One of the continuities from 2016 to the current election cycle (geez, American presidential cycles are so long) is that I can use my particular vantage point to discriminate between the politicians who have super-sensitive (maybe even super-insecure?) followers and those that do not. How so? Well, I tend to be critical of most folks, but not all supporters respond with some criticism of my speaking about American politics from Canada. Those that do tend to be Trump supporters, Bernie supporters, and, today, Beto supporters.
Hmmm, what do all these folks share in common? I am not exactly sure. I do tend to think of Beto as an empty suit, putting forth a charismatic pose rather than significant policy stances, which makes him a bit like Trump. What did Beto do while in Congress? What were his major initiatives?
What they do seem to have is a certain percentage of followers who are overly defensive. I have said negative things about Pete Buttagieg and have not received the same kind of defensive response. Same for many of the other candidates.
Maybe they are right, maybe I should not be commenting on or even voting in American elections. After all, I don't live in the US anymore. Maybe ten years ago, I was expecting to return, but not anymore. No, that is not about Trump but due to getting a really cool job in Ottawa at Carleton that has stopped me from seeking greener (or warmer) pastures. So, given my future, why should I have a role to play in US politics, either as voter or commenter? I will deal with the first and then the second.
The easiest answer I can give is that while I left the US, the US will never let me go ... unless I go through an incredibly difficult and expensive procedure as I will be doing US tax returns until I die (and then my estate will be doing them for another year or two). I am affected by American tax policies--that I may not pay every year due to various deductions and credits--but it affects my behavior--I can't invest in a variety of accounts in Canada without having to do yet more forms and perhaps pay taxes. Should that entitle me to vote, other than that whole citizenship thing? Um, yeah, since the US exists because of that whole "taxation without representation" thing. [Yes, pedants can argue that the revolution was about other stuff but don't deny the relevance of taxation + representation]. If the Congress passed legislation that treated US expats like the way most countries threat their expats (not required to pay taxes on income made outside of where they reside), then maybe I wouldn't have as much at stake.
The second answer, and it is the more powerful one these days, is that I have family and friends who are put at risk by the policies of the Trump Administration (and, well, by most GOP politicians these days). I have LGBTQ relatives and friends who are finding that they may be losing their rights. I have friends and family who depend on ACA for their health care. So, I still have deep connections to my homeland even if I don't live there. Does that give me a right to vote in American elections? No, citizenship does. But it does give me an obligation to play a role, given that I can have one.
Ok, that deals with voting. How about opining? That because I don't live in the US that I shouldn't give my thoughts about it or that my views should just be dismissed because I don't live there. Well, my views are worth exactly what folks pay for them. On twitter, they are free. It is so easy not to listen to me. Don't follow me (yes, it was a follower today who raised the "you live in Ottawa" thing). Or if you don't follow me, ignore my stuff when someone else retweets me. Or mute or block me.
I think one of the big problems Americans have (and, yes, Canadians have it, too) is that they don't think comparatively and often do not listen to the feedback received by those who are outside the country. I think more information and more perspectives are better than less. That outsiders may have experienced different institutions and different policies, which might actually make sense. The Canadians tend to smugly compare themselves to the US and say, well, our health care system is better than the Americans. Maybe, but how about learning from Europe?
As a political scientist and as a deeply curious (and opinionated) person, I will have lots of thoughts, some informed, some not so much, and I will keep offering them up, whether super-sensitive supporters of very flawed candidates get upset. If their best response to me is that I don't have a role, it reveals something--that their candidate is entitled to support, that they can't defend their candidate's superiority on the issues, that they might just be semi-cultists? Such a response is simply weak. I don't mind at all a good argument--I often get bested and learn from the experience. Telling me that I should shut up pretty much has the opposite effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment