Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who Is Responsible for the Progressive "Enthusiasm Gap?"
If you believe there is an "enthusiasm gap" right now between a demoralized progressive base and a mobilized conservative base (and I certainly believe there is), then the logical question is why? This is a source of endless debate between two camps.
One one side are Democratic partisans who insist the gap exists because some progressive activists and media voices (ie. the so-called "Professional Left") have been too critical of the Obama administration and too insistent that President Obama fulfill - or at least actually try to fulfill - his basic campaign promises. The underlying assumption on this side is that Democratic voters are largely stupid fools who simply follow voting orders from a handful of activists and media voices - and because those activists and media voices aren't more enthusiastic, those lobotomized voters are reflexively reflecting that lack of enthusiasm.
On the other side are those progressive activists and media voices who say progressive voters are demoralized because the Obama administration hasn't fulfilled - or even tried to fulfill - it's most basic campaign promises (for a good list of those broken promises and positions where the Obama administration is worse than the Bush administration, see Glenn Greenwald's recent post here). This side sees voters as fairly intelligent - or, at least intelligent enough to make voting decisions based on an analysis of concrete issues, rather than simply on orders from activists and media voices. As just one example, this side sees this story in the New York Times about union members being unenthused about the election as a reflection of those union members' displeasure with the Obama administration's weak economic policies and failure to champion the Employee Free Choice Act - not as a reflection of those union members being under the mesmerizing spell of the tiny handful of bloggers, columnists, activsts and MSNBC hosts who have dared to report the inconvenient truths.
I, of course, happen to believe that the latter side is correct, and I believe that because I think A) Democratic voters are pretty smart and B) the handful of progressive voices/activists that have substantively criticized the Obama administration have far less power to shape public opinion than the national Democratic Party machinery, the White House political apparatus, and the bully pulpit of the presidency. The idea that, say, Glenn Greenwald or Jane Hamsher or Bill McKibben or Rachel Maddow or me or anyone else slandered as the "Professional Left" is somehow responsible for public opinion trends among the national Democratic electorate - and the White House, the Democratic Party and others are not - is, to put it mildly, quite preposterous. Sure, it's nice to imagine a world where principled progressive voices have as much or more public opinion power than the President of the United States and one of the two major political parties (not to mention their big corporate backers), but, alas, that's not the world we live in.
That said, even if you believe otherwise - even if you, in fact, believe that a handful of progressive activists and media voices are responsible for the enthusiasm gap - we should all be able to agree that the White House is exacerbating that enthusiasm gap by telling Democratic voters that its demands for promises to be fulfilled are unacceptable.
That was the message from President Obama late last week at a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser at Greenwich, Connecticut home of (I kid you not) a fundraiser named Rich Richman:Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get - to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) If we get an historic health care bill passed - oh, well, the public option wasn't there. If you get the financial reform bill passed - then, well, I don't know about this particularly derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace and - (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are. (Laughter.)
As Firedoglake reminds us, the president campaigned on the public option and as president cited it as one of his three foundational principles for real health care reform. Let's also remember that the White House quietly negotiated away the public option and cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry to weaken the health care bill. Let's remember, too, that the White House openly fought progressive efforts to seriously reform the Federal Reserve bank - one of the key actors in the market meltdown. The president also abandoned the cause of the Employee Free Choice Act, and, of course, didn't just fail to achieve "world peace," he massively escalated the Afghanistan war.
It would be one thing if the president acknowledged all of those verifiable facts - and offered some sort of explanation, however tortured. At least then, there would be some narrative telling Democratic voters why all of this (supposedly) had to happen, and why we should continue to believe Democrats will, eventually, fight the good fight. In other words, there would at least be a story that might attempt to counter the enthusiasm gap and build a case for voters to go out and vote Democratic in November.
Instead, the president has decided to not even acknowledge the legitimacy of Democratic voters' expectations - many of which he himself asked us embrace in his "real change"-themed campaign for the presidency. That's right, just as White House press secretary Robert Gates attacked the "Professional Left" a few weeks ago, the president has decided to make fun of Democratic voters who dare expect him to fight for the policies he promised.
As I wrote in an earlier newspaper column entitled "Whither the Sacred Campaign Promise," this tactic of denying the very legitimacy of expectations has become the standard political tactic of this White House. Rather than acknowledge expectations' basic legitimacy, this administration seems to think it can just tell voters that it either never made promises it clearly made or that voters are immature children the minimal things they expect. The calculation, as mentioned above, is that voters are so stupid and lobotomized they will submit to pure historical revisionism and brainwashing - they will, in short, feel crazy for even thinking more could be done than the White House is doing.
Perhaps this "these are not the droids you are looking for" strategy will work. Maybe it's true that effectively telling Democratic voters that they are idiots and are misremembering recent history will motivate those voters to vote in November. And maybe progressive activists and media voices are the idiots for saying that a better strategy to motivate Democratic voters (and, by the way, better public policy) is to simply fight harder for and deliver on the progressive policies promised in the 2008 election.
But I don't think so. I think voters are smarter than this and, therefore, that strategy is a way to exacerbate the enthusiasm gap. And I think those who say - and act - otherwise are the ones who will be responsible for whatever Democratic losses occur in November.
234 Comments so far
Show AllAnd progressives have been disenchanted with street demonstrations due to an increasingly repressive police state sometimes involving USA domestic surveilance by private israeli intelligence companies.
