The 51st State

An Excellent Question!

2004-11-10T22:53:00.000-05:00

Is Peter Cuthbertson An "Ignorant, Lying Brat?"

2004-11-05T01:58:00.000-05:00

PROFILE
One of England's most conservative bloggers talks to 51 about being young, right-wing, and controversial.

"Horribly compelling."

Peter Cuthbertson buddies up to conservative legend and former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in May. (Image copyright Peter Cuthbertson 2004)

That's The Guardian's appraisal of Peter Cuthbertson's Conservative Commentary weblog. You know you've hit the right-wing big time when the one of the world's leading liberal newspapers gives you airtime, albeit grudgingly.

“As I recall, the remark was made in passing rather than in deep context,” writes Cuthbertson, in an October 26 e-mail interview with 51. “Of course, I agree on the phrase.”

But when you're barely 21 years old and just trying to get through another year at a university, as is Cuthbertson, shouldn't you be more concerned about your next exam than what the world press makes of your blog?

Well, no.

He’s been known to incite thoughtful conversation, not to mention bitter controversy, with his staunchly conservative posts. With so many eyes on this 21 year-old, he may as well consider blogging part of his studies. No topic is too sacred for “ConCom,” the nickname Cuthbertson has given his blog; he’s as outspoken on issues such as abortion (to pro-choicers, he quips: "It would be utterly absurd to say "Don't like rape? Then don't commit any'") and homosexuality as he is on tamer subjects such as immigration or the manifold laws, restrictions and debates regarding England's place in the European Union. And anyone who has the nerve to call John Lennon a “nasty little twerp” has got to have some serious cajones.

But the Cuthbertson 51 got to know through an extended e-mail interview is one far more tolerant and reserved than his detractors would probably like to believe.

“I enjoy reading posts I find insightful and accurate and also those I find deeply disagreeable,” writes Cuthbertson. "I welcome both the internal debate I have with myself, and then the external debate I have when writing a response and debating that on blogs."

He’s not exactly the Bill O’Reilly of the British blogosphere just yet, but give it a little while. Like O’Reilly’s foray into moderate territory on The Daily Show when he played the "undecided voter" for Jon Stewart, Cuthbertson is obviously media savvy enough to know that the occasional viciousness of his posts is, perhaps, best left in the posts themselves.

"I find Jerry Springer too depressing," writes Cuthbertson, in an October 11 "Quote of the Day" post. "It's the Democratic base and the consequences of Democratic social policies all rolled into one."

(Reader beware: this comparison has nothing to do with O’Reilly’s most recent exploits.)

Cuthbertson is an elusive, even shy, fellow, eschewing a phone interview for an e-mail one because he feels he is "much more articulate" in writing. His reserved, self-deprecating demeanor seems poles apart from the fervent conservative behind sites like Biased BBC, a kind of media-watchdog group blog, and PC Watch, dedicated to pitch battle against "the creeping dictatorship of the left." When he gets going, he really gets going, especially on the War in Iraq: "Iraqis have been portrayed in places as virtual demi-gods, a whole nation of ancient Athenians, ready to democratise the Middle East by their example. I'm not so confident." His is a conservative crusade against liberals of every ilk, and that includes members of his own generation.

“Young people have a natural disposition towards extremism and utopian nonsense, a point demonstrated by teenagers at every left-wing demonstration assuring you that England's communist revolution is just around the corner,” writes Cuthbertson, in an April 9, 2004 blog post.

He keeps up with many worldwide elections, but he took special interest in this year's presidential race.

"After the horrors of New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, Madrid, and Beslan, the U.S. presidential election is now
enormously decisive," he writes. He is, of course, a Bush fan, and shocked at the kind of violent imprecations being hurled against Bush in the press.

"Everyone knows there are a lot of people who really would welcome the president's murder," writes Cuthbertson. "The degree of hatred and hysteria directed at Bush is such that people who consider themselves open-minded and decent really can express such wishes and not be challenged on them."

Caustic though he can be, Cuthbertson says his political interests have a deeper source than those of the average Net pundit. “I am much more directly interested in underlying views of life and human nature than most other bloggers,” he writes. “I take the view that ultimately liberalism, socialism, socially liberal strands of libertarianism, etc., all fall down in their perspectives on human nature.”

