Latvians split on choice for president

Andris Straumanis | 

Time was when a Latvian voting for president of the United States had a clear choice: pick the Republican. Not that everyone followed the party line, of course, but the post-World War II generation of Latvians in America generally have been a conservative group. And their conventional wisdom had been that the Republican candidate would be tougher on the Soviet Union.

But times have changed. Take the Nov. 7 election, which has left America in a quandary, awaiting vote recounts and the resolution of legal battles in Florida and several other states. We recently asked for a sampling of post-election opinion from some of our regular readers. What we learned surprised us.

Of those Latvian-Americans who voted for Republican candidate Gov. George W. Bush, many pointed to his party pedigree, his perceived honesty and his plans for Social Security as reasons they picked him over his main challenger. Meanwhile, those who favored Democratic candidate Vice President Al Gore cited his experience in Washington, D.C., his perceived intelligence and his stance on environmental and economic issues.

But although many of our respondents said their ethnic heritage is important, most said domestic U.S. issues outweighed concerns about the next president’s potential impact on Latvia.

Keep in mind that this is just a sampling of opinion, not a scientific survey. We received responses from 64 readers in the United States as well as a handful from other countries. Of U.S. readers, 30 supported Bush, 25 voted for Gore and nine cast ballots for Green Party candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader.

Why they voted for Bush

Ivars Ikstrums of Sammamish, Wash., was among those Latvian-Americans who voted for Bush. He cited several reasons for picking the Republican over the Democrat, including what he sees as the Clinton Adminstration’s lack of honesty and integrity.

“Clinton has introduced an ‘anything goes’ attitude into American society, the likes of which we’ve never seen before,” Ikstrums added. “Gore will continue that. This has got to be stopped.”

While Ikstrums pointed to his disagreement with what he expects would be Gore’s continuation of Clinton’s foreign policy, George Zuments of Arvada, Colo., found himself agreeing with Bush because of domestic issues.

“As a small company owner, several things were important,” Zuments said. “I did not want larger government programs and more entitlement programs.Tax cuts were important.

“The ‘surplus’ is a result of too much government income vs. expenditures,” Zuments added, noting the federal tax revenue that has increased in recent years during the country’s economic expansion.

Similarly, Eriks Lielbriedis of Grand Rapids, Mich., supported Bush because of his stand on issues such as limiting and decreasing taxes, decreasing the size of government and added accountability in public education.

For several respondents, the opportunity to change leadership in Washington was among the main factors influencing their vote for Bush. Said Hugh A. Kalns of Williamsburg, Va.: “We need someone with fresh blood that can restore America’s dignity in the world, someone that will make a good leader and someone that presents statesman-like appearance instead of preaching half-truth and jumping like a clown all over the stage.”

A resident of Richmond, Va., didn’t view Bush as the ideal candidate, but a far better choice than Gore.

“I cast my vote for George W. Bush because he is pro-free market,” said Eriks Gudvins, “whereas Gore wants nothing but the kind of nonsense that caused Latvia so much pain for so many years under Soviet occupation.

“I cannot comprehend why Americans are even tempted to vote for a man who so obviously is no friend to true freedom,” Gudvins continued. “Didn’t the pain and suffering of Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest of the world that was mutilated by communism show the pointlessness of any form of socialism or communism?”

It wasn’t Bush but his running mate, Dick Cheney, that swayed Ivars Bezdechi of San Diego, Calif.

“I grudgingly voted for George Bush because of his running Dick Cheney,” he said. “Dick Cheney understands military affairs and foreign affairs. He understands the reality that the ‘cold war’ is really not over and knows that Russia is not a friend of the world community.”

Why they voted for Gore

A psychologist in Quakertown, Pa., Aivars Straume was among those respondents who said they voted for Gore.

“He is intelligent, has a positive reputation with world leaders, I agree with his philosophies and proposals about health care, the budget surplus, taxes, Social Security and the environment,” Straume said of the Democractic candidate.

Bush, according to Zinta Aistars of Michigan, “is an intellectual lightweight like none I have seen in my lifetime.” Among key issues for her were the environment, Social Security and the death penalty.

