Living word by word

American politics from across the pond

 

In our small sample of European life (sample of countries so far: three), we have witnessed a lot of interest in the American election over here, particularly in Obama’s candidacy.

 

For good historical reasons, Germans in particular pay a lot of attention to politics, and don’t view it as a taboo subject. A few weeks ago we met up with an older couple who were out on their bikes for a Sunday afternoon. After “Guten Tag” and “Woher kommen Sie?” (where are you from), the next question was, “who are you voting for in the election?” The third question! Likewise, the German rail magazine featured an interview with Jodie Foster this month, and the first question posed was about whether she's supporting Obama.

 

As for Obama, again our relatively small sample shows lots of support for him. When he sealed the nomination last week, the papers were full of front-page pictures of him. Die Zeit had a half-page headshot with the headline: “A President for the World: what it would mean for the most powerful man in the world no longer to be a white man” (it’s a little snappier in the German than that). Taz, a left-leaning more gossipy paper had a picture of the White House with the title “Uncle Obama’s House” – which isn’t quite as snarky as it sounds in the English.

 

In France there's at least as much interest, if not more because there's  a sizable African emigre population. The headline of the Parisien, which appeared larger than life all over the city this past weekend,  translates “How he’s changing America : the Obama Revolution.”  The French, of course, are very fond of revolutions.

Despite Bill Clinton’s enormous popularity in Europe during his Presidency, there don’t seem to be too many people grieving Hillary’s losses. One thing is very clear: people around here are really hoping that the U.S. will take a different course beginning in 2009.

two good reasons

   I can hardly stand to read the news these days. We're looking forward to spending some time with our non-U.S. friends and family soon, mainly because they are our friends and family -- but the most recent news has added to my list of reasons:

1. Western Europeans have had expensive gas for a very long time and simply don't whine about it. And they certainly don't whine about a few pennies of tax added so that the social costs of all that driving can be covered. (Yes, there are conservatives who want to scale back the social state, but things like road maintenance and transit are not on the chopping block). They are not environmental saints, but they are terribly practical when it comes to making life liveable on a threatened planet. Instead of whining, they've gone about building a society where, while plenty of people drive, the long list of those who can't -- and that includes children, seniors, and the blind, not to mention the poor -- aren't left out in the cold.

2. Nobody asks their candidates if they wear lapel pins.

more on Rev Wright

Chris has written a detailed theological reflection on the response to the Obama/ Rev. Wright matter. Worth reading.

Obama, race, and what pastors say

   I hope, hope, hope that Americans either watch or read the speech Obama gave today about Jeremiah Wright, his relationship with his pastor and, more importantly, race in America. When is the last time we heard a politician speak with such nuance about race in this country? When is the last time we heard a politician speak so honestly about the complicated relationships we all have with people in their lives?

  Of course, as a pastor, I am bemused by how much press some singular remarks from the pulpit have gotten. When is the last time any words from the puplit came under such national scrutiny? How many white pulpits have been held up to the same light?  I don't know how anyone could argue there isn't a double standard at work here. Obama rightly points out that he has a complex and long-standing relationship with Rev. Wright, one of deep respect mixed with honest disagreement. Has anyone examined, say, the remarks of McCain's military buddies, and held him accountable for them?

  More importantly, though, Obama has articulated the truth about racism in its power to wound both white and black folk in this country. I am so grateful to hear such things said from a national platform. Andrew Sullivan's remarks sum it up:

And it was a reflection of faith - deep, hopeful, transcending faith in the promises of the Gospels. And it was about America - its unique promise, its historic purpose, and our duty to take up the burden to perfect this union - today, in our time, in our way.

sin. . .can we just call it that?

    I've found myself listening -- more though osmosis than intent -- to the flood of media coverage about Eliot Spitzer this week. It's fascinating to see how the story is covered, with a peculiar mix of American moralism, schadenfreude and gender bias. I have no comprehensive theory, but a few thoughts:

• NPR interviews an expert on sexual misbehavior and public figures. Of course, he brings up former President Clinton, among other people. The NPR commentator refuses the premise, because what Spitzer did "was clearly illegal." The expert insists he's not talking about legality, but about what causes men to act out sexually period. . .is that so hard to comprehend?
• We had about one day of coverage about Spitzer himself, followed by three solid days about his wife, and political wives in general, and what is going through their heads when they "stand by their man." I know the curiosity is natural, and of course much of it comes out of sympathy for what such a spouse is going through.  But what strikes me about most of the speculation is how arrogant we are to assume we know what the logical or correct response is in  such a situation. All those people saying  "I would never. . . " ought to pipe down. They have no idea what they would actually do. They can't know.
• Lots of editorials have appeared about how there was evidence Spitzer was this "kind of person" after all. Somehow Americans have a hard time accepting that even "good people" can f*** up royally. In fact, some psychologists would argue that it is people with the most perfect public images that are most likely to suffer such a fall.  But you don't need psychology to explain this. It's called sin.  People do dumb things that wound the ones they love and betray the trust others place in them. Sometimes they  even do these things in calculated ways. It happens.

