BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Guardian's 'Operation Clark County'

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Ganesh
08:48 / 18.10.04
I must've missed this when it was launched in last week's Guardian, supposedly in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence's pledge to show "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" - but also, one suspects, at least partly in a spirit of mischief. In brief, one could arrange to be sent names and addresses from the voter's roll, and then write to them individually, making a "courteous" case for this or that candidate - presumably primarily based on one's individual opinion of US foreign policy.

As I say, I'm a little suspicious of the Guardian's motives here: for all their provisos and exhortations to empathise with Ohio voters getting an overseas lobbying letter out of the blue ("think about how you would respond if you received a letter from Ohio urging you to vote for Tony Blair - or Michael Howard"), they must've been aware of the most likely response.

Given the US's long history of attempting - covertly or overtly - to influence the power structures of other countries, it's rich that even the gentlest "meddling" in US affairs is seen as such a cultural turd-in-the-piano. Of course, since the outgoing letters are not printed, we've no idea whether individual Guardian readers actually heeded the advice that "charm will be far more effective than hectoring" - or whether they just patronised instead...

Did any Barbeloids take part in this project? If so, what did you write - and what kind of response did you get?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:01 / 18.10.04
If they just patronised, they'd only be following the example of the Guardian's prominent Britons. Richard Dawkins in particular seems to think that perhaps he'll convince some undecided American voters if he feeds them a load of hyperbolic flattery - "there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world" - then again, he may really believe that, which is more worrying.

I find the whole project... misguided.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:25 / 18.10.04
Misguided and a little silly, but presumably born from genuine frustration and a feeling of impotence.
 
 
Eloi Tsabaoth
10:36 / 18.10.04
Hullo!
I'm a Guardian reader from the UK. Just a few things first:
1)You won the war of Independence. Good for you!
2) I have nice teeth. People have commented.
3) I do like tea but have been known to consume other beverages.
Anyway, please vote for Kerry. Please please please.
Love and hugs,
Bizunth
PS Please.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:50 / 18.10.04
You missed out the war of 1812. That's another pressing issue, clearly...
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:28 / 18.10.04
Buttock-clenchingly bad idea. They can't seriously have thought that this kind of patronising, meddling crap would come across as anything other than patronising, meddling crap, surely? Most of the more vehement responses were eminently forseeable, and they've probably damaged their stated cause and contributed to the annoying spam effect while they're at it.
 
 
_Boboss
12:04 / 18.10.04
'Dear Limey Assholes'

at least they're taking it in the spirit it was meant.
 
 
Bed Head
12:26 / 18.10.04
Gah. Yeah. Now I see what a terrible idea this was. I must be the most naive boy alive to be shocked by some of those responses. But I really don’t imagine a bunch of Americans mass-emailing voters in Somerset (say) would get such nasty replies. And anyway, what *is* this thing about teeth?
 
 
_Boboss
13:44 / 18.10.04
in the observer yesterday they had a statistic like 16% of americans know which party is in power in the UK. probably above a historical average, i'd guess, for an imperial population's interest in a client state.

any of the guardianistas(!) who were stupid enough to try to patronise a swing-state sherman into voting for kerry, well, they deserve to have such bad teeth i guess.

[if any farmers out there want to be of any help come may, vote UKIP in central somerset to cut the tory base and shoe the lib dems in, cheers.]
 
 
diz
15:38 / 18.10.04
And anyway, what *is* this thing about teeth?

the general stereotype of Brits in the US involves having really bad teeth. see the first Austin Powers movie for further reference.
 
 
w1rebaby
16:07 / 18.10.04
The "teeth" thing, I believe, originated from WW2, when US soldiers brought back tales of poor English dental care, though I don't imagine that teeth were exactly the highest priority at that point. I think it is true that British society is less anal about teeth than American, but only in cosmetic terms; dentists seem to have a big racket going on here that has convinced people that their teeth must be straight, regular, and scarily white, and their children must have braces at a cost of thousands of dollars otherwise they will suffer social death.