Voting Repug is like shooting yourself in the head.
Voting Dimo is like shooting yourself in the heart.
Vote third party, make a statement and begin change.
It's working for the Tea Bags!
gnken
Your right in one sense Glenn that it's working for the Tea Baggers, but the Tea Baggers are not voting 3rd party. They are supporting the Republican Party, but distroying the "Moderate Republicans", as the Progressives are sitting back and complaining of the results of the Obama administration and wont put candidates to replace the old members in Congress. Al Frankin is trying very hard to serve the Progressives and effect better policy, but if you all sit at home and dont' vote, Al Frankin could be voted out, and that is one example. If you folks don't vote then the Christine O'Donnell's are what your deserve.
There were numerous Progressives challenging conservative, incumbent Democrats in the primaries, and in each instance Obama sided with the entrenched corporatist against progressive change. Why try working for change in a party that's run this way?
Because if it isn't changed it will continue to be run that way.
Bottom line in my mind: we're all doomed unless or until we have publicly-financed elections, quit legally equating unlimited "money" with unlimited "free speech" (WTF?), and institute instant-runoff voting to give third parties a fighting chance in each and every election.
As it stands now, any freakin' multi-millionaire and a handful of their multi-millionaire friends can pretty much buy whatever political seat they want. Call it whatever you want, but it sure ain't democracy.
That is right there is only one party in the usa, and that is the corporate party..
The fat lady sang and it is over, the people lost..
Change you could believe in - that dog don't hunt..It is going to be along time
before the tea drinkers are going to fall for that crap again.
Myself I am hunkering down and have stopped buying anything that I do not need.
Starve the beast as best I can.
Support the Empire send your neighbors kids
Donny, I agree that publicly financed elections are sorely needed. I, for one, feel like part of the leftout minority that votes with my heart and mind immune to what the monied elites try to brainwash us on election after election. IRV could work but if money still has its way, then the monied elites could still twist IRV to their advantage. The primary focus should be on convincing people to think non-politically on the issues and taking and keeping the money out of politics as much as possible.
The problem is that the working class does not have power. Proposing solutions that would require the working class to have power in order to make happen - publicly-financed elections, for example - as a way for the working class to get power is merely fantasy - wishful thinking.
Imagine if the people in a city were starving, because all of the food was being stolen on the way in. Looking at that and then saying "oh, the solution is obvious! We just need to get food to people!" is not of any value. Sooner or later that becomes "we are for feeding people! Don't get us wrong! It just is not practical or realistic right now!"
Liberals and progressive love to make lists of brilliant suggestions for improving things - all of them effects - while completely ignoring the causes of the problems. "All we need to do is enact legislation to solve such and such." "I know, we can work to elect progressives to office and take over the party!" If we had any power to enact any legislation, to put anyone into power, the problems wouldn't be there in the first place.
Liberal and progressive politics then become a way for people to be "for" all of the right things, and feel good about themselves, while opposing what it would actually take to get any of those things. That inherent contradiction and hypocrisy is perfectly reflected in the current administration and party leadership. Everyone now wants to say "that isn't what we wanted! That isn't what we are for!" Yes it is. You have an administration that claims to be "for" all of the right things, but that opposes what it would take to get those things - just as is the case with most liberals and progressives.
Sad but true.
Sad, but not because it's true.
The poor have power. We liberal consumers have power. The only difference between people with power and people without is that people with power act in concert. If there are 6 people on the basketball court and they won't let me into the game, I can focus on how powerless I am, or I can come back with 10 of my friends and take the court. Or I can come back with 30 of my friends and take the court and the first 6 will never come back again. Some time around the Nixon resignation our team surrendered the court. I guess we got tired of basketball and wanted to try new things, or at least we got tired of having to hold the court when it seemed like the other guys weren't coming back. But just a few years later, since politics abhors a void, new teams like the Christian Coalition came in, and kept inviting more players while we continued to stay away from the playground. Now we're complaining that the playground is closed, but it's not. It's just that one or two of us at a time can't get in. If we come back with a thousand, there is no keeping us out. Moral of story:
ORGANIZE !! Stop right this second trying to analyze the nuances and relative strengths of organizing's components. That's not your job right now. You can get back to that later. The first thing you do is call 10 of your friends and ask them to come over Wednesday night at 7:30.
Sirota, stop wasting your energy Get on a bus....there are 300 plus gassed up guzzlers going to Wash, DC for rally at Lincoln Memorial for jobs, peace and justice...all the old but new stuff. TWA prez expects 200,000. Would you settle for 100,00???
OH I FORGOT......WE NEED A F.....n Third Party to finally implode the one party duopoly MIC monopoly!!!
"The first thing you do is call 10 of your friends and ask them to come over Wednesday night at 7:30."
I don't have that many friends plus I think the Colorado Rockies are playing an extremely important game that night, one with PLAYOFF IMPLICATIONS!
I have to disagree with you here on a couple of points. The people in power are whoever was fortunate and/or ruthless enough to claw their way to the top in a mad chaotic competitive frenzy. That is the problem - Capitalism is a society - a set of social conventions and arrangements - that is a mad scramble for power, with power - the ability to control and dominate others - being a matter of cornering access to resource and amassing capital. A minor, but I think important point.