“I am much more directly interested in underlying views of life and human nature than most other bloggers,” he writes. “I take the view that ultimately liberalism, socialism, socially liberal strands of libertarianism, etc., all fall down in their perspectives on human nature.”

He favors Hobbes and Machiavelli, saying they "are the most realistic [social philosophers], forming the best philosophical basis for understanding people’s inclinations and motivations."

Cuthbertson will tell you he argues on principle, starting at the roots of man's behavior and working outward from there. His arguments frequently question the inner motivations of his opponents as much as their outward actions.

“The issues that matter [most] to me ... are those which directly affect everyday life in a substantial way– crime, family breakdown, values," he writes. "When you get them right, good in other areas usually follows. If a society’s values are rotten, solving almost any other problems will be much more difficult.”

He is, unsurprisingly, a philosophy student, whose “fundamental disagreements” with left-wing thinkers “go beyond simple policy differences.” Sometimes those fundamental disagreements, however, seem to collapse into the realm of the downright petty.

Googling "Peter Cuthbertson" produces a fascinating fifth hit: "Peter Cuthbertson is an ignorant lying brat."

Liberal Brit blogger Chris Lightfoot accuses Cuthbertson of censoring disagreeable comments to a post on immigration. "Never wrestle with a pig," writes Lightfoot. "You both get dirty, and the pig likes it. Tory boy weblogger Peter Cuthbertson, whose idiotic post on immigration I mentioned earlier, has now deleted comments I made to his weblog with which he disagreed."

We’ll probably never know what actually happened, but Lightfoot’s proof is pretty convincing.

Still, is Peter Cuthbertson an ignorant lying brat?

51 can’t speculate about his veracity or his brattiness, but he hardly seems ignorant. His posts are pretty darned thoughtful, as far as blog posts go, and they tend to generate spicy comments from his audience. People are reading ConCom, whether they agree with it or not. A Google search reveals that Conservative Commentary has hundreds of pages linking to it, from sites like the Washington Monthly to the British Leftlog. Cuthbertson says his hit count is between 2000 and 3000 hits per week - peaking at around 5000. When that many people are paying attention, you have to believe he's doing something right.

"Getting these points across does require a certain amount of thought and philosophizing," writes Cuthbertson, of his tendency toward extended posts, necessary, he says, in order to adequately articulate his ideas.

No matter how viciously anti-Cuthbertson some of his readers may be, none can deny his bona fides as a political insider. His voluntary work as an advisor to conservative European MP Nirj Deva, for whom he campaigns, giving him an informed perspective when it comes to the fine art of political punditry.

Of course, as a conservative, he couldn't be happier about Dubya's win last Tuesday.

"I am delighted by this," wrote Cuthbertson when 51 frantically e-mailed him, in the early hours of November 3. "I do think Bush deserves, and the world needs, a second term for the Republicans. As they say, I don't want someone with a September 10 mindset in the White House."

No Stairway? Denied!

2004-10-27T15:24:00.000-04:00

An interesting tidbit dropped on 51's figurative plate just now - the Bush campaign started denying non-US visitors access to Dubya's official re-election site on Monday.

But fear not, conspiracy theorists, it has nothing to do with evil hackers or terrorists or mass system failures. Bush and Co. just don't want to waste money beaming the site to people who can't vote.

Logical. But what of the Americans living abroad? Do these actions suggest that Dubya's camp really doesn't think that every last freaking vote counts?

NPR says absentee votes may account for up to 20% of pre-November 2nd ballots. With renewed efforts to register American voters abroad, can the Bush campaign afford to put this block on? Especially when voters at home are already making states too close to call?

51 bets, as the Bush campaign already has, that nobody's going to base his or her vote on any of Dubya's re-election site content, although the downloadable "Viva Bush!" buddy icon is rather tempting.

Sweet, Sweet Tact - Where Are You?

2004-10-25T22:22:00.000-04:00

COMMENTARY

Dear Charlie,

WTF?

51 likes to think it has as much humour in its bones as any other self-respecting Guardian reader, but even it has to draw the line at calls for resurrections of presidential assassins.

And, by the way, the apology is lame.

Hinckley didn't even end up killing Reagan, for heaven's sake. Good God. He wasn't even a successful assassin. Not to mention the fact that he also failed to get the girl.

Better luck next time.

Best,
51

OMG!^$&%(#

2004-10-12T18:43:00.000-04:00

IRRELEVANT

OxBlog gave me a shout out.