Anyway, do note that these responses weren't written by people who received the letters. In fact there have been campaigns to respond to the Guardian in kind on right-wing blogs (e.g. here, here, oh you follow the links, it's not too hard). One mocked up a typical letter from the "Adopt an Ohioan" campaign:



It'll be interesting to see how the recipients themselves respond. I have a feeling it won't go terribly well, though, and I really hope they didn't send any of those "celeb" letters.
 
 
alas
20:36 / 18.10.04
I actually work in Clark County Ohio, so I know many people who are registered voters there. No one I know has actually received one, but the story is starting to get some press, here--AP and the Dayton Daily News have covered it, but both sites require registration to read the articles. I'll let you know if I hear anything.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:17 / 19.10.04
Other side of the coin - somebody who has previously lived in the UK as a resident, who has now moved to the US, is planning to vote for Bush and encourages others to do likewise.

She is a bit simple, mind.
 
 
Chiropteran
12:26 / 19.10.04
"When the metrosexual chap standing next to me confides that urban sophisticates prefer Kerry because “you have to have a low IQ to appreciate Bush”, I know I am making the right decision."

Sounds like she's found her niche.

~L
 
 
w1rebaby
13:24 / 19.10.04
Yeah, that is basically the triumph of blind trust over reason. "Okay, I disagree with Bush about pretty much everything, but I'm scared, and he makes me feel safe in some vague irrational way."

Perhaps we could buy Mrs Baxter a big teddy bear instead.
 
 
diz
15:13 / 19.10.04
i love the way she goes to great lengths to establish her long-standing leftist credentials in the course of explaining that she's voting for someone who's debatably a neo-fascist.
 
 
FinderWolf
18:38 / 19.10.04
This seems to have mostly backfired, given the spin in today's Yahoo story about it. Part of me even thinks, "Why would these people think Americans would take kindly to being given advice on how to vote by citizens of another country?"
 
 
Ganesh
19:08 / 19.10.04
Part of me even thinks, "Why would these people think Americans would take kindly to being given advice on how to vote by citizens of another country?"

Well, quite - and even if input were structured along 'just my 2 cents' lines rather than hectoring "advice", it still wouldn't be welcome. I can only imagine the Guardian wanted to make a general Selfawarian point about the inadvisability of interfering with other nations' electoral processes...
 
 
FinderWolf
23:32 / 19.10.04
Apparently many US and Brit democratic organizers are saying to the Guardian "Stop! Please! You're hurting the cause!!" and stuff like that...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:44 / 19.10.04
Yeah. It's probably not so much that it'll deter people who were probably gonna vote Democrat from doing so... but it'll almost certainly make people who would vote Republican but maybe weren't gonna bother get off their asses.

Very silly.
 
 
Bed Head
00:26 / 20.10.04
I can only imagine the Guardian wanted to make a general Selfawarian point about the inadvisability of interfering with other nations' electoral processes...

...because the US is not shy about pushing the imposition of ‘democracy’ on whatever county it is negotiating with/invading this week. What kind of democracy? Whatever system of democracy that can be absolutely relied upon to deliver a government sympathetic to US interests. But it’s okay, because that’s freedom, and anyone who says otherwise is as bad as Saddam/the French. Some friendly letters come back and these horrible bigots get shirty and make remarks about teeth, for Christ’s sake. Gah. If I was president, I’d make it a priority to implement some kind of Phantom Zone program, somewhere where all those idiots can get exactly the kind of government they deserve, without anyone else having to suffer for it.

Sorry. Reality seems to be sliding away from me, the closer it gets to polling day. I just can’t understand how it can be so close; your country has been so thoroughly fucked up in four short years.
 
 
Ganesh
06:31 / 20.10.04
...because the US is not shy about pushing the imposition of ‘democracy’ on whatever county it is negotiating with/invading this week. What kind of democracy? Whatever system of democracy that can be absolutely relied upon to deliver a government sympathetic to US interests.

And, let's not forget, intervening to undermine or physically remove those democratically-elected regimes which are deemed unsympathetic to US interests (or too sympathetic to 'communist' interests). It's not about the democracy, baby...
 
 
w1rebaby
13:59 / 20.10.04
Yes, but nobody expects people to be happy about that, do they? And making people unhappy is counterproductive when you're trying to persuade them to vote for who you want them to.