politics at age six

Will and I are trying to maintain a little emotional distance from this year's primary race -- not because we don't care who wins, but because after the last eight years we're just not sure how much more disappointment we can take. I'm kind of glad we'll be across the ocean for part of the year just so we won't have to deal with the daily over-analysis of every remark.

Nevertheless, Katie has picked up on the excitement/ anxiety and declared in the car last night, "I'm going for Hillary."

Oh boy, we thought. We've always known she'll be an independent thinker. (Just wait 'til she finds out there are Republicans). Remain calm.

"Why do you say that Katie?"

"I don't know."

"Is it because she's a girl?"

"No. I didn't know she was a girl at first. I just liked her before that, because she has a nice simple name. And I think she'd look good being our president."

There you have it. Unfortunately, I don't think her reasoning exceeds that of a fair amount of our electorate. I hope to be proven wrong.

the widow's money order

 My favorite Obamaniac posted a question over the weekend about Obama’s reference in his South Carolina victory speech about a woman who sent a money order for $3.01. Read the responses. . .it’s a great commentary on what happens when “compulsive textual critics” meet people who actually have to get money orders at a grocery store.

 

 

Obamania

In 2002 (or was it ’03?), in the fog of a new baby and not long after 9/11, my in-laws, who live in central Illinois, called up all excited about a candidate running for Senate. “You should send him some money,” they advised. We did, but not without a bit of good-natured joking about our family’s (non-) ability to pick winners. I mean, Karl Rove & Co. were running the table, playing on people's fears, and this guy’s name was Barack Obama?

Others have written much better things about Obama and the issues, and, especially, his religious views. See Chris’ take on Obama’s Neibuhrian theology, Mark Kleiman's comments on his gutsy defense of human rights in the Illinois Senate, and Jonathan’s legitimate questions about a first 100 days of an Obama presidency.

All of my response so far is purely emotional and anecdotal, such as the fact that the most outspoken Republican of my last parish is now active in Obama’s campaign in Minnesota. When Obama says, “We are one people,” he makes me believe, or at least really, really want to believe.

amazing lives

I know, it’s probably too late, but if you can possibly beg, borrow or steal a copy of last Sunday’s New York Times magazine, it’s worth the effort. Their annual collection of profiles of people who died this year, many of whom you haven’t ever heard of, is always a good read. The one that astonished me was of Andree De Jongh, a Belgian woman who, in her early 20’s, led a sort of underground railroad  out of occupied Europe, over the mountains into Spain.

It’s an amazing life to read about, and even more shocking to me that I’d never heard of her before.

Sesame Street

The New York Times issues a list, weekly, of their most-emailed stories. They are usually great reads.

Now they’ve issued a list of top ten for 2007. It includes recipes, an op-ed by Stephen Colbert, and, of course, a piece by Michael Pollan. But number one? A magazine piece by Viriginia Heffernan about the newly released “vintage” Sesame Street episodes, in which it is revealed that some content is now deemed inappropriate for small children.

I read this story in the magazine weeks ago and thought about blogging on it. Advent got in the way, but it struck me as a great commentary on the assumptions we make about children and what they need—then and now. Then, Cookie Monster was just every three-year-old’s id in action, no impulse control and lovable for it. Now, he is a reformed sugar addict who advises us to eat our carrots too. Then, Alistair Cookie had a pipe. Now, kids’ parents don’t watch Masterpiece Theater either, so the whole thing makes no sense. Then, Snuffleupagus was simply an oversized imaginary friend; now, we are too worried that parents seem out of touch, so he’s visible to anyone.

What’s fascinating is how this story is the TOP NYTimes story of the whole year! Who are these people reading this and passing it on? Gen X’ers like me who learned to read via Muppets? My parents’ generation trying to figure out their grandkids? Incredulous Gen Y’ers who can’t believe that Elmo wasn’t begotten of eternal God? I’m not sure what this story’s popularity means for the country, but it's a fascinating window into who reads the Times.