Visions of a Burning Bush

2004-10-12T01:27:00.000-04:00

According to 51's latest opinion round-up, the Brits are less than impressed with Dubya's recent debate performance, but still calling it a close race. And both of the candidates can forget surviving a day in Parliament ...

Now that the dust has settled in the aftermath of the second presidential debate, it's time to survey the damage. Predictably, the Sunday Times declared Bush their clear winner, after he "re-opened his lead on likeability." The Guardian called it a draw, but one "enough to be called a win" for the President. And, like a good government-funded news agency, the BBC said it's still anybody's race.

If we're really going to get to the bottom of why the Brits think the way they do about the debates, however, let us first consider a marvelous phenomenon they like to call Prime Minister's Questions. That's right, they actually expect their politicians to be able to stand up and defend their opinions. And on a regular basis! When you take this novel concept into account, it's not hard to see why the Britons 51 talked to were left largely uninspired by the debates.

"I thought the whole thing was rather wooden and false," writes Peter Bull, hailing from near Liverpool, in an e-mail interview. "The fact that they were not supposed to talk to each other made them little more than an interview in stereo."

James Owen of Nottinghamshire echoed Bull's sentiments.

"I found it terribly boring," he writes via e-mail, partially attributing his opinion to apathy with regard to American domestic issues ("For gosh sakes, just get yourselves a National Health Service already!").

Alright, so maybe we knew it wasn't exactly going to be a non-stop, action-packed thrill ride, but what of the candidates?

Phil, an Englishman by birth and government doctoral student at one of our very prestigious Ivy League universities, e-mailed his thoughts: "Kerry looked far more presidential in both debates. When he managed to answer a question without waffling, you started to doubt what the Bush ads had told you."

Owen was especially discouraged by the "stupid, illogical mantra-like bilge George Bush came out with."

"The decision between Bush and Kerry is a question of American unilateralism or a workable world community," Owen continued, "which may have profound influences on matters like world poverty, fair trade, environmentalism and the war on terror. Things that affect everybody."

51 wondered if the Brits thought either Kerry or Bush could stand up to the kind of weekly assault Tony Blair endures during Prime Minister's Questions.

"Hah. No. Not a chance," writes Bull. "PMQ's is a fairly lively time and at the least makes for entertaining TV."

Owen backs up Bull's assessment, writing that "Kerry, who appears rather mild-mannered, would not fit in well with the raucous theatre of Prime Minister's Questions."

He didn't have much more (if any) faith in Bush's oratorial skills.

"Bush would be a laughing stock," Owen continued. "Our deputy prime minister, John Prescott, is ridiculed over his remarkable ability to contort the English language into incomprehensible blather, and Bush makes him sound like JFK."

But Phil wasn't so quick to judge the seemingly lame Bush/Kerry debate skills.

"Blair has to "debate" every week, and has done for 10 years. Everyone gets better with time!"

Phil confesses to being a swing voter in the hypothetical world where he can cast a ballot. 51 asked him if either of the candidates could do anything in the next three weeks to sway his opinion. Short of a "truly awful gaffe," he didn't think it would be possible.

"This election cycle, the swing voter is being patronized more than usual," writes Phil. He insists that his unwillingness to make a choice wasn't a case of needing more candidate information or even hearing about a particular issue. He just doesn't like the "party dogma" or the "party hacks."

Owen also sees the debates as simplistic.

"They seem to be pander to the uniformed voter who doesn't feel politics is important enough to read about," he writes. "I'm not sure if that's good or bad. One would assume good if it encourages participation, yet the debates reduce politics to soundbitery. Swings and roundabouts I suppose."

Need Some Wood?

2004-10-09T01:11:00.000-04:00

COMMENTARY

The "Brits" (as Dubya is now calling them) are trying to figure out exactly what went on in tonight's debate, given that viewers without Rupert Murdoch's subscription-based satellite TV service, Sky TV, in the United Kingdom had no live television access to the event. They were left to speculate on the visuals, or ask around for links to the BBC's comparatively low-res Internet broadcast.

"Actually this [debate] could be really exciting as, according to the BBC, they 'will perch on stools and may walk around the stage,'" writes Smollett, a Guardian Talk user not known for suppressing his sarcasm.