However, I think the "reaction" coming from the US has been negatively spun. As I said above, there have been campaigns to give bad feedback, but I was interested to see (pointed out by someone in the brits_americans LJ community) that if you look at news reports, the ones actually from Ohio seem to be pretty neutral.
 
 
Ganesh
15:34 / 20.10.04
Yes, but nobody expects people to be happy about that, do they? And making people unhappy is counterproductive when you're trying to persuade them to vote for who you want them to.

Well, yes. I guess I bring it up because so many of those responses seemed born of a 'don't fucking attempt to have input into an American election, limeys' attitude, as if such a thing were utterly, unthinkably taboo. And yeah, the 'counterproductive' line of reasoning is perfectly valid. Compared to some of the US's previous 'unhappy-making' interventions in other nations' electoral systems, receiving a letter seems relatively benign - and while I'd hardly expected the Ohio voters to be happy about being written to, I suppose I'd expected a correspondingly muted degree of self-righteous ire.

Of course, it depends on the tone and content of the Guardianista letters, really. Noreena Hertz's letter, in today's Guardian is perhaps the least patronising 'celebrity' one so far.
 
 
Smoothly
21:36 / 20.10.04
Albert Scardino on Newsnight seemed to let slip the real reason behind the campaign: A million new international readers signing up to the Guardian Unlimited.
 
 
Ganesh
22:28 / 20.10.04
Yeah - which, if they're US members, might prove more constructive over time than a single hectoring letter.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
05:51 / 21.10.04
"I hope your earholes turn to arseholes and shit on your shoulders" - G2's editor on O:CC.

Finally, there was the special nature of the Anglo-American relationship. I suppose it might be possible, after that nasty business in the run up to the Gulf war, to imagine a less internationally minded American voter taking umbrage at the very idea of receiving a letter from a Frenchman, but aren't we the staunchest and most longstanding of allies? Surely a letter from a concerned Brit would be received more like a plea from an old friend.

Surely the Guardian doesn't still believe that the 'special relationship' is anything more than the US says something and the UK backs them up? It doesn't go the other way. We don't get any benefit out of it and we don't get anything back for it. But also, it would have been considered popular if this was a right-wing attempt to shore up support for Bush...
 
 
Ganesh
09:44 / 21.10.04
Surely the Guardian is, somewhat disingenuously, making the very point that the "special relationship" is one-way and one-way only?
 
 
Smoothly
09:59 / 21.10.04
Drum me out of the Switchboard if I'm being naive, but do we really not get anything back? Wasn't the 'special relationship' pretty instrumental in securing US military clout for the European leg of WW2? The Falklands? Kosovo?
 
 
diz
16:29 / 21.10.04
Wasn't the 'special relationship' pretty instrumental in securing US military clout for the European leg of WW2?

yeah, eventually.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:04 / 21.10.04
Oh, was the US against the Falklands War then?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:25 / 21.10.04
There's a special relationship? Big Ears to Noddy? Emu to Rod? Zippy to Bungle? I think not.
 
 
Ganesh
18:59 / 21.10.04
Tonto to the Lone Ranger, possibly.
 
 
Smoothly
19:49 / 21.10.04
Oh, was the US against the Falklands War then?

The US supplied us with much of the necessary hardware, didn't it? No? Am I wrong to suppose that the US had no national compelling interest in supporting Britain there, and possibly a few reasons not to do so?


yeah, eventually.

yeah, thank fuck
 
 
w1rebaby
22:06 / 21.10.04
I'm not aware of US intervention in the Falklands, though I was quite young at the time and could be missing something here. The US went into WW2 mostly because of the Axis threatening its colonial interests in SE Asia. And as for Kosovo... NATO intervention in the Bosnian conflict wasn't UK-led, so it couldn't be said that they were responding to the "special relationship" in any shape or form.

Clearly the UK has military and economic connections to the US, and if we were actually invaded I would expect that the US would come and help out, but that would be the case with any government whose existence served US strategic interests.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply