war stories without running them through the Pentagon for vetting first, or from visiting warzones not authorized by the Pentagon? the absurd denunciations of France and declarations by ¨fair and unbiased¨ news presenters that they were ¨Americans first, reporters second¨? nope, no scandals there.

someone accidentally filmed a woman´s breast? now there´s a scandal.

even when mainstream, processed, sponge-brained journalists started complaining at this time last year that the prohibition against criticizing the war in Iraq was, you know, wasn´t it kind of a bit fascist? it didn´t cause any scandal, except insofar as their bosses reprimanded them for -- what else -- bias and treason! as far as the 12% of Americans who even knew what happened -- since of course the American media did not report that it happened at all -- half probably went, ¨duh, some white guy in a suit with lots of money said that the reporter was being bad.... he must be right! bad reporter, bad!¨

Americans know more about their own politics than Europeans do. Really.

given that America´s ¨own politics¨ involve invading other countries and propping up fascist dictatorships willy nilly, i´d have to disagree. and for any other domestic issue that Americans even would know anything about after lifelong propaganda school, and that the media would deign fit to tell them about -- like, say, gay marriage -- they are also directed by the same media to have fifty year old opinions about, and people who don´t toe the Party Line aren´t ¨opponents¨ or even ¨dissidents¨.... they´re just weird, like having an opinion that differs from the media branded one is a kind of freakish mental condition they haven´t found an effective treatment for yet and how fortunate for the freaks that they live in America, and not some country that doesn´t tolerate the mentally ill.

you knock the media in the Czech Republic, but know what? the Czechs actually overthrew their cynical, oppressive government, and they have scandals about media control because they´ve preserved enough brain cells not to trust whatever information the government decides to feed them.

sorry to be so offensive, but quite frankly, i´m not saying anything the whole world doesn´t know is true.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

sorry to be so offensive

no, you aren't :p

I'm quite sure that the FCC didn't actually threaten to take away NBC's broadcasting licences a few years back, or ever, because NBC was criticizing the government too much. That would be the equivalent of the Czech broadcasting scandal. I am entirely aware that the media in America is censored, but in a far more indirect way, usually because the government hands out money to pretty much everyone. And I've watched Czech TV in Czech- they are really not more critical of the Czech government than American mainstream media is of the American government. They play racially offensive music videos during the morning news. It is not a haven of free-thinkers who are all smarter than those crazy Americans.

Moreover, the Communist Party continues to be the second most powerful political party in the Czech Republic. This is the same Communist Party, with the same peopel in it, that they supposedly "overthrew". And they wouldn't have overthrown it if it weren't for the fact that the Soviet Union had sort of stopped propping the Communists up. So of course they have scandals about media control at least in part because they automatically distrust the media, but also in part because the Communists aren't actually gone.

I love the Czech Republic, I have a lot of family there and loved living there when I did. I consider it "my country" and have seriously considered applying for citizenship there in order to live there and be closer to my family there. In fact the only reason that I specifically brought up the Czech Republic in this regard is because of all the foreign countries out there, the Czech Republic is the only one I feel qualified to speak of and criticize, because I've lived there and love the place. But I am honestly offended when it gets falsely glamorized by people who have, to my knowledge, never even visited the place.

Re:

[chisparoja.livejournal.com]

I'm quite sure that the FCC didn't actually threaten to take away NBC's broadcasting licences a few years back, or ever, because NBC was criticizing the government too much. That would be the equivalent of the Czech broadcasting scandal.

that is just my point. the FCC does not have to threaten to take away NBC´s broadcasting licenses for criticizing the government to much, because it does not criticize the government. it doesn´t have to threaten to shut down American broadcasters for publishing critiques of the government or of the American military, because the broadcasters themselves eliminate any criticism on their own.

the only vaguely independent broadcaster in the country is PBS, and it was condemned incessantly for years for broadcasting ¨unpatriotic¨ (American for ¨counterrevolutionary¨) programming and contradicting the ideology of the country, and it was threatened with being pulled off the air and has since gutted itself of any independent critical commentary it ever possessed to make itself more palatable to American government/corporate censors.

if an American broadcaster ever did bother to honestly criticize the government it would be shut down, the same way Michael Moore´s film has been banned from cinemas or any kind of distribution in the US.

I am entirely aware that the media in America is censored, but in a far more indirect way, usually because the government hands out money to pretty much everyone.

it doesn´t follow that something gets better for being caused indirectly when the effect is the same. the government hands out money on the understanding that broadcasters will portray it in a favorable light, avoid criticizing it in any fundamental way, or avoid portraying it in any light.

And I've watched Czech TV in Czech- they are really not more critical of the Czech government than American mainstream media is of the American government.

i believe you. but can you honestly say the Czech people are not more critical of the Czech government than the Americans are of the American government? come on. the us more resembles a flock of sheep than a democratic country, and it´s more comparable in practically every respect besides economically with Russian culture and politics than with any EU country.

also i did say europe in general, without focusing on the CR. i can attest for certain that the newspapers here in madrid, which are actually newspapers and not tabloids for one, even though i don´t always agree with what they have to say, have meaningful and thoughtful and varied opinions and criticism of the government all the time, and the people read it and inform themselves intelligently on what is going on. for example, the law against violence against women which is being debated now. i can´t in ten million years of dreaming imagine even in the most exemplary American city -- let´s say San Francisco or Seattle or New York -- the average person or the average newspaper having even a thousandth of the insight into the actions of their own government. i won´t even get into the alienness of people actually removing a government they don´t like to secure a political goal, and not mindlessly cowtowing to warmongering and scaremongering like there was nothing else in the world.

yes there are ignorant people anywhere you go, but come on, the US has cornered the market on the thing!

anyway, gotta go, closing the cafe. :p hee. :) nice arguing with you. ;)

Re:

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

I always fall in love with such good ranters.

I don't understand what you're saying about Michael Moore's film being banned, though. It was my impression that despite Disney's refusal to distribute it, he will still get it distributed by another company and it will still be shown in theaters just as widely as his last film was. I could be wrong, because I'm not following it entirely closely, but that was my impression.

Re:

[sammka.livejournal.com]

I think you have some good points. I do care more about direct influence than I do about indirect influence- it has to do with alternatives. One privilege that comes with being an American or other native speaker of English (or speaking another really widespread language, like Spanish) is that there are so many alternatives to mainstream media, all in your native language. If you don't like the mainstream media because the government has its fingers in it, you can read news from a lot of other countries, or blogs written in English, or all sorts of things, all in a language that you understand well enough to read really quickly with good comprehension. Unfortunately, in other countries, including a lot of European countries (not just the CR), that's not the case. Almost all Europeans learn a major language, that's true, but if you live outside of a city it's hard to learn it really well, since you don't have access to native speakers.

I agree though that the Czechs are far less sheep-like, but it's not because their media is better, it's mainly because Czechs are just far more cynical and bitter as a rule, and probably with good reason. I think the problem with Americans is not so much that our media sucks but that we don't take advantage of what we have. And I can assure you also that a significant part of why media conglomerates agree not to criticize the government is because people just don't want to hear about it. You have luckily not had to suffer through our recent week-long, 24-7 media barrage of how wonderful Reagan was- media conglomerates are trying to prove that they're not really liberal by talking about him ALL THE TIME. At one point my mother was complaining about it, so I told her "ok, so why don't you turn it off?" and she responded that actually as long as it was on TV, she might as well watch. It's this kind of sentimentality and vulnerability to hype that makes us suck so goddamn much. We're lazy.

It's nice arguing with you too. I sorry I got snappish earlier there. I try not to do that.