Independence Day abroad
Celebrating the 4th in England
As an American expat living in the UK, the 4th has always felt a little bit awkward. At first I had it in my head that Brits would dislike any mention of the holiday, given it was a loss for their side. But I soon realized that was wrong for a lot of reasons, not least that nobody I’ve met in the U.K. even clocks the fact that it is Independence Day in the U.S., let alone holds any grudges about losing a war centuries ago.
So it is just in my head. And maybe all our heads, since more than a few fellow Americans sent me this yesterday.
So I guess we Americans like to be a little bit smug at having won our independence from Great Britain. I do still need to work, of course, but I usually mark the day with a flag-themed dessert. This year, I get to celebrate with a larger than usual crowd, because my liberal friends on this side of the pond should be feeling smug, too: It’s election day in the U.K., and the Conservatives are expected to lose by a landslide. I can’t vote here, and to be honest I’m a little jealous; I think casting a ballot would do a lot for my psyche right now.
Last weekend, Democrats Abroad UK hosted its annual Independence Day picnic. I was very moved to stand in a park in the center of London, hand on heart, while our vice-chair sang The Star-Spangled Banner. I don’t have many American friends here, so it’s always exciting to attend events where there are lots of us. I suppose it has to do with not being the odd one out, for once.
Patriotism outside of America feels a little bit different, and particularly in the U.K., where I don’t see much evidence of patriotism in general. I think the Brits view Americans’ love of flag and country as a little bit strange, or cute, like a child’s passions you assume they will eventually outgrow. And this year, I’m more determined than ever to prove it is not something I will outgrow.
The picnic was one day before the U.S. Supreme Court decided that our presidents are immune from prosecution for “official” acts, since they must be able to do their jobs “fearlessly.”
When I read this line of reasoning, I wanted to know why doctors don’t get to treat their pregnant patients without fear of prosecution? I understand that doctors are not as powerful as the president, but surely when someone’s life is in your hands, you shouldn’t have to worry whether a legislator with no medical expertise will decide that your actions conflict with his or her moral or religious beliefs.
As far as I can tell (and I’m no political pro), the thing politicians are most fearful of is losing an election. And if presidents must act fearlessly, I think it’s fair to assume this SCOTUS decision will lead a particular type of politician to “officially” find ways to keep winning. That is, in fact, exactly what Trump was trying to do in this particular case.
And as far as I can tell (and I’m no medical pro), the thing doctors are most afraid of is someone dying or being mistreated while in their care. Maybe they’re also afraid of losing their medical licenses, or of being accused of malpractice. So what’s the worst that can happen by helping them act more fearlessly? They try harder to save people’s lives?
I think we’re incentivizing the wrong people.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor pointed back to the Dobbs decision (that overturned Roe), which argued that a previous abortion decision had “no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent.” Here she makes the point that the Court applied this “firm grounding” rule to strip women of bodily autonomy, but failed to maintain it in the immunity case.
“Utterly indefensible.”
Fellow Americans abroad, what better way to celebrate July 4th than to request your absentee ballot?
It is true. Was there ever a better reason for voting?