“Bush’s approach is very cavalier and calloused,” Aistars said of the last issue. “Too many innocent people have been put to death, yet he treats this with a smirk. Which brings up his lack of respect to minorities—racial concerns, gays, etc. Oh, I could go on forever…”

Silvija Vecrumba of New York City also noted several issues with which she found agreement with Gore, although she said the vice president wasn’t a particularly strong candidate.

“Gore takes a strong stand on something that is one of my pet peeves—the American drug companies,” Vecrumba said. “Pharmaceutical companies have the highest profit margin of any other company in the U.S., yet they whine about the costs of research and development and lobby to have patents extended to keep costs high for consumers.”

Juris Odiņš of Denver, Colo., also was not 100 percent in the Gore camp.

“I voted for Al Gore not out of real enthusiasm, but primarily because George Bush is completely unsuited to be president,” he said. “Gore has solid governing and political experience, breadth of knowledge and intelligence. Bush gets by on personality, family contacts and monied supporters.”

Odiņš, however, did agree that Gore would do a better job of paying down the national debt and strengthening Medicare and Social Security.

In Grand Prairie, Texas, among those voters who did not help Bush carry his home state was Gay Gaisma and her husband. Gaisma found disagreement with the native son on several issues, including his stand on offering vouchers for parents wishing to send their children to private schools.

“Teachers’ salaries in Texas are amongst the lowest in the country,” she said. “Bush’s voucher plan and support for private schools would further erode the public education system. Comparing education achievements of the two (systems) is like comparing apples to oranges. Public schools have to accommodate every child while private schools pick and choose from wealthy and high-scoring academic enrollees.”

Why they voted for Nader

Many political observers have called them spoilers: those who voted for Nader and supposedly “stole” votes from Gore, potentially costing the vice president the election.

“I voted for Ralph Nader because I could not bring myself to play the ‘lesser of two evils’ game,” observed Silvija Klaviņš-Barshney of Chicago. “I consider both Bush and Gore horrible candidates, although Bush is worse. I was hoping that Nader would get 5 percent of the vote, so that he could run a real campaign in four years.”

Others, too, voted for Nader to give the third-party candidate a better chance in the future, although Kaspars Zeltkalns of Michigan also flaunted his “spoiler” privileges. “I felt that a Nader vote would at least help Bush, because I did not want Gore at all,” he said.

At least a few Latvian-Americans, however, supported the Green Party nominee because of genuine interest in his platform.

“The other candidates did not offer me a real choice,” said Dace Zoltners of Wisconsin. “Neither Gore nor Bush have a stellar record. Ralph Nader has been a proponent for the citizens of this country since the late sixties.”

NATO mostly a non-issue

A number of Baltic-American organizations have focused part of their lobbying efforts on convincing the U.S. government that it should support expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In the runup to the Nov. 7 election, they also tried to promote NATO expansion as an issue to watch in the presidential campaigns.

Our readers generally consider NATO expansion an important cause, but remained unconvinced that it was an overriding consideration in deciding whom to support for president. Said Bush supporter Valdis Siliņš of Minneapolis: “I cannot nor will I ever expect America’s leadership to actively promote Latvia’s NATO membership if it is not perceived as being in America’s best interests.”

Violeta Byrum of Coopersburg, Pa., agreed: “Issues affecting everyday life are going to have a higher priority even though I am passionate about the Baltic States being able to become members of NATO.”

And one reader in Washington state criticized Baltic-American organizations in their efforts to influence voters.

“I don’t trust the Russian Federation and think security for the Baltics and other ex-republics is important,” she said. “But I was really insulted by e-mails that suggest that because I am a Latvian-American that I have to vote for certain candidates and not others based solely on the issue of NATO enlargement.”

However, a minority of respondents suggested that the issue of NATO expansion played a strong role in their choice for president.

“This is extremely important to me and further supported my argument for Gore,” said Diana Robeznieks of Cleveland, who went on to compare the politics of the Republican candidate and his father, the ex-president. “I never cared for George Sr.‘s take on the Baltic States and I am fairly confident that George W. would end up being another Republican isolationist.”

Bush supporter Aldis Puriņš of Grand Rapids, Mich., saw danger in Gore’s policies and their potential impact on NATO.

“I truly believe that Gore would weaken our military even more, which translates to a weaker NATO,” he said. “I’m not sure that NATO can continue to exist without a strong U.S. presence.”

(Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on SVEIKS.com.)

