Are you thinking what we're thinking?
That's the slogan with which Britain's Tory Party was contesting the U.K. general election -- until last week, when it became increasingly clear that rather than striking a chord with the natives, the slogan was being used by the Tories' enemies to lampoon them.
Co-opted from a popular children's television show in Australia and reinscribed by a political spin doctor for a successful campaign by a right-wing Australian party, the slogan was appearing in British Tory posters underneath such provocative lines as: "Violent crime soars but Labour puts a spin on it," and most provocative of all, "It is not racist to impose limits on immigration."
Playing the immigration card was always a risky strategy, especially given that Conservative Leader Michael Howard's grandfather may have been an illegal immigrant -- as Mr. Howard was forced to admit early in the campaign. Yet Mr. Howard, his Romanian Jewish roots undetectable in his lilting Welsh lisp, pressed on with his message, undeterred by entreaties from his own party to tone down the immigration scare -- until the slogans were turned against him and his party.
Defacing election posters seems to be an official blood sport in British elections. It is a serious matter, though, because the best posters linger in the memory long after they have wrought their electoral damage. The one that helped bring Margaret Thatcher to power in 1979 ("Labour is not working") is still lauded as a great example of the art.
I imagine the Tories were trying to recreate the success of that campaign -- until ad busters turned the posters into a forum to poke lyrical fun at the Conservative Party. "It is not racist to impose limits on immigration -- are you thinking what we're stinking?" reads one defaced poster. Another made a sly wink at Mr. Howard's immigrant roots with: "It's not racist to deport Tories." Once Tony Blair started mocking the catchphrase in his campaign speeches, it seemed that the Tories had lost the election-poster battle.
Yet polls suggests that despite the ridicule, the Tories' use of immigration in fact helped them gain some ground on Labour.
To an immigrant in Britain, such political stunts inspire a depressing sense of alienation, and serve to remind us that behind the inclusive rhetoric that Tories trumpet in this election, the political face is betrayed by the public mind.
And the debate on levels of immigration cannot be lightly dismissed, especially for an island nation like Britain. Fear of being swamped is an image that superimposes the flaky politics of race on questions of socio-economic import. Whenever these issues flare up, the usual suspects are lined up for identification: welfare cheats, health tourists, economic migrants etc., etc.
It seems impolite to point out that many countries in the North extract more than their dues from countries where so many migrants come from. Britain, an island nation with few resources, did rather well out of its colonies -- and continues to maintain its competitive advantage, thanks to its historical advantages (brain gain and investment flows do wonders).
It has always struck me that what makes Britain great is that it can sustain its cultural contradictions -- so that a second-generation immigrant can play the race card and almost get away with it.
But the problem with setting limits on immigration is that they will destroy the contradictions that sustain them. I know this from reading my e-mails every day. For almost 10 years, I have kept the same e-mail address -- the one at the bottom of this column. It has been the only constant address I've had in a period during which I've changed my physical address at least 10 times. I kind of like the way I can present an image of stability and still enjoy a nomadic lifestyle. I squatted in my corner of cyberspace in relative peace for seven years. Then unsolicited guests started turning up on my doorstep. I received my first spam e-mail right about the time I began to publicize my e-mail with this column. It got so bad last year, I had to download software that imposed limits on these strangers in my inbox. The problem is, the software is so efficient that it quarantines any e-mail that is not recognized by my address book.
All of which spares me a visit from the likes of Mr. Viaaagra and Mr. Rolex. But it also means that somewhere in my quarantined folder are the "friendly" e-mails that respond to my columns, and messages from people from whom I might learn something.
That's the problem with barriers and borders. They keep out the good as well as the bad. And it's no fun only receiving e-mails from my tight circle of friends.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? wiwa@dial.pipex.com