Cheers to the Guardian for its almost non-partisan analysis of the second presidential debate. It doesn't quite capture the pain and anguish of actually watching Bush's "I own a timber company?" attempt at humor midway through the festivities, but we're sure the Brits can put their imaginations to work. 51 frowns upon Bush's smarmy attempt at making a joke out of his own blatant lies. 51 is proud to recommend more highbrow comedy for its readers' collective amusement.

51's Yorkshire correspondent, Ronaldo, coined the official quote of the evening, saying, "George Bush is doing for bullshit what Stonehenge did for rocks."

Not that it's at all a time for joviality in the U.K., since The Sun now has another horrific beheading with which to sell papers. The backlash over Tony Blair's refusal to negotiate with Ken Bigley's captors has yet to be fully realized, but even Bigley's own brother, Paul, chastized the prime minister for his no-deal policy, which is, not surprisingly, in line with Bush's own approach.

The Sun reported Paul Bigley's plea to Blair: “Please, please stop the war and prevent other lives being lost. It is illegal. It has to stop.”

Dissatisfaction with Blair is reflected in most recent MORI poll, showing 33% of Britons favoring their Conservative Party, while 57% are leaning to the left (32% for Labour and 25% for Liberal Democrats.) 51 thinks that the Bigley ordeal will decrease Blair's popularity even further, making Kerry's case against the war in Iraq that much stronger, whatever his debate performance.

Sorry, Where Did You Say You Were From?

2004-10-08T11:57:00.000-04:00

COMMENTARY

A few nights ago, 51 found itself, by no fault of its own, in the company of approximately nine angry Scotsmen and Irishmen, clamoring to make themselves heard over the dull roar of a Gramercy pub called Fitzgerald's. The Carlsberg - and the opinions - were flowing freely.

Fitzgerald's: Good for a pint and a point of view. (Image copyright Andrea Grimes, 2004)

Somewhere between the second and third Stella, but before the free shots of Apple Pucker we got, courtesy of some heavy flirtation, I began to realize that the bartender was far too old to seem so incredibly attractive. And then it occurred to me: he had an Irish accent, an attribute virtually guaranteed to elevate even the ugliest of the ugly to Brad Pitt levels of hotness. I knew there was a reason drinking on a school night had seemed like such a good idea.

“So, what do you think to the elections?” I asked, immediately realizing I sounded like a jerk for adopting British phraseology. “I’m a writer, covering what British and Irish people think about the campaigns.”

The bartender’s eyes lit up as he nearly dropped the pint of Guinness he was pouring.

“You’re in the right place, little lady.”

He winked at me, scurried down to the end of the bar, and came back with a few of the hairiest, roundest, most jovial Irish- and Scots-men you could ask for.

These guys had no need for the BBC's guide to the United States government. They could easily have passed most state standardized social studies tests, freely ranting about the Electoral College and future Supreme Court justices.

I told them what Guardian columnist Oliver Miles had written to me in an e-mail interview.

“The key question for [Britons] is the group of issues relating to America alone or in alliance with others, pre-emptive war, and the ‘war’ on terrorism.”

I told them about Miles’ recent Guardian article, endorsing Kerry’s (weak) criticisms of Bush’s policy in Iraq. The one they called "Des" thought that was pretty accurate, but said the Iraq issue was "overplayed in the press."

To my surprise, Des was more concerned with Bush's treatment of former GOP presidential nominee rival, Senator John McCain, and McCain's recent endorsement of the man who had treated him so poorly in the past.

"You look at a man like McCain, and how he just gave in to George Bush," said Des. "Then you know the Republicans aren't the party you should be voting for."

The bartender, sloshing another pint of Carlsberg on the table in front of me, agreed.

"They don't believe in welfare," he said, pounding the cherrywood bar with his fist. "You're always goin' to have poor people, and there ain't no sense in trying to pretend otherwise. People need help. At least John Kerry realizes that, if he don't know anything else."

I was surprised at this interest in American domestic issues, but Miles was not.

"Britain is historically more involved with and dependent on its international relations than most countries," wrote the Guardian columnist and former ambassador to Libya, in his e-mail. "Therefore, although it is true in Britain as elsewhere that people are mainly interested in domestic political issues, it is rather less true than the world average."

The conversation turned to the Yankee playoff game, then in progress on the bar TV. Finishing his pint, Des got up to leave - it was well past his bedtime - but he left me with a parting thought.