I also can't agree with describing people as consumers. I reject the implication that society is or should be a market and that this should be the basis of our social relationships with one another. Again, a minor point.
I agree that the working class - potentially - has much power. We don't have the power right now, because we don't have the organizations needed.
I agree that sometime around the Nixon administration we surrendered the court. It was 1970 and I remember it well. It seemed to happen overnight. The change was that people started talking about working within the system, rather than from the outside, and started talking about personal decisions and choices as a way to effect change rather than through mass organizing and resistance.
I absolutely agree with and wholeheartedly support your ideas about meeting in small groups.
The Republican establishment did the same thing with the Tea Party candidates, from what I read, in most cases. Certainly was the case with O'Donnell.
It is a total waste of time to try and change either corporate party. Democrats and Republicans work for the New World Order---that is Neo Fuedalism. A society with only two groups---the royalty (extremely rich) and the serfs (us).
We need many new political parties and public finance for qualified candidates to change this. Don't hold your breath.
There is no "progressive enthusaism gap". People are not stupid, they know the fix is in and there is nothing that can be done. Well really, maybe with the destruction of our public school system and the complete control of the media we are stupid. What ever the reason, we are in a failing nation and our democracy has died. Most of us think there is nothing we can do. We are depressed and scared.
Al Franken has no election to contest in 2010.
Actually progressives did challenge conservative democrats in the latest round of primaries and won, but the Plutocrats' Propaganda Machine, AKA the media, ignored this to continue to keep us all focused on the Tea Party.
They have far more money and media than us, so primaries work for them better than it does for us.
Al Frankin supported Iraq so he isn't a very good example.
If you take teabaggers to be the religious right as I do, then you'll know that they have elected not to vote for many moderates in the general election the most famous example being George Bush SR.
Enthusiasm can be encouraged and it is infectious.
The best way to squash it is to say no one is interested or doing anything.
Let's stop listening to the truism, nay the lie, that the left is dead, has no enthusiasm , has no leadership or unity and is not active.
Be enthusiastic and others will become enthused and motivated.
It's that easy.
Cheers. :D
They aren't a third party, just the nascent part of the reactionary party.
obama is a classic yuppie scumbag!
more concerned w/ hanging w/ his rich buddies than delivering real change......
which is why the propressives are "retards"
and the goldman sachs - citicorp vampires are called "savvy businessmen"
the ONLY hope the democrats have is that the rethugs will nominate a bunch of wacked out teabaggers - and what a winning strategy that is......
but obama dares not piss off the professional moneied elite cause he wants his 1 million speeches after his time in the white house.....
You are exactly right.
Obama is far from the savior that some progressives had hoped for. His deeds speak louder than his words.
There's lack of enthusiasm because there is NO opposition to the corporate party with its two wings, Democrats and Republicans. Progressives should abandon both these parties and look elsewhere for real change.
"Obama is a classic yuppie scumbag!"
Oh, you are so right. That is exactly what he and his wife are.
They got all dressed up yesterday and got their pitcher took on their way to church; therefore, they must be credited for setting a positive, moral example for all Americans.
Workin' hard; makin' progess.
they are among their fellow blacks and all people that have been either dispossesed or suffer class war the examples of people who say:
"we got ours. phuck you all".
Well, he's one of THEM now.
Squabble. Our situation is far more grave than what's discussed in this debate. See you all in hell.
"See you all in hell."
We're already there.
Hell could actually be quite an upgrade, if The Religious aren't allowed in.
It's not that the Democratic party, and Obama in particular made compromises to govern. We understand that. We even understand that the president may be unable to deliver what he fights for. We know that he has a whole nation to govern. It is that the point where compromise began, the concessions made to "political reality" started at a point which already, before the fight, excluded us. The Democratic party has not just disagreed with me and my "progressive" views, it has dissed me and distanced itself from me by disavowing any consideration of my side of these issues. The disrespect that the Democratic party showed to us as Single Payer advocates for example has made it clear to us that we have been disavowed, disregarded, and disrespected (all those Rahm "f--king morons" comments.) I don't forgive and I don't forget and I remember what was promised. It is in this light that I and many others feel betrayed. There is more than a "lack of enthusiasm" for the Democratic party. there is anger and hurt and an abiding feeling of being disrespected and disavowed. In all their actions they have shown me they do not want me in their party. They want me quarantined in a Democratic Socialist Leper colony so that I don't infect them. AND I HAVE REACHED THE POINT WHERE I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THEIR PARTY EITHER. As for Novemeber, let the crazys win and after unemployment soars past 20 percent and both parties are discredited in the public's eyes we might begin a real discussion about where we want this country to go.
"As for Novemeber, let the crazys win and after unemployment soars past 20 percent and both parties are discredited in the public's eyes we might begin a real discussion about where we want this country to go."
After two wars of choice, government wiretaps and mass surveillance without warrants, government sanctioned torture, rendition and imprisonment without charges, and a depression, people are still saying let the republicants run things into the ground and then things will be so bad "we might begin a real discussion about where we want this country to go." If it hasn't happened already, what do you think it would take to bring about that 'discussion"?
When unemployment gets so bad that there are riots in the streets, they will shoot the rioters, impose martial law and Fox will be asking you to report on your neighbors. Things won't get worse before they get better, they'll get worse before they get even worse than that.
