Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Why was the Guardian's gambit a "really
dumb idea"? And if you think
it's easy to come up with a better approach, what's your proposal?
People do not like to be told by those in other countries who to vote
for. This is a fairly universal phenomenon: I guarantee that if some
non-Greek newspaper set up a letter-writing campaign to Greeks
supporting a particular side in their elections, the other side would
gain a boost in support. (Possibly a Cypriot paper could get away
with this, but not beyond that.)
If I were an undecided voter, wavering between Bush and Kerry, and I
received a letter such as the following (an actual example):
"First of all, if you back Kerry, you will be voting against a savage
militaristic foreign policy of pre-emptive killing which has stained
the great name of the US so hideously in recent times."
I can't imagine this would make me actually more likely to vote for
Kerry. It would make me wonder why the person writing to me could not
have laid out some more reasoned arguments, but it will not really
change my vote.
(And I say all this as a staunch opponent of Bush... if my reaction is
negative, imagine the reaction of *actual* undecided voters...)
There is still a distinction to be made between what one says, and how
one says it. We all have friends whose support would make them better
enemies.
U. S. foreign policy has a serious effect on the lives of people in
other countries. That's reason enough for us to try to influence its
elections.
Ec