"Whether we're Irish or English or what have you, you've got to remember that we want the best for this country 'cause you are so powerful," he said, only slightly slurring. "Our leaders depend on your leaders. Your leaders depend on ours, and if you don't vote for John Kerry, I'll consider it a vote wasted!"

It's a Different Race When You Can't Vote

2004-09-30T11:00:00.000-04:00

51 hits the virtual streets to find out what a few average Britons have to say about the impending elections

If it is indeed true, as Timothy Garton Ash writes in the Guardian, that Americans do care what Europeans think about the next president, then 51 is bound and determined to get the British opinion straight from the horse's mouth.

The minor detail that they can't cast a vote in November is of little consequence to some Britons, who insist on keeping tabs on the elections, regardless.

"I'm following it as best I can, I would have to say because it affects the rest of us so much. More than any other country's elections," says Ronaldo, a 21 year-old entrepreneur from Yorkshire in a phone interview yesterday. He says his interest in the elections stems from the United Kingdom's part in the war in Iraq, which Tony Blair contended was justified when he spoke at the Labour Party's convention in Brighton on Wednesday.

"As much as Saddam needed to be taken from power or disarmed, the evidence was pretty crooked and the violence now is way out of hand," Ronaldo says, of the speech. He favors Kerry, "naturally."

A recent Populus Poll for the Times has Britons favoring a Kerry coup by a significant margin. Fifty-two percent of readers polled preferred Kerry, over 29% for Bush.

Ian Weatherseed, a senior majoring in business and fine art at NYU, is suspicious of poll results. He sees the support as purely reactionary; a sign of frustration with the Bush administration.

"I hate how so many people are supporting Kerry out of dislike for Bush," says Weatherseed. He's lived in the States for about five years, and finds himself "completely detached when it comes to the political side of all things UK" and prefers to follow American politics.

Despite his detachment from the British political scene, he's frustrated with U.S. elections because he doesn't "feel there are enough essential differences between Kerry and Bush."

Those differences, should they exist at all, don't come out in the British press, says H.J., a 36 year-old Londoner who works with computers, in an e-mail interview. He believes the U.K. election coverage pays too much attention to candidates' personalities and not enough attention to the issues.

"Short of disliking Bush, I'd be chosing based on personality, since that is all that comes across in media coverage here and that is a poor way to chose a politician," says H.J., who asked that only his initials be used. Ronaldo disagrees, saying the British media are too detached.

"It's strange because the media here take the third-party view on it all, like it does not matter," says Ronaldo. "They are just reporting the story. They don't actually seem to favor either side at all. They don't tend to report much on the slander side of it all." He says Bush's reputation as an uninformed country boy still precedes him in the United Kingdom, however, making him hard to like.

H.J. seconds that.

"Bush has done America's image no end of harm. Much of the world wept with the United States after September 11," says H.J. "Now much of the world sees America as a bully, worse still, a lawless bully, who cares nothing at all for the opinion of others, and is prepared to ride rough shod over any who stand in its way."

Weatherseed, watching the campaign antics unfold from New York, sees the same animosity toward the United States, but doesn't know if Kerry taking office would make a difference.

"It's America, as a country, as a complete political entity, that is in trouble, and the actions of a buffoon cannot wholly account for this," he told 51. "People outside of America hate its government in general, and if Kerry were to replace Bush, this would not change."

Weatherseed said he believes foreigners dislike the U.S. government because it's seen as a bullying big-brother. Ronaldo was quick to agree.

"Even though your country is the most powerful in the world, it's still its own country," says Ronaldo, who thinks the United States tries to have too much influence over how other countries operate. "It's not like it's the offical world leader and we just don't get a vote because we don't live there."

But the bottom line remains: who would Britons vote for?

"I'd vote for Kerry, naturally," says Ron. But even he's unsure.

"Well, you'd expect any decent candidate up against Bush after the way the war in Iraq has gone, and the power of the opposition to the it, to pretty easily take office from Bush this year. Kerry just seems to be in it for the running; he does not seem to have a definitive left view."

Weatherseed and H.J. declined to take a position on their actual voting choice. For them, it's more about understanding the issues and being prepared to deal with the outcome of what Americans decide this November.

"I probably wouldn't vote for Bush as a form of protest, but I'm not sure I'd vote for Kerry," says H.J., admitting that there are "obscure domestic issues" preventing him from taking a firm stance.

