After six months in Los Angeles it is a real pleasure to be back in Asia. A fortnight’s re-entry via Hong Kong, a city which has regained its verve and vitality and then some, has been a real pleasure. Not that I’ve anything against America, most Americans I meet or even LA, contrary to what some may believe. It’s just that it’s nice to be back on familiar ground. And tomorrow I get back to Bali, something I’ve been looking forward to for months.
Minutes after landing in Hong Kong and checking into my hotel I download my e.mail to find my much revered Editor has forwarded me some correspondence to BA generated by my recent comments on George Bush, which he slyly observes “I might enjoy”. He’s right, I do.
It is axiomatic that any columnist can only please some of the people some of the time. There are always going to be people who don’t like and disagree with what you say. It is certainly nice when people like what you write, but it is just as nice when they don’t. The main thing is for people read what you write. If they don’t , you are dead meat. My job as a columnist, in no particular order of importance, is to entertain, inform and tell the truth as I see it, while hopefully provoking intelligent interest. You can’t do any of that if you’re not read.
Thus, while I am sincerely gratified by the support and nice things that Professor Hindle, Bali Bubba and and Mr. Bier, who are all obviously gentlemen of the utmost wit and discernment, have to say about what I write, I am just as happy with what Mr Stanton Swafford and TC of Ubud have to say. Without of course according them similar grandeur of intellectual stature.
What never fails to amaze and amuse me is that people who write in like this, who say they are disgusted and incensed by what they’ve read, always want to ban you. They are so bound up in their own narrow view of the world that they cannot bear to read any opinion that upsets them, which is usually quite a lot. Why, one wonders, do Mr Swafford and TC of Ubud continue to torment themselves week after week by subjecting themselves to what they say is my crude, cynical, bilious, bigoted, pompous and mean-spirited prose? Why does it never occur to people like this to simply lift up their right arm and turn the page? Or is Bali Bubba right when he says I’m “like George Bush (Oh! Cruel!), you love him or you hate him. But either way you read him”. Actually, since I’m such a cynical sort I don’t flatter myself, I think it’s more a combination of the pleasures of righteous wrath and/or scratching an itch that won’t go away.
To be fair to Mr Swafford he doesn’t actually say I should be prevented from writing as I do, just that he doesn’t want to see it in what he regards as his parish gazette. That other parishioners may have different views simply does not occur to him. And quite why Mr Swafford thinks I am anti-American I am not clear, he doesn’t say. Perhaps correspondent Robert Bier has it right when he says, “he (Mr Swafford) cannot differentiate between anti-American and anti-Bush sentiment” and wisely enjoins Mr Swafford to read with an open mind. If that is not possible, much as I hate to lose a dedicated albeit disgusted reader, dear Mr. Swafford, please do not distress yourself further and just..... turn the page.
Actually I have some respect for Mr Swafford, who is at least straightforward in that he does not like what I write and says so. To him my comments about Bush and anything else I say about America are anti-American and that’s that. But what are we to make of Ms TC of Ubud? That she’s a Ms I’m prepared to bet, despite my appalling betting record. While gently chiding Mr Swafford for his Republicanism and for questioning the integrity of the Bali Advertiser, thus establishing her libertarian and democratic credentials - in her own mind at least, Ms TC goes right on to make the same false assumption that he does, that I am anti-American because I make nasty remarks about Mr Bush. She continues with leaden irony to suggest rather than curtail freedom of expression in the press we should instead fill the pages of The Bali Advertiser with attacks on other nationalities written in the same style that she so dislikes in me. No, no, Ms TC. I don’t buy it. I reckon you’re a closet censor.
One thing’s for sure, Ms TC don’t like me very much. Apart from taking exception to what I write, at least Mr. Swafford only accused me of being cynical. To Ms TC I’m not only cynical, but she calls me a crude, bilious, mean-spirited and a pompous Brit to boot.
Whoa! Where is that all coming from?
Exactly what I’ve said or done to warrant all this is left unsaid. Being a Brit is an accident of history and not something I can do anything about. As for pompous, maybe. My wife sometimes says so, but then that’s usually only when we’re having an argument on the few occasions I’m in danger of winning. For people like Ms TC I suspect any male who can string together a word or two of more than one syllable is in danger of being called pompous, particularly if they’re English. But what about the rest of this ad hominem stuff she calls me? I reckon there’s a healthy dose of projection going on here.
I’m having fun envisaging Ms TC as an American business lady of certain years, who has a home in Ubud where she spends part of the year and who’s espoused certain New Agey and transpersonal philosophies borrowed from her psycho-spiritual betters to smooth over her unsatisfied and arid lot in life, who just doesn’t like the cut of my jib. Either that or she’s into multi-level marketing. Perhaps both.... Since Ms TC knows a thing or two about me, or thinks she does, I can only suppose she too is a regular reader of my column. Silly cat should also try turning the page and save ‘erself some grief.
Well I suppose a pro v. anti ratio of 3:1 ain’t bad. At least I’m being read and if not everybody loves me I guess I’ll just have to be big enough and bad enough to get over it.
About the anti-American and Bush thing, the estimable Bali Bubba makes a good point. Now that Bush has been re-elected hell will not freeze over in the next four years and the world will no doubt go on much as before. If I have dwelled on Bush and the recent presidential campaign, as I recognise I have, and if my dislike of Bush and his cabal of deeply unpleasant lieutenants, is readily apparent, I make no apologies. It is however time to move on.
To put it in perspective, it is ultimately no business of mine or any other non-American what Mr Bush and his cronies do to their fellow Americans domestically. However sad that may be to watch for anyone who likes America and most Americans as I do.That is their choice and they have the leader they must live with. And so, alas, must we. When it comes to the international effect of Bush and his half-baked macho Manichean worldview we have every right to be concerned and to express an opinion.
What Mr Swafford fails to see is that it is precisely because I value America’s generally positive role in world affairs that I write as I do. Until now, America was the only country most of us would trust as the world’s one and only hyperpower. The pity of it is that Bush et al have blown all that. That is not now how most of the world thinks any more. Through reckless spending, unilateralism and adventurism abroad Bush is overstretching even America’s vast resources and squandering the support of its natural allies. American power already has limits and he is hastening the day when America has to face the reality and challenges of a multi-polar and still nationalistic world. It’s already happening. My hope was that in the decade or two of America’s remaining undisputed ascendancy it would spend its energy and capital working toward the creation of a true world consensus. The US as the natural leader in establishing a basis for a world order that, however diverse and imperfect, could begin to address the planet’s problems of wars, pestilence, hunger and habitat. That may still happen, but not with George Bush in the White House and not while 50% of Americans and more put him there. Meantime God Bless us one an’ all.
