Sir, - I have been reading The Irish Times's Letters to the Editor via e-mail for several years and have been both titillated and awestruck by the rare level of intellectual acuity generated by your subscribers. I have yet to find an American editorial section that compares. Therefore, your perspectives on the presidential elections here in America have been of particular interest.
The Irish Times would be considered by most Americans a very liberal paper, yet I (who absolutely love your paper) am what you call a conservative. Therein lies a paradox that may confuse many Europeans. We hate to be put in a box. We defended Clinton's right to live his life the way he chose, but at the same time withdrew our support for him because we refused to reconcile the office of president with a loss of integrity. The generation that coined the phrase, "If it feels good, do it," is now living with its effects: divorce, poverty, depression, abortion aftermath, drug abuse, alcoholism, AIDS, etc. - yet still they desperately defend their choices.
In the States, you can have every conceivable combination; long-haired hippies (such as the musician Ted Nugent) who are died-in-the-wool Republicans, and fundamentalist Christian pastors (such as Jesse Jackson) who are Democrats. It would be easy, as a distant or biased observer, to misunderstand what is happening here.
Undeniably, our nation is split right down the middle - and this is not merely demographic. We are, like other parts of the globe, in the midst of culture wars initiated by increased pressure from special interest groups. By that I mean activists for abortion, homosexuality, and animal rights, to name a few. Given time, this list could grow to include every category imaginable. Gun and tobacco control are more recent examples. The trend has proven to be a Pandora's box in a culture that has been tolerant in the traditional American sense of the word, and the result is the predictable showdown, not unlike the proverbial duelling cowboys in an Old West movie.
This election highlights the genius of the fathers of the American Constitution. They instituted the Electoral College as a brilliant check and balance in the event of a tie-breaking election, but also to protect the people from the people. For example, there were people on the fringes of colonial society in the 18th century who voted, but who were unable to read, or to personally hear the candidates before an election. Their values and agendas were often diametrically different from those of their counterparts in the cities, who likewise mistrusted the illiteracy and ignorance of the frontier electorate.
The electoral college balanced the popular vote so that the will of city-dwellers would not necessarily always dominate the populace in rural or remote areas. Today we have a similar scenario, but it's based not on illiteracy, but on ideology.
Half of us would be proud to have George Bush as our next president and are thankful for the electoral college - just as Al Gore supporters would be if their candidate were in the same position. It all comes down to perspective, and I hope that yours has been enlarged. - Yours, etc.,
Teresa Scully Neumann, Lebanon, Oregon, USA.