Weatherseed says he's disappointed with all the campaign mudslinging, lobbying and lecturing. He doesn't find either candidate's performance impressive so far.

"In my opinion it's all power games and hoodwinking. A necessary control for social and economic stability," says Weatherseed.

BBC Blogs Across America, Gets Patronized

2004-09-22T02:28:00.000-04:00

COMMENTARY

51 is insanely jealous of BBC reporters Kevin Anderson and Richard Greene, who are currently road-tripping across America, covering the election for online BBC readers in their blog. 51 wishes it could road trip across the UK, but realizes that only takes two hours, and that's if you stop in Leeds for a pint of Carling, so it wouldn't be nearly as exciting.

In any case, Anderson and Greene stopped outside of Nashville today for the dedication of the Corporal Patrick R. Nixon bridge, named for the first Tennessean to be killed in Iraq. After the ceremony, they stopped to talk to Martha Morris, head of Tennessee Marine Families, who has a son serving in Iraq. A staunch Republican, she "went out of her way" to thank Blair and the Brits for all the help:

"We have a great passion to protect [the British]," Morris told Anderson and Greene, adding: "They're family. We're the wild child of the family, but we're still family."

Well, cheers Martha. Thanks loads. 51 will pass that message on to the poor, helpless Brits who were floundering in a sea of their own inadequacy before Big Bro US came along to the rescue.

That's the kind of press that scares 51. We've got to get someone in charge of the masses, some PR guru who will screen out inane comments like this before they hit foreign shores. (51 will begin taking applications within the next week and make a decision by October 14. Previous experience preferred, but not required. Enthusiasm a must.)

Martha's quote embodies 51's worst fears. It's the kind of quote that incites facepalms from Brit-sympathetic Americans and seems to confirm what already suspicious foreigners were thinking: that we're a nation of self-important, over-bearing Puritans (albeit "wild-child" Puritans, according to Martha).

UK writer and suspicious foreigner Neal Ascherson says it nice and concisely in his recent address to the Edinburgh International Book Festival. Ascherson contends that September 11 was about attacking America specifically and wonders how so many Americans got convinced that it was about attacking The Great And True Concept That Is Democracy. In the same turn, 51 wonders how Blair and so many Britons got convinced of the same thing.

Ascherson notes that Big Bro America bases one of the tenets of its proud nationalism (and many of its reasons for invading Iraq) on a non-nationalistic idea: "The Constitution is the ark of the covenant. Its principles are claimed to be not national but universal, in the old Enlightenment way."

Let's take a look at the stats.

US: One (1) constitution(s)
UK: No (0) constitution(s)

51 guesses we just decided to stretch the parchment across the pond for the time being. And Martha Morris clearly has no problem with that. More disturbingly, neither does Tony Blair.

Something to consider.

Because the best conversations always start at the pub ...

2004-09-18T14:44:00.000-04:00

"And before you fecking know it, the whole bloody place goes up in flames and why? I'll tell you why, mate - because we're the fecking 51st state, that's why."

It was a drizzly evening in early February. The London School of Economics' student bar - affectionately known as 'The Tuns' - was buzzing, as it is wont to be when the rain keeps the kids inside for one more pint. One voice rose shrilly above the crowd, shouting the revelation above. Waving around wahtever Ralph Nader book he'd managed to get ahold of that week, it was pub regular and soccer hooligan-turned-economics obsessive, Bang-Bang. This time, though, he kind of had a point.

Bush and Blair are BFF and cans of Heinz products generously populate the shelves of Safeways and Tescos and ASDAs across the UK. Britons have a vested interest in who wins this year's presidential election. They sent a couple of soldiers to the sandy dunes over in Iraq, and they'll be damned if they let this November go by without their say in the whole bit.

By contrast, America could give approximately two rat's behinds about what's happening in UK politics. (What's it called? Parliament? Wasn't that a funk band?) The 51st State will root out the biggest, best and occasionally the smallest and worst British and Irish media coverage of the 2004 Election, then examine it, comment on it, report on it and try to give it context. These people had the common courtesy to colonize our fair land; the least we can do is send them some props by listening to what they have to say about the two most popular men in America. Outsiders can offer a valuable perspective; by looking at ourselves through UK eyes, we'll learn more about our own faults, flaws and strengths.