|
|
It might be a caricature, and it might be wrong and stereotypical, but it seems to me that in a country where only about a third of the population* actually have a passport, they wouldn't care much what the rest of the world wants.
This line of thinking presupposes that what people with passports do with their passports is _in any way worthwhile_, which assumption I don't think is unquestionable. My day trip to Calais in 1984 may have turned me into a sophisticated and cosmopolitan champion of international governance, but actually I just got a flick knife.
It also fails to take into account that US citizens until fairly recently could travel by air without passports to and from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the 17 countries of the Caribbean (excepting Cuba, obvs), and can still do so by road or sea. Further, one can travel to and from these countries - participants in the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative - by air using WHTI-approved travel documentation, which includes Native American photo ID or a beefed-up version of your state driving license.
As such, the statistic about US passport ownership often seems to me more a reflection on the parochialism of those presenting it than the parochialism of Americans - it doesn't reflect how many Americans have actually left or could leave their home nation. Also, of course, the US is fucking enormous - put in Canada and Mexico and you've got a huge and varied landmass with many spoken and written languages and incredible variations of climate and scenery.
Another question that comes up here is to what extent US citizens do or should care about who the rest of the world wants as their president, and how profitable it is to draw attention to the tastes of other countries. Anyone remember Operation Clark County? In which a load of Guardian-reading douchebags provided an invaluable proof that Americans don't enjoy being patronised by douchebags, and in doing so may well have delivered Clark County to Bush. |
|
|