Undecided

Ah, George W. Bush. If a writer is looking for content, our current president offers a plethora of material. Writers across the globe, political and otherwise, are using the pen to either defend or attack (usually the latter) the current American president.

I tend to avoid political material because, well, I’m not particularly politically savvy. I attempt to know what’s going on in the world, but unless I have all the facts, and I mean all of them, I try to avoid debate. Hell, I try to avoid comment. In fact – and I’m embarrassed to admit it – I’ve even avoided voting. The thing is, I’m undecided. The jury’s still out. And in November 2004, it was hung.

I’m indecisive in general, and I think it’s most prevalent when I don’t know all the facts. Sometimes the facts are impossible to know (Which will I enjoy more? The chai latte or the white mocha? Life in America or life in Africa?), but with politics the facts are out there. There seem to be eighteen different versions, but they’re out there. I certainly know better than to take the word of Ann Coulter or Keith Olbermann at face value, but sifting through all those opinions, all those articles, those books…well, even a smart girl like me can get overwhelmed.

It’s no excuse. I routinely beat myself up for not knowing more about the situation in Burma or Darfur, or not having more to contribute in a political debate – especially now that I seem to be representing all of America in my social circle. So I’ve been making an effort to know more. Sure, it’s taking me seven months to get through Barack Obama’s book, but I’m trying. I now drink my morning coffee with milk, sugar and CNN International.

Despite my renewed resolve to be politically aware, I was taken aback last week when one of Sally’s friends made a snide comment that maybe I should tell my president that Nelson Mandela isn’t dead. Huh? Now, I know George W. makes some pretty big mistakes, but really? Okay, he may have accidentally said that Queen Elizabeth II was around in 1776, but surely he wouldn’t say Nelson Mandela was dead…right?

Determined to get to the bottom of this, I googled “Bush” and “Mandela." If he had made a mistake like that, certainly it would be all over the news. Nothing popped up from MSNBC or CNN, but I found the following link to a South African news site.

http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN144024.html

You can check it out for yourself, but here is the punch line:

"I heard somebody say, ‘Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas." Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.

I scanned the short article, but it didn’t really clear things up for me. All the Mandelas? What was he talking about? And how did he jump from Iraq to Mandela? I knew there was more to it, but I wasn’t exactly getting it. I needed to know more, because I was sure Sally’s friend wouldn’t be the last South African to comment on my president’s faux pas. I forwarded the link to Darby and Dave. If Bush had made an idiot of himself, I assumed my sister and brother-in-law would know all about it. I also knew that if there was a genuine explanation for his comment, their liberal leanings wouldn’t prevent them from sharing it with me.

My brother-in-law promptly explained his take on the situation, and I’ll try to summarize (just in case it wasn’t obvious to you either):

What Bush was trying to say – though not very eloquently – is that there was no Iraqi equivalent to Nelson Mandela, someone who would rise up and overthrow the Hussein regime in Iraq the way Mandela fought to end apartheid in South Africa. In the quote that is the focus of the article, Bush is saying that Hussein killed any would-be Mandelas. Mandela was put in jail and able to return later to foster change, but in Iraq, an opposition leader like Mandela would have been executed instead of imprisoned.

After Dave’s explanation, I reread the article and felt stupid for not understanding what Bush was trying to say immediately. It seemed obvious. Then again, clearly, most people in my part of the world didn’t understand the analogy either – possibly because the article is somewhat misleading.

It’s unfair, really, how the press can take an isolated comment and turn it into something it’s not. Clearly, the author of that article knew what the president meant by his statement, and yet the article is written in such a way as to leave you thinking George Bush believes Mandela to be dead. It’s also unfair that one comment, taken out of context, can leave a whole nation of people thinking the American president is a complete idiot – and even if you believe he is an idiot (like I said, I’m undecided) – he isn’t an idiot who believes Nelson Mandela is dead.

I’ve since had several conversations about the article – and the explanation, of course. Here I am, a reluctant representative of our country, forced to defend a president who, even after seven years in office, I’m not entirely sure how I feel about. It’s easy for me to simply say “Well, I didn’t vote for him” when asked about his most recent offensive act, but the truth is, I didn’t vote for anyone. And maybe that is the real reason I avoid political debate.

Not this time though. I’m ready to do some research. I’m going to finish Obama’s book. Maybe I’ll plow through Giuliani’s too. I’m going to check out all the candidates. I’m going to pick a favorite; it’s time to pick a team. I’ve grown up enough to know that I will never completely agree with either side, but that doesn’t matter. I still have to choose. I will find out how to get an absentee ballot, and from 10,000 miles away, I will cast my first vote.

It’s time to stop hiding behind my indecision. It’s time to make a choice.

And luckily, I still have a little over a year to make it.