Oh, if it gets that bad the rich will become more than a little uncomfortable in their gated compounds, as they did in the thirties. Look for them to start emigrating before that-- or has that already started?
More than just the wealthy are emigrating. Many in the middle class have fled.
I would have emigrated years ago, had I been in a position to do so.
Just give me a chance, and see how fast I can get packed.
Today's middle class was yesterday's poor class so I'm not so sure the middle class are really emigrating. Some of them wanna be rich and as GwNorth once said, the "next ones behind the curtain". But whatever middle class means anymore and whether or not I am one though I think I am, I don't plan on moving. There are too many countries to choose from and one has to take time to prepare to get used to the way of life over there. On top of that, this empire has some control or influence over each and everyone of them.
Hi, Max!
Long time, eh? I've been immersing myself in music, not politics. (I'll bet it's been great for my blood pressure, though I don't really track it.) It certainly puts me in a much better frame of mind.
My apologies for the lack of proof-reading here, but it's late, and I need begin an attempt to draft a coherent letter on a topic I know very, very little about - and to an expert. Wish me luck, would you?
If you think about it, just moving to another region of the U.S. can require a great deal of adjustment. I lived at Fort Bliss, TX; then Lake Zurich, IL; and then a blue collar neighborhood on Chicago's Near West Side. Every move required a lot of adjusting - though the move to Chicago required far more than going from 'small town' TX to small town IL. That was true even though I was just a little kid and naturally didn't deal with much of the broader society.
As I believe I told you, a friend enrolled his entire family in Swedish language classes and then emigrated to Sweden some years ago (to practice medicine as he thought it should be practiced). One of the things they had to adjust to was a wider acceptance of individual nonconformity. Here in the U.S., I hear a lot of talk about 'individualism' - but it doesn't seem to encompass anything truly individualistic. The nonconformist is an outsider in most parts of the country, based on what I've read and been told by numerous people who have lived in a wide variety of American towns and cities. (Of course, this varies from area to area.)
There are some great alternatives out there.
New Zealand: You already (more or less) speak the language.
Australia: ditto, though I don't think it nearly rivals New Zealand, politically.
Lots of ex-pats have moved to Panama, where English may not be the national language, but is widely spoken, nevertheless - particularly in those ex-pat communities already established. (Last I heard, it was a great place to do your offshore banking, too.)
There are a number of ex-pats in Baja Mexico. No banking privacy (I think), but easy access - if you drive or have a friend there who does - to San Diego.
For myself, I would love to be able to emigrate to New Zealand or to one of several German-speaking countries: Liechtenstein, Austria, or perhaps Germany. (Don't qualify - and it isn't the language that stops me, though it would present difficulties.) Other interesting nations: Luxembourg, Brussels, the Scandinavian countries. I once thought of the Netherlands, but for some bizarre reason, it would appear to be moving rightward politically. Scotland intrigues me - perhaps just personal bias, as I am largely of Scottish descent - but the U.K. seems to be moving rightward politically, and Scottish devolution is still a mystery to me. (Great health care in these nations, too.)
The middle class: a rather amorphous group, really, but restricting the focus to economics: Reuters quotes a conservative economist as stating that the middle class is those with annual incomes of $25,00 - $100,000. Whether this is a commonly-accepted range, I don't know.
U.S. influence will wane, particularly if the U.S. continues on its current trajectory. We can't afford to maintain this empire, but how the nation will go about returning to its republican - small 'r' - roots, how long the process will take, and how bumpy the road will be are difficult to predict. As it stands, some countries are more immune to U.S. pressures. (New Zealand ranks pretty high on that scale.)
"Wish me luck, would you? "
Shall do and thanks for the thoughtful reply. You're right about moving region to region within the US itself though there isn't as much of anything new to get used to compared to moving to another nation. I have to visit Europe someday myself with my wife but we find the Far East more interesting.
Thanks in turn for your reply - and your good wishes.
Indeed, I think you are quite correct, and the extent and types of the differences between the U.S. and another country would be greater than one would find between regions of the U.S. But some of those are differences I would really like to need to adjust to. Greater acceptance of personal idiosyncrasies, greater secularism in government, broader world view, a dearth of belief in national superiority (or exceptionalism), national health care, and greater emphasis on privacy, social civility, and education. (Liechtenstein has no military!)
The Far East, though. You and your wife are more adventurous than I. May I ask which part of the Far East you find most interesting?
I hope I didn't lead you to believe I'd been to Europe. Never have been beyond the U.S. borders/ shores. Haven't been beyond the Illinois border in nearly a decade - and then it was only a day-trip to the Yerkes Observatory just outside Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.
Just once, at least, before I am too old to do so - or before I die, more likely - I'd like to hike the Austrian Alps and see Salzburg, including the Mozarteum. (Hmmn, my spell-check doesn't like the spelling of either of those. You've got to wonder.) And the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.
Don't have that draft finished - but I do have a *sort of* an outline.
Max and Photon, I had a lot to think about moving for good when I visited a few countries in Europe and then Russia and South Africa. Yes, it is a relief but the costs of living are usually higher and then the haunted feeling of living in a nation controlled or heavily influenced by the US makes me want to come back. The US could have been better than other nations on healthcare, education, civility, etc... but instead other nations get to laugh at us. More than the tourist attractions, what I loved about Europe was the way each nation despite its differences never gave up working things reasonably unlike here where everything is dysfunctional. I admit that I feel very jealous and angry at times that they have it so good while our nation won't even come close to trying. However, I would often channel that anger and jealousy towards convincing more locals out of their conditioned ignorance and trashing of the systems and lifestyles throughout Europe. The love for small and local trumps "too big to fail" unlike the US where it is the other way around.
