One of the letters of the great American poet Walt Whitman included the words "the Americans of all nations...."  He meant, or so my professor claimed, "Americans of all nationalities."  He was referring to all Americans regardless of their background, ethnic group, or ancestry.  I liked to believe differently: he was saying that every nation on earth has people who think like Americans, who behave like Americans: people who are creative, inventive, future-oriented.  People who love freedom, who love liberty, and who elevate the status of the citizen above all else, including that of the government, the Church and the Mosque.  Borrowing the phrase from Whitman, I would apply it to a different group in a post-Global world:  Regardless of where they hail from or where they live now, people who believe in the supremacy of the citizen are "Americans of all nations."  Next Tuesday, the citizens of America will re-hire or fire their president and the "the Americans of all nations" will be participating in heart and soul. 

I know what you are saying: who doesn't love freedom? Who doesn't love liberty?  By your definition, everyone is an American.  No, no.  The Americans of all nations revere the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, and the bill of rights.   The non-Americans of all nations (including, incidentally, some people who hold US citizenships) look at the documents and say the founders were slave-owners and Indian-land raiders, the constitution was written for property-owning white men, the bill of rights was pre-empted by the Alien Sedition Act, and yes, the Americans interned the Japanese Americans in World War II.  They look at the American election and dismiss it as a farce.  In the last election (2000), a PFDJ Boss, (definitely not an "American of all nations") told me that the American election was a "drama", all staged by the corporate bosses.  Then he went into a long soliloquy straight from the Twilight Zone of a conspiracy theory that included Jeb Bush, George Bush's brother, George Bush Sr...

I love the election cycle...but I don't vote.  I am saving my voting virginity for Eritrea.  Wait a minute, you are an American of all nations and you don't vote?  I don't.  I exercise my right--and I cherish it so much--to not vote.  Here's my theory: the United States has practiced this art for so long that the system is on automatic pilot.  Candidate A will begin by promising to cut your taxes by 50%, Candidate B will begin by promising to increase funding for your pet project by 25%.  And he is not lying; he really means it.  But the process--the checks and balances of the congress, the power of the media, the think tanks, the pollsters--has such a moderating influence that, regardless of who is elected, you may see your taxes decreased by .05% and the funding for your pet project increased by 0.25%.   This is a good thing; only the ideologues and the true believers hate this "gridlock."  It is the ultimate validation of the power of the citizen to create a government that is barely able to bring about radical changes.

I do not vote, but I am a huge believer in the power of lobbying.  It is not a huge number of people that decide positions on specific issues; it is a small cadre of committed people that do that hard work to educate, influence, inform the decision makers regarding the issues.  Whether it is banking, farming or Eritrea, it is only a small but committed (so called "special interest group") that brings about the changes.

But on the big issues...even foreign policy.  Surely, all these presidents had doctrines named after them--the Truman Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine--and it does matter who is elected.  I'd say very rarely.   Part of the packaging of the campaigns is to present stark contrasts, but when one peels away at the wrapping paper, the gift is almost identical when it comes to everything that is considered a determinant: Iraq, the Middle East, Korea, Iran.....  How about Eritrea?  If Kerry is elected, PFDJ can look forward to four more years of dealing with Holbrooke, Lake, and everybody else they insulted as a spy intent on destablizing Eritrea.   If Bush is elected, the PFDJ can look forward to four more years of dealing with all the undersecretaries and deputy secretaries that have been ignoring them for the last four years.    Such is the price Eritrea must pay for having temperamental and easy-to-provoke "leaders."

I don't vote, but I have my rituals.  One, I do take bets.  I take wagers, but I don't collect.  Mostly because those who bet against me are crybabies: "Al Gore won the popular vote", "the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush."   Also, it is hard to collect on a bet when the despondent loser is threatening, for the third time, that he is packing and leaving to Canada.  Again? 

The other ritual is enjoying saturation, wall-to-wall coverage of the election as told by the excitable media.   The coverage has several parts: the build-up to the election (speculation), election day instant analysis (exit polls), then the acceptance-concession speech.   The build-up is dictated by the reporters desire to have a competitive race, the need to fill up 24-hours of news when nothing much is happening and by what a media critic (New Yorker?) called the emphasis on "storying": telling a story.   Example: 

 "Polls suggest that in the first post-911 presidential election __________ (Bush/Kerry) is expected to rack up a plurality of the (security mom's vote, Catholic vote, union vote, midget's vote) in (all the Blue States, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.)" 

On the first Tuesday of November (this time November 2), seconds after the polls close, the instant analysis begins:

 "____ (despite the polls, as the polls had predicted), we are projecting ______ (Bush/Kerry) the winner in _____ (name of state) [flashing graphics, dramatic sound effects], largely due to the ______ (high turnout/low turnout) of the (Hispanic/Jewish/black/evangelicals/catholic) ______ vote."  

Repeat process 7-8 times for each state (350-400 times.)  Then more speculation:

 "If _____ (Bush/Kerry) loses, as it looks likely, [insert tiny disclaimer], it is thanks to _______ (the wolves ad, Iraq, 911, Bin Laden, the economy) and the _____ (disappointing/huge) turnout of the ______ (blacks, white males, Muslims.")  

After the winners and losers are declared, the pundits show up in full force to declare, unanimously, that if only the loser had_______ (chosen another VP, got 1% more of the___vote, spent less time in _____ and more in _____) the outcome would have been different.�

All interesting but not as great as the victory and concession speeches. The rules of the game dictate that the winner must be magnanimous and the loser must be gracious.  And despite the anger and the fury of the campaign, it always is.   And this is one more thing that is captivating to Americans of all nations, particularly those of us who originate from countries where winners win by cheating and the losers take to the hills.  The victory speech:

A _____ (Jubilant, triumphant, victorious) _____ (Bush/Kerry), surrounded by his family and supporters, told his supporters that he had just received a phone call from _____ (Bush/Kerry) [crowd cheers]; I told him that I value his service to the country.  I want to thank this opportunity to invite all who supported him, to join our campaign, to make America...."

The concession speech:  

_____ (Visibly disappointed, fighting back tears, addressing a tearful crowd), and surrounded by his adoring family _____ (Bush/Kerry), said, "I have just called ______ (President Bush, Senator Kerry) to congratulate him on his victory [crowd boos, politician calms them down].  No, no, we put up a strong campaign.  It was not about us, it never was, it was about America, and its direction...."

And the process is repeated every two years in state elections, congressional elections.  Not everyone wins, but everyone senses that they had the power to hire and fire those who make the laws and those who have the power to restrict their life and liberty.   Magic, but only if you are an �American of every nation.�

And the outcome?  Nobody knows, but everybody is free to guess, and only a fool would share his guess publicly to be mocked when he is wrong.  So what else is new?  And my guess is: a sea of red will blanket the electoral map: Bush 51, Kerry 48, Nader 1.   And if I am wrong?  I already have my spin ready:

" If only Bush had increased his visit to ____ (Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio) to 214 and had prepared himself better for the _____ (debate, war, stock market crash) and had courted the ____ (black vote, Hispanic vote, the women's vote) and increased his margin by ____ (1%, 2%) and effectively_____ (blocked dead people from voting, counterpunched) and motivated a few more registered voters to vote...

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it