Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/838705
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 18 JUNE 2017 24 Letters Malta is the target here, not Muscat S ome years back – it must have been 2008, so already almost a decade ago – I happened to watch former US president George W. Bush's last-ever State of the Union address on TV. I won't bore you with what it was all about; to be honest, I can't even remember now. What intrigued me, however, was the reaction he was getting from his audience. Back then, Bush's approval rating as US President was at an all-time low: not just vis-a-vis his own previous record over eight years in the role... but compared to any US President in living memory. (Note: his record has since been beaten, but at the time it was unprecedented.) But you would never guess any of that just by watching his speech. There were moments the President struggled to get a word in, as his every sentence was drowned out by ecstatic applause. Among those egging him on the loudest was Nancy Pelosi: the Democrat Party's House Leader, and until that moment, George Bush's sternest critic in every other theatre of politics. But not here; not on this occasion. And OK, I'll grant you there may be a very simple explanation. It was, after all, George Bush's last ever speech as US President. The applause could be interpreted as a pre-emptive celebration of his inevitable political demise. But I was not convinced at the time, and remain unconvinced to this day. Beyond the festive atmosphere there was also an unmistakable note of sincerity. The cheering was motivated by what seemed to be a profound sense of respect. Clearly, this could not have been directed towards Bush in person – not, at least, so unanimously. My guess is that part of this display of seeming approval was directed, not at the man at all... but at the office he still held. Later, I found myself interviewing two US ambassadors in quick succession: Molly Bordonaro, the outgoing Republican appointee; and Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, her Obama-appointed replacement. As with all interviews, there were moments of off-the-record chit- chat beforehand... and I took the opportunity to ask both for their opinion of the above scenario. In different words, they both said more or less exactly the same thing. No matter how fierce or bitterly contentious the issues that separate the two sides may be... all differences are invariably put aside, when it comes to formalities celebrating American democracy as a whole. To jeer an outgoing US President at his final State of the Union address, I was told, would be perceived as the ultimate act of disloyalty to the Constitution. The identity of the President becomes irrelevant at such moments; it is what he represents that counts. With hindsight, I realise it is also a curious American foible that often gets lampooned and satirised. There is, perhaps, an inherent sense of hypocrisy underpinning such a blatant travesty; maybe the Americans overdo their public displays of (clearly feigned) patriotic emotion. But there is undeniably also something admirable in being able to rise above political differences in the name of a common interest: especially when that 'interest' involves love for one's own country. And it becomes all that more appealing, when you compare it to the clean opposite scenario: basically, the scenario that reigns in Malta at the moment, and which seems to be getting steadily worse each Raphael Vassallo To jeer an outgoing US President at his final Sate of the Union address would be perceived as the ultimate act of disloyalty to the Constitution