P.S.: Photon, some people will say that Europe relies on the US military. Yes, that may be true but looking up close, they can actually do without the US military even without upping their own military spending. My only hope is that the "austerity" invasion doesn't succeed in ruining those nations with obscene military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy elites. Earlier you mentioned about some of the nations going conservative like the US. That may appear to be true on the surface but upon closer look, I didn't find that to be true. Most conservatives in Europe are nothing like the "conservatives" in the US and are even further to the left of the American "Left". In fact, examine the nature of conservatives, liberals, progressives, etc... there and you will find that the "right vs left" divide has no real meaning there. I have so much to say but I will have to return later and mention the rest when I am not as stressed out. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and welcome back. :)
Hi, Jennifer.
Interesting comments. You seem to be giving a better case for living in Europe than for staying put here in the US. Yes, I know that the US has enormous influence over the entire world. But many nations resist. Why would living in a nation heavily influenced by the US 'haunt' you and chase you home to the nation that does the influencing? What other countries did you visit? Russia and South Africa are not even on my radar, when it comes to a wished-for new home. (Croatia was becoming a hot-spot for ex-pats back before the financial melt-down. Don't know - or care - whether it still is.) Panama is certainly cheaper, though Hispanic America does not attract me. (I have no ear for the language.) I assume you are including neither taxes nor the benefits thereof.
My friend who moved to Sweden took a pay cut - (which would have been even larger, had he had the fee schedule of most of his fellow physicians) - loves the difference: your neighbors don't think you're crazy if you don't have more than one television (or if you have none at all), if you don't have a designer kitchen, if you don't have as many bathrooms as you have people living in your house, if each of your kids doesn't own more electronics than your parents do. etc. Indeed, they think you're strange if you do have such things. Houses are modest and older than most Americans would find acceptable. Not only did his pay come down, but his tax-rate went up. But the social benefits are enormous. And the intangibles are better: pace of life and the overall attitude of the people toward the social contract, the planet, and 'the good life.'
I also know that Europe is much farther left than the U.S. (Recall the skit from 'Beyond the Fringe.') That doesn't mean that Geert Wilders, for example, is not a nutjob who has a too-large following. (Hasn't the Netherlands been at the forefront of installing those 'peek-a-boo' X-Ray scanners in their airport?) Nor did it result in Tony Blair being willing to stand up to Bush, even though he knew that Bush's rationale for the Iraq invasion was pure fraud. (Don't forget that Thatcher-Reagan political love-affair, either.)
Not only would many American military bases not be greatly missed, but a growing number are simply not welcome to begin with. Ask the Okinawans, for example.
As for the cost of living, that depends. To begin with, I would be comparing it to Chicago, which is pretty darned expensive. You also need to take into account personal expectations and living style. For example, I have in my sights a very nice woolen winter dress coat, in a deep greyish blue. If I wanted to buy a similar item in a department store, I would have to pony up a couple of hundred or more. But my cost will be less than $30, delivered to my front door, because I am buying military surplus, (Belgian air force) - if I buy at all. My everyday coat was another such purchase, (French army surplus): heavy canvas, with a pile button-in liner, but baby-sh** green (olive drab to you). It's at least six years old, and I expect to wear it for another six, if not longer. (Sound un-American?) I also keep my home at about 60-65 deg in winter, and it was 82-85 deg this summer. (No air conditioning at all the previous 4-5 summers.) I don't have expensive electronics; even the most expensive, my computer, is minimal. I don't own a car, and I never have. (I don't even have a driver's license.) I rarely go out to eat, fast food or good restaurants. I usually cut my own hair, only occasionally indulging in a $5 haircut.
Keep in mind also your particular circumstances: one always spends more on vacation than one would for normal day-to-day living, if that country were home. (How much sight-seeing do residents do in any given month or year?)
Well, I am off to a (borrowed) DVD of Die Fledermaus (with Josef Meinrad!) and my dinner of linguini and white beans with red, yellow, and green peppers, all sauteed with garlic in olive oil. (Hungry?)
I have been to Sweden, Germany, France, and Poland as far as Europe goes and that because I had relatives and their friends. Sweden was one of my favorite countries to visit and yes, that small but local thinking was inspiring. The guys are generally sweethearts by nature as well. I wouldn't go all alone and I still feel guilty that they went through so much trouble to help cut down some of my trip's expenses but I have come to understand what they really meant and wished I could be like them. I met an interesting man, Vincent, along the way and he went to Europe 10 years ago with his parents. He and I have been in touch even after I came back to the states. He enjoyed living outside of the states but he told me how he sometimes felt the need to come back. He would wish that Europeans should be a little more American and then I would feel like scratching him like a cat for talking like that but forgive him along the way. He says that my acquaintance with him further encouraged him to come back and face the states like a man. I don't know how that happened. He did admire me for being one of those unique Americans and I told him that I wished I could have shared his luxuries in my adolescent years. He understands that I have a tendency to get very depressed when I lament about the heartland USA going more rustbelt while manufacturing keeps booming or at least stays strong throughout Europe thanks to people putting quality over quantity despite the expense. It will get interesting to see how things pan out for him back in the states after 10 years. He thinks that living abroad has given him the tender strength that could never be found in a macho driven society like the US. :)
"How much sight-seeing do residents do in any given month or year?"
The answer is not much except for my uncle and he only did it because our relatives came to the states for a brief visit. He took them around a few states out west (TX, CO, MT, CA). But then again, like most Americans he and I don't really come up with any real expectations on where to go for vacations.
"Well, I am off to a (borrowed) DVD of Die Fledermaus (with Josef Meinrad!) and my dinner of linguini and white beans with red, yellow, and green peppers, all sauteed with garlic in olive oil. (Hungry?)"
Now there's a healthy diet to be proud of. :)
Hmmn... In what way would Vincent like Europeans to be more like Americans? Are these real American qualities he likes, or just the illusion gained from movies? Given a little time here, I suspect he will miss Sweden greatly. Good luck to him. (Meant seriously, not sarcasm.)
Manufacturing. Many European countries have economic policies that keep manufacturing at home: few fans of outsourcing there, whereas here there are nothing but financial benefits to companies that outsource American jobs. We also allow manufacturers to accommodate Chinese demands for the patents to the items they manufacture there. The latest I heard of was the case of a car company - which one escapes me at the moment. They want to manufacture cars in China, and the Chinese told them that they would have to share all their green automotive technology in return for permission to manufacture in China. (File under "There ought to be a law!")
I've heard that Germany has an interesting labor law: workers must hold at least 50% of seats on boards of directors. Their unemployment during this recent economic meltdown was - and continues to be - much lower than ours.
We need to withdraw from NAFTA and GATT, to begin with. The people of Western Europe would never have stood for such disastrous legislation from their governments.
We need higher taxes for some, particularly for corporations. (Higher corporate taxes don't hurt European companies, but they also don't produce obscene wealth for CEOs, which makes it unpalatable for our greedy wealthy.) Tax incentives to hire Americans, rather than to outsource American jobs would be a start. Investment in infrastructure would get money into people's pockets, and those people - not the wealthy - would go out and spend. Without demand, there's no reason to manufacture, whoever does the labor. More generous unemployment benefits would help, too. Most Western European countries don't view their own people as disposable. The common welfare: that's *their* bottom line. Well, free-trader Larry Summers is *finally* on his way out; let's hope that bodes well.
Well, your uncle proves my point: most people don't do much in the way of sight-seeing in their own cities/ towns. An example: from my kitchen window, I saw the upper floors of the Sears Tower being built. I passed the building, or within blocks of it, numerous times. Never did I go up to the skydeck - never even considered it. Then some cousins came to visit, and I found myself in the line for the deck. (When I learned the price was $20, I slipped out of the line and met the suckers when they returned - something they found amusing.)
Dinner was good - but "Die Fledermaus" was better! Can't find much with Meinrad here. Seems it would require a purchase (or purchases) - at eBay or Amazon's German site, I suppose. (Does Amazon have an Austrian site? Something I'd have to check into, if I decided to part with the cash. My guess: you'd be referred to the German site.)
Vincent thinks that Europeans are too nice and could be a wee bit stronger but he isn't the macho type. He was in Sweden and later in Poland where he is at as of now but he hasn't given up thinking like a Swede. But then again, Poland isn't as bad as the USA. I have talked to him in the past asking him why he would do the insane thing of wanting to move to the states but then he would hit me back with the question of why I chose not to move to Europe aside from expenses and getting used to the different ways. My telling him that I had to stay in the US and be one of those to fight it out here so that the poison spreading to other nations might stop has motivated him into believing that it was time he applied what he had learned abroad. It is as if he wants to take care of some "unfinished business" he had in the states before his family and he moved for good. It must be his "use it or lose" moment. I need to talk to him some more about it. I'm with you on the taxes and manufacturing points. As for visiting, last year I had gotten into a big fight with my parents before I left but we are okay now. My dad can act silly when he trashes Europe but my mom has become more interested ever since I would tell her about what I had learned. She isn't as conservative as my dad so at least I can talk more without any senile jokes about Europe. But even among Americans taking a trip to Europe, most of them end up going to the American MNC-based restaurants such as Pizza Hut, watch TV at the hotels, or act so immature of showing off their pictures and videos. It doesn't surprise me that people living there continue to laugh at this nation. I used to have this strange feeling that I was getting laughed at even though I was not the typical American during the earlier part of my trip. I felt like a lost cat even though my relatives and friends living there assisted me. I don't know Photon but I just don't think I am ready to live in Europe. Riding the train to shop for groceries, getting good health care without having to worry about insurance issues or poorly trained doctors, watching instructors teach dynamically as if they were thinking more from their heart than their mind, students being allowed to self-develop, greater access to locally grown organic food, good employment in terms of pay, quality of labor, and basic benefits and so many good things make me very depressed since my family and relatives living in the US will never get to witness most of this. I think about my dad and others like him trashing Europe like mad but deep down they are unable to overcome the jealous feeling that the USA is in denial that they are being far more deprived and made unhappy compared to their brothers and sisters in Europe. I don't like to be harsh to the Obama worshippers or the Limbaugh dittoheads but sometimes I will get very assertive in trying to strike a nerve in their callous minds because I care that they stop misunderstanding and just grow up and embrace their values. I hope I am not sounding too confusing about this.
