The Advocate

Letters to the Editor

First World Oafs?
Although I too share the negative opinion held by many people throughout the world of George Bush (and indeed among many millions here in these United States), I should like to comment on Mr. Kennis's article which appeared in the December, 2004 issue of The Advocate.

As a Mexican and American dual national, I welcome sincere interest in Mexico and Latin America and genuine dialogue. But I fear that many a time the American Political Scientist's desire to “save” Mexico covers up an innate lack of genuine commitment to pursuing discussions in a spirit of real understanding and respect.

Mr. Kennis “set out to interview dozens of Mexicans, mostly from Mexico City, but also from different regions of our neighbour country to the south.” Did Mr. Kennis actually visit my country and conduct his survey? Who translated into such idiomatic English the comments of these various and sundry Mexicans? While I do not disagree in substance with the appraisal of the current US Administration, the fact remains that the article seems to reflect more the tone and tenor of Mr. Kennis's views and perhaps even justifies a shrill and overly-generalized view of the world's view of Bush and the US.

One last note—although many Mexicans many not like Mr. Fox, comparing President Fox to John Waters, although amusing to some, is not particularly diplomatic. Left or Right—Americans tend to be First World Oafs. Mexicans can be very sensitive on these points, even Mexicans who may laugh and cajole at the comment. Underneath, it's irritating. Once again, the "gringos" have all the answers—even the coy, cynical ones.
Lo ido a Europa no quita lo pendejo.

Regards,
Roberto Barnard

Andrew Kennis Responds –

My article did not imply any desire to “save” Mexico. Instead, I admitted from the get-go its modest intentions by pointing out that the article was based on “dozens of interviews,” hardly an all-encompassing survey. Sometimes a bit can be learned, however, from well-reported and well-written articles based on such surveys.

In response to whether or not “Mr. Kennis actually visit[ed] my country and conduct[ed] his survey [there]?” the answer is an unequivocal “yes.” I take pride in the fact that all the articles I have written for The Advocate have been done on the scene (including protests covered from Cancun to Canada and interviews and articles conducted from the occupied lands of Palestine and Chiapas).

Who translated? I did all the translations, though some of those interviewed opted to speak in English when they learned I was reporting for a States-bound publication. Most, however, spoke in Spanish. I am definitely not a professional translator and am just a journalist who learned Spanish the hard way: by immersing myself in the “cultura chilanga,” living in a “barrio popular” for three years, taking the time and effort to learn not just Spanish but also the colloquial phrases that distinguish Mexican Spanish-speakers from other Latinos.

The article had nothing to do with “Mr. Kennis' views,” and instead was my attempt to reflect as best as possible the interviews I conducted. I am at a loss to find where the article even hinted at my own viewpoints. I wonder for whom Mr. Barnard assumed I even voted for—or whether or not I voted at all. Did the article state or even imply such positions?

If the respondent was seemingly upset about a writer’s humble attempt to get a grip on Mexican public opinion towards President Bush, why would he stoop so low as to generalize Americans as being “First World Oafs”? Americans shouldn’t be considered “First World Oafs” on the basis of these election results in light of the fact that 70% of Americans did not even vote for President Bush. Nor should “gringos” be considered to have all the answers just because they seek to give Mexicans the voice they deserve by living in and visiting their country and subsequently writing articles that seek to highlight the viewpoints of several dozen people.

I cannot speak to the John Waters caption as that was the layout editor’s creation.

Sincerely,
Andrew Kennis

The Layout Editor Also Responds –

Actually, I think John Waters is kinda cute. In any event, I personally would rather be compared to a whitty fimmaker like Waters than referred to as an “idiot boy child,” which is how I describe our own home grown oaf, El Jefe Bush. And as someone influenced by anti-hierarchical progressive political movements (which have a long history in Mexico, btw), I consider ALL national leaders to be fair targets. Your equation of the people of Mexico with the leader of the Mexican state apparatus is bizarre at best and self-deprecating at worst.

Spencer Sunshine,
Coy and Cynical First World Oaf

A Response to Mr. Metzger:
I write this in reply to a letter published in the December 2004 issue of The Advocate that was critical of the my perspective on liberal political activities in the Midwest. My argument was that east coast “liberals” (social democrats) and the more radical/progressive Left need to reach out to the more conservative areas of the country in order to successfully get an agenda out. I expected criticism from those further to the left, who might argue, “Now is not the time to give in to the demands of the reactionary Right,” or that I was somehow “selling out” my values as a progressive Marxist. Instead, the attack came from the Right.

Mr. Metzger’s message argues that I was arrogant in hoping to express progressive values to the Midwest. I ask Mr. Metzger, “What is the proper course of action a progressive should take, then, when attempting to foster a more critical debate in parts of the country that are conservative?” Are those on the Left with a progressive agenda supposed to lie down, die, and allow the Ten Commandments to be forced down the throats of America’s children? Better yet, maybe Mr. Metzger would feel that I was being “correct” if I just marched down to Washington DC this weekend and held an impromptu pro-life rally, because, since we have a conservative president, to hell with trying to push any type of progressive agenda! I suppose Mr. Metzger’s method of politics is exactly how the reactionary
Right under the Bush administration would like to approach politics these days: as a one-sided totalitarian animal, in which those who dissent or oppose the agenda of the Christian right should renounce their citizenship and move overseas. Who needs discourse and deliberation! I am aghast at how someone on the Right would be so adamantly opposed to liberals trying to reach out to the more conservative areas of the country and attempt to form some type of coalition in which liberals and conservatives alike could be happy. Is it not the Right—or at least the Bush administration—that constantly preaches about how important bi-partisanship is to the American political system?

Mr. Metzger, I do not understand where your argument is coming from. You claim that I am being pompous and arrogant by trying to “reach out.” I disagree. Even my conservative grandfather (an active member of the GOP since the 1960s), when reading my initial article agreed that if the Left wants to have a chance in the next few elections, it needs to have at least some support from the middle part of the country. The name of the game in politics is getting the voter to come out and vote for your party. My article was not an attack on ‘Midwestern values’; rather, it was a suggestion to the Left on how to win states like Ohio and Florida in the future. I guess I will end my response with a question.

What are you talking about?

Joseph Kaminski,
PhD student in Political Science