Letter Campaign

I saw on the Volokh Conspiracy that there have been new developments in the spamming of Clark County, Ohio, by members of the UK regarding the upcoming presidential election.



My fisking of the original "call for letters" article is here; it is based more on the piece's smarmy tone than the concept of engaging in political philosophical debates with foreign nationals, which is something I personally do regularly. As a first side note: I've had to change the links to the piece as it's been replaced, but the google cache (thank God for Google) is still available. Second side note: apparently they stole the idea from Tim Blair.



I'm also annoyed at their cloaking the letters with the big media pretense of impartiality: "Of course, who you urge your voter to support is entirely up to you. On October 20 we will publish a selection of the most persuasive letters to Clark County in the Guardian." Really? So I'd expect to see the letters at approximately 70-30 in Kerry's favor, as reflected by opinion polls of UK citizens. Not so much so far.



This special article from the Guardian prints off three of the letters, from John LeCarré, Antonia Fraser, and Richard Dawkins. All are for Kerry, and at least Fraser's and Dawkin's have that special condescending tone most generally employed by the intellecutally narcissistic to intimidate those they consider mentally challenged. LeCarré's is strongly worded, but on consideration, I found it passionate and not offensive. The best excerpts:

Antonia Fraser

O duty



Why hast thou not the visage of a sweetie or a cutie ... ?



Why art thou so different from Venus?



And why do thou and I have so few interests in common between us?



. . .



These sentiments on the subject of duty, so brilliantly expressed by Ogden Nash, may well be yours, dear Unknown, when I, a national of another country, urge you to do your duty and vote in your coming presidential election. In fact, of course, we have all too many interests in common. . .



Richard Dawkins

Dear Americans,



Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent." . . .

A surprising response was printed in the Guardian as well: this column entitled "I bet the Guardian editor £50 he's wrong" by Mark Steyn. He makes an interesting point about Dawkin's letter:

"The reason is advice like this, from Guardian reader Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Dawkins begins his missive to the Clark County swing voter with a little light Bushophobia: "An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive... thuggish ideologues. pariah state. brazenly lying. cynical mendacity" yada-yada.



But then he goes on: "Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy."



At this point, the Guardian's editors intervene with an explanatory parenthesis: "[Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]." And then Dawkins continues: "It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt."



You just blew it big-time in Clark County, prof. Voters may be divided on Bush and on the Iraq war but, in the American heartland, they're generally agreed on a homeowner's right to take out a burglar."

A little background: Tony Martin is a British farmer who shot at burglars Brendon Fearon and Fred Barras, who were breaking into his home at the time. He wounded Fearon and killed Barras. He originally received life in prison on a murder conviction, but his charge was reduced to manslaughter and his sentence reduced to five years. A subsequent civil suit for injuries filed on behalf of Fearon has apparently been dropped.



The problem I see with Steyn's criticism of Dawkin's letter? Who other than legal scholars and some gun rights people will know who Tony Martin is?



I don't know that these letters are going to be effective, myself, as I found the tone condescending at best, hence my rather snarky fisking. And, of course, we still have a slight problem with Great Britain ordering America around. As Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy notes:

Rosicka's comment reminds me of something that Dan Polsby (now on George Mason's faculty) said on my first day at work at the Northwestern Law School in 1996. Princess Diana was in the building that day and almost everyone was excited to try to catch a glimpse of her. I would have shaken her hand if introduced, but I saw no reason to figure out where she was to get to see or meet her. Polsby was asked by an administrator if he had seen Diana and he replied, "Didn't we fight a war to be rid of these people?" Indeed!



I find it hard to believe that condescending letters from professors of the public understanding of science at Oxford University will carry much weight with Ohio voters, nor will posts from professor-bloggers. The frustration of foreign elites is perhaps understandable. Yet there are a lot better reasons than a letter from the UK to vote for or against George Bush.

The best of these ostensibly non-partisan letters are due to be published here tomorrow. I'll try to take a peek and post on the results. Then let's see who wins the fifty pounds on election day.