the united states of portland.

sometimes, i feel like portlanders take a lot for granted.

we have the pleasure of living in a city that boasts (in my humble opinion) a larger-than-average population of politically aware, active, environmentally conscious (etc.) folk. because we live in such an environment, and despite the evidence we see of "the outside" on the telly, in the newspaper, we develop this idea that the rest of the u.s. is just like portland. that people don't just accept the status quo, but that they choose to think for themselves, to obtain well-rounded perspectives of important issues from various media, and so forth. i think, particularly, that this idea is fiercely alive at institutions of education, like psu.

it's funny...we go to college and we're taught to question what we're told, that the world is rarely what it seems, and that it is increasingly important to see the world with international eyes. and yet, we portlanders - the "tree hugging liberals" who love to criticize our government officials because of their relentless pursuit of a blanket, pro-western agenda in the middle east - are still ethnocentric enough to think that what is good or true for us is good or true for every other american.

example: i was in my foreign policy class the other day, we were discussing cold war policy and the trend that developed during that time of government powers "misrepresenting" situations abroad in order to increase public support for u.s. military/political involvement. basically, that politicians have to be spindoctors if they want the american people behind them. one of my fellow classmates then asked, "why can't the government just tell us the truth? why can't they tell us that we invaded iraq for oil? i think everyone really knows that's the truth anyway."

frankly, i was dumbfounded. how can someone really think that most americans believe THAT? there are millions of americans that are basically media-illiterate, or who don't care enough to look beyond their sensationalistic evening news to learn of other sides to a story, or are the kind to support and trust in their president "no matter what", or whom are in denial about the international state of affairs, power politics, etc. what about the religiously-inclined folks who truly believe we are on a moral, "righteous" mission to spread peace and promote democracy abroad?

what it boils down to is - i dare say! - americans wouldn't stomach the thought of going to war on account of access to oil (and/or other natural resources, geopolitics, etc). sure, many of us may believe that is the truth, but what about the rest of this vast country? i don't think ol' gw would be able to amass much public support if he chose that approach. (to be fair, its not as if he's the only one who's tried to strike an emotional chord with the people - american foreign policy has reflected a moralistic, "righteous power" drive for decades.)

so...back to the issue at hand...here was a formally educated woman saying americans want - and would easily accept - the truth. what i think she was doing was applying the desires and/or attitudes of those around her, and in her class, to those of all other communities in the country. but we aren't every other community; portland is not a microcosm of the larger society. and, if SHE - someone who has had the opportunity for a higher education, who sees herself as knowledgeable and aware - can make that sort of attribution error...

well. we're right f$*@ed, my friends.