I Guess Americans Don't Much Like the British, Either
Last week, The Guardian (UK) asked its readers to write to voters in Clark county, Ohio, asking them to vote for Kerry instead of Bush. In three days, 11,000 people requested addresses. Here are some of the livelier responses The Guardian received:
Have you not noticed that Americans don't give two shits what Europeans think of us? Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies ... I don't give a rat's ass if our election is going to have an effect on your worthless little life. I really don't. If you want to have a meaningful election in your crappy little island full of shitty food and yellow teeth, then maybe you should try not to sell your sovereignty out to Brussels and Berlin, dipshit. Oh, yeah - and brush your goddamned teeth, you filthy animals. -- Wading River, NYConsider this: stay out of American electoral politics. Unless you would like a company of US Navy Seals - Republican to a man - to descend upon the offices of the Guardian, bag the lot of you, and transport you to Guantanamo Bay, where you can share quarters with some lonely Taliban shepherd boys. -- United States
And my personal favorite:
KEEP YOUR FUCKIN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS ... TOUGH SHIT! -- PROUD AMERICAN VOTING FOR BUSH!Okay, Operation Clark County was incredibly stupid. And even I'm a bit offended by the British -- who couldn't even keep Tony Blair from becoming Bush's water-boy -- telling Americans for whom they should vote. But the responses are still rather revealing...
Come on, I don't think that taking the two most obnoxious responses while ignoring others, including ones praising Operation Clark County, is "revealing" of anything at all. I could just as easily point to letters such as:
"Right on! Just wanted to say thanks from California for your effort and concern. This IS a very important election ... There are so many people here in the States that care about the impact America has on the rest of the world. I am personally saddened for the loss of all innocent lives. The best statement Americans can make to the rest of the world is to not elect Bush for president. Thank you so much for getting involved in our world."
Or:
"I am a student and life-long resident of Clark County, Ohio. I just wanted you to know that this is a wonderful idea you've initiated; people here love and respect the United Kingdom, especially the prime minister. I hope this campaign will be successful for your newspaper and for us voters."
Or:
"Thank God above for you English! Just when I was beginning to despair at the thought of Bush being re-elected, you come along with a strategy to help us! Your invitation to your readership and rationale for offering it are provocative at the least, and laudable at best."
Aren't these responses revealing of something else? In fact, I'd bet that the responses pretty much align with who the responders are planning to vote for. . . .
Posted by: Tung Yin | October 18, 2004 at 08:20 AM
I was actually kidding. I just thought some of the more paranoid ravings were worth reprinting...
Posted by: Kevin Jon Heller | October 18, 2004 at 10:48 AM
To be fair, as Daniel Okrent pointed out in his NY Times Public Editor column last week, the right by no means has a monopoly on vitriol. One of the reasons I've often been proud to be a Democrat is that liberals have always seemed to value frank and open discussion on the issues--"Hey, we disagree, but can't we find some middle ground." Writing "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war," as one correspondent to the Times did, is not an articulation of that value.
Posted by: Matt | October 18, 2004 at 11:00 AM
the right by no means has a monopoly on vitriol
True, but I'll preempt Kevin and suggest that the left doesn't have anyone quite like Ann Coulter. . . .
(Though I suppose Kos' infamous comment dancing on the graves of the four American security contractors killed in Iraq earlier in the year comes close.)
Posted by: Tung Yin | October 18, 2004 at 11:04 AM
They aren't as consistently nutcase and vitriolic as Coulter, though Kos has made comments that I consider to be in poor taste.
Posted by: Matt | October 18, 2004 at 11:30 AM
Ahem. If I may put my professional point of view in here--as someone who used to do web-marketing for a living--the above are revealing of just one thing:
Spam a bundle of people, and you'll get hatemail.
The above is not particularly more vitriolic than what any company is likely to get if they spam a list of random email addresses. Sure, it has a "Republican/jingoistic" bent to it, but I've certainly seen nastiness this bad from completely apolitical sources.
Spam's just a bad tool to convince folks of anything.
Posted by: A. Rickey | October 18, 2004 at 01:02 PM
These are pretty funny, notably the last e-mail. Especially since the British torched the "White House" in the War of 1812.
I'll throw out Atrios as a left-wing counterpart to the Coultergeist.
Posted by: Law Monkey | October 18, 2004 at 01:50 PM