Sorry, Jennifer, missed your response till now.
If Vincent sounds like a foreigner, (that is, has an accent, etc,), he could encounter even greater resistance than you from right-wingers. After all, he can be told to go home to his 'Swedish socialist paradise,' whereas the worst they could come up with for you would probably be, say, to insist that you weren't there long enough to see the 'real rot beneath,' or some similar retort. (And, no, as you may have discovered, it wouldn't matter that they'd never been there at all.) Really, what right-winger would tolerate 'some foreigner coming here and telling us what to do'?
Yes, I've never understood why some Americans travel across the Atlantic, and then spend all their mealtimes in a BK or McD's - but then I won't travel a mile to the local joints.
I've sometimes wondered whether there might be some envy on the part of those right-wingers who so angrily dismiss everything European. Many, though, I'm sure are just too ignorant on the subject.
Yes, he does have a foreign accent but is capable of adjusting. If he does decide to move back because of feeling hurt by our insensitive Americans, I will accept it. However, he sounds like he is ready and I would feel like rushing to his defense where I could if I felt that he needed a backup. As for the ignorant tourists, I don't know which of them are rightwingers or otherwise but I believe that most USAns are afraid to get past their improper conditioning. I still hold high hope that Europe won't go the way of USA but if those countries do, I will never forgive the USA for what it has sunk to as if losing enough good voices in this country wasn't bad enough.
P.S.: Even Ralph Nader seems to have fallen apart today though I think he will write a better article in the next few days. ::(
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/24-10
Well, good luck to Vincent. I hope he understands just how vicious some on the right can be. I've never heard of such things in Sweden - but, then, I am no expert on Sweden.
I don't know either whether the American tourists to whom I referred are right-
wingers. The are ignorant Americans on the left, too.
One thing I'd like to ask you to chew on: I find the term 'USAns' utterly ridiculous. A people's national demonym comes from the name of their country. Is there another country with America in its name? I'm not aware of one. There's another with United States - but it's in Spanish, so no confusion, even if they chose to use it - but they didn't: they use Mexico > Mexican, just as we use America > American.
There definitely are other countries whose residents can call themselves American - but only with a designating adjective, mainly North or South, preceding American, and never to denote nationality. (Further, I've known a lot of people through the years who've traveled south of our borders - and the folks down there don't seem to want to be confused with the Americanos.)
I think you understand that I won't argue further, should you continue to use it, but I am pointing out the poor logic behind its use.
Moving might not be a bad idea completely. I was thinking of moving to Japan or India with my wife. Shimla in Northern India is her favorite since her parents came from there to this country even though she looks perfecly Caucasian. The suburban areas in Japan are also good. I too haven't quite been sure. I know you're young but even in my 40s, here I am still not sure. I like the way you're trying to get people to think like good natured Europeans but I'm afraid that this country is too lost a soul to pick up on it. Some of the Asian nations are going more towards USA than towards Europe on a lot of things but some Americans are learning some of those Eastern values too. I think that the USA will be mixing in more with Asian values than European values but I don't know for sure. But I like that spirit of thinking from you and your thoughtful posts on this site. Keep up the good work and we all look forward to hearing more from you.
"May I ask which part of the Far East you find most interesting? "
Of all the nations I visited, India, Japan, and Singapore I find the most interesting. Despite the stricter nature, there is a softer side which makes the US too rugged in pale comparison. China, Vietnam, and the Koreas were also interesting but not quite as much.
"I hope I didn't lead you to believe I'd been to Europe."
You got me there I'm afraid. I would love to visit as much of that continent too but my interest in exploring the Eastern cultures has made me think that Europe is too much like the US except on some obvious differences you mentioned. You mentioned secularism in Europe. My wife and I are in our process of converting from Christianity to Hindu after so much thoughts and our trips to the Far East. I would be interested in finding out how we will be looked at as Christians gone Hindus.
"Don't have that draft finished - but I do have a *sort of* an outline."
I look forward to reading it in the future if you get a chance to post it out there. Thanks.
Have heard and read more of Japan than either India or Singapore, though in college I had Indian classmates with whom I occasionally spoke before or after class.
Are you distinguishing between strictness and meanness? There definitely is an underlying mean streak in the US (generally speaking). In many cases, it goes far beyond just an underlying streak; there are a lot of just plain mean - even downright vicious - people. Some of the Europeans I have known have voiced their concern when they first confronted uncivil Americans. It's not that there are no uncivil [fill in nationality]s, but it is generally of a different caliber. It is all-too-evident in our politics, which is why I have been spending decreasing amounts of time and energy worrying about politics.
As disappointing as one might find it, one can not go everywhere and see everything. So all you can do is go where your own personal preferences/ tastes/ proclivities might lead you. Not everyone will agree with your choices. So what? They needn't follow you. I think I would prefer New Zealand or one of the countries I mentioned in Central- or Northwestern Europe as a possible home, (pure fantasy, I suppose). You think you'd prefer India. Personally, I don't see any fundamental disagreement: each to his own taste.
Is there a formal process involved in converting to Hinduism? something similar to converting to, say, Judaism or Roman Catholicism? Are there official, structured lessons, exams, etc.?