Andris Straumanis is a special correspondent for and a co-founder of Latvians Online. From 2000–2012 he was editor of the website.

Pop compilations beg for history lesson

Andris Straumanis | 

The thought of buying a compilation album featuring songs from a selection of artists usually leaves me feeling cheap in a K-tel kind of way. So when Rīga-based MICREC late last year released its Non Stop Ballīte collection of 18 pop tunes, I was dubious about the album’s value.

With the release a few months ago of Non Stop Ballīte 2: Vecie labie…, this time focusing on songs that were popular a generation ago, I am gradually being swayed to accept that these albums are interesting additions to one’s collection of Latvian music. However, both albums could have been much better vehicles for showcasing the development and influences on Latvian pop.

Both albums operate under a simple idea: Put into one recording a good number of popular songs, stringing them together without breaks (hence the “nonstop” adjective). The transitions between most songs generally work well, but in a few parts are noticeably forced. Both albums would be nicer to listen to without this annoyance.

The first Non Stop Ballīte collection features 18 songs that have been made popular by Latvian performers in roughly the past decade. A treat for fans of the satirical Labvelīgais tips is the German version of the hit tune, “Aluminijas cūka.” Andris Freidenfelds’ rendition of “Aluminium Schwein” is followed immediately by “Meitene, zeltene,” one of the best-loved tunes by rock group Līvi.

Anyone who has listened to Latvian radio or purchased tapes or compact discs since the country regained its independence will recognize many of the other songs in this collection. There’s “Viss ir tieši tā kā Tu vēlies” by the pop-rock stars Prāta Vētra, “Meitene” by the Latvian “country” crooner Gunārs Meijers, “Aka aka” by joker Roberts Gobziņš and the techno-driven, twisted folk song “Rikšiem bērīt” by the short-lived Saule project.

For me, the prize on this album was one of my favorite songs, “Manas mīļakas puķes” by Zodiaks, with vocals by Maija Lūsēna.

A couple of songs seem ill-suited for this collection: the downright weird “Disnejlenda” by Credo and the irritating schlager hit “Zvaigznīte, zvaigznīte” by Fiska. The album also is ruined by the rude and unnecessary closing track, “Nobeigums.”

My major criticism of the album is that it could have been aided by fuller liner notes, briefing the listener on the history of the songs and the performers. MICREC let a wonderful opportunity slip by, especially for listeners from outside of Latvia who may not be familiar with some of these artists.

This becomes particularly clear with the second compilation, Non Stop Ballīte 2: Vecie labie…, which features 25 songs from the 1970s. Sure, we’ve all heard of composer Raimonds Pauls, who continues to produce new material. But what of singers such as Viktors Lapčēnoks, Nora Bumbiere, Ojārs Grīnbergs, Žoržs Siksna and the late Edgars Liepiņš? Outside of Latvia, some of these names may still be recognized: Lapčēnoks’ star seems to be rising again; Liepiņš once toured Latvian centers in North America. To know more about these performers and the songs they sing would have been wonderful.

Like the first Non Stop album, Vecie labie… suffers from the “nonstop” concept. Some transitions are forced, others are not clear. I even missed the transition between the first two songs, “Salds italiešu kino” and “Tā diena.”

Vecie labie… presents a taste of “estrādes mūzika” from the 1970s. MICREC, in its promotional material for the album, characterized these songs as the music that the parents of today’s youth listened to. If that’s so, the historical context becomes even more necessary, both for those of us in the West and for those of today’s Latvian youth who may be wondering about the 1970s. Certainly, those of us who grew up in the West, inundated by the “star-making machinery” of commercialized pop and rock, can only sit and wonder at how much the music of occupied Latvia differed from what we were hearing on our turntables and the FM radio.

While for younger listeners the first Non Stop may readily bring back memories of when the song made the moment, Vecie labie… could well hold the same magic for the youth of the 1970s. For those of us who grew up outside of Latvia, there might only be glimmers of recognition. Despite their failings, we can only hope that MICREC doesn’t stop with just these two recordings.

Details

Non Stop Ballīte 2: Vecie labie

Various artists

MICREC,  2000

Andris Straumanis is a special correspondent for and a co-founder of Latvians Online. From 2000–2012 he was editor of the website.

Nesaule’s book reveals ‘riches of the heart’