"You mentioned secularism in Europe.... I would be interested in finding out how we will be looked at as Christians gone Hindus." Do you mean, how would you be seen in Europe? I can't speak with any authority, but to begin, I am not aware of religion playing a real role in either public or private life, in the nations in/from which I have had contacts. I have known individuals who stated that they don't really care about others' religions. Religion is a private matter, and it is considered unseemly to make your private life too public or to poke your nose into others' private lives. Which is to say, it would seem, based solely on information from my contacts in some of these countries, most people would never know your religion, unless you made a point of telling them. It's not a question one ought to expect being asked as casually as is so often the case here.
Another aspect of secularism in Western Europe is the higher percentage of atheists, agnostics, and the unchurched that one finds here, and the utter nonchalance with which they are accepted. Once again, this is based only on what my contacts have told me.
What would they think of the specific direction, from Christianity to Hinduism? I don't know, but I suspect they wouldn't see it as particularly odd; and I am fairly confident that they would not see it as anything negative. This is interesting to me: while many of those nations really do have Christian roots, as opposed to the US, they are far more accepting of the various non-Christians than many of the citizens here. The American Chrisitian fundamentalists remind me of the old Gandhi quote: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
Ah, my letter. I have let it grow to too great importance in my own mind. The story is this: I found a site dedicated mainly to German lieder, songs of the Romantic era. (Think Schubert, Beethoven, Schumann, Wolf...) The site host posted a question regarding the the relevance of the songs to today's audience and enquiring as to how they could be kept fresh. He got a handful of replies, but no real response. (He may have gotten some partial response in a lengthy post written in German - but my limited familiarity with the language - and some use of my Cassell's - suggests not, or at least not much.) That was two years ago.
Now keep two sets of facts in mind. First, the host is a world renowned expert in the field; he's not just educated/ trained, but teaches master classes in voice at two of the most prestigious performing arts universities/ colleges in Europe. This fellow teaches professional singers, i.e., those who have already achieved some status. Second, there's yours truly, whose formal music training is essentially non-existent. I can recognize the eight notes on sheet music, as well as the sharp and flat symbols; and whole notes, half notes, etc. I can name most of the orchestral instruments and a few others. I can name and rank the male and female voice types and rank them from highest to lowest (at least, sorted by sex.) That's about it. So, given these two people, how does the latter attempt to write a coherent response to the former? I know what I want to say, but not how to say it. I can't write, "...the way XX rendered the word(s) 'xx' in his 19xx recording of 'XX'." You see the scope of my problem?
At any rate, my response mightn't be posted there, as I've decided to email him instead of posting my response on the board - assuming I manage to finish it. And it certainly wouldn't be posted here, as the topic is irrelevant. (I'm waiting for someone here to tell us to knock it off, as it is.)
"Are you distinguishing between strictness and meanness?"
Strictness and meanness in the US is generally more hidden and subtle compared to what you would find in the East. See, if I know what I will be facing, I can better prepare myself. Yuppie style capitalism vs an openly strict system is a good place to start.
"Is there a formal process involved in converting to Hinduism? something similar to converting to, say, Judaism or Roman Catholicism? Are there official, structured lessons, exams, etc.? "
Technically, one can't really convert to pure Hindu but by believing in more Hindu values over Christian values, the conversion process is felt. This means that I really am more of a Hindu with Christian clothing.
By the way, your interest in classical music fascinates me. I do think it will survive while the current modern music becomes more of a come and go. Your post on Europe's finest schools could make its way to some of the education topics on this site.
Ah, I thought you were making a distinction between the terms 'strictness' and 'meanness.' I'm sure you are aware, one can be strict without being mean - and vice-versa! Volumes could be written, I suppose, on the topic.
I agree. Firm economic and commercial regulation, steadily maintained over time, gives everyone the stable base necessary to make rational decisions about his own finances.
So the conversion process, as I understand you, is completely an internal affair. That's certainly as valid as any formal process. Probably more valid, in my opinion.
What is so fascinating about my interest in classical music? I know what fascinates, me, of course; but few people I've run into seem to find it of any interest at all. (I did meet a cab driver from Morocco who likes it, and he was thoroughly pleased to hear a song - I believe it was Eichendorff's 'Pagenlied' - on my mp3 player and to be directed to a (to him) new baritone. Other than him....
I listen to popular music occasionally - or, at least, it was popular in the '20s, '30s, and '40s. My favorite tenor is Richard Tauber. If you've never heard of him, that's not surprising: he died in 1948. Tauber sang opera, operetta, and popular music; and he composed music, as well. (There are a number of songs by Tauber on youtube. I found it difficult to wrap my mind around that, when I first learned about it.)
I don't know what to say about that last. The fellow in question does indeed teach at two of Europe's finest colleges of music and arts. I'm curious about what significance you find in it.
I have thought about your desire to read my letter. I truly regret that I can't share it with you in this too-public forum. I would have been interested in any editorial insights on the final draft that you might have been willing to offer. Schade. (Pity.)
I think you may have the kind of sense of humor to appreciate this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAkAW9uxxZ4
http://myweb.dal.ca/waue/Trans/Raimund-Hobellied.html
You may want to put both of these up on your computer screen simultaneously. The first is a clip of my favorite baritone (still very much alive - and singing!), and the second is the lyrics, in the original German and an English translation.
I'd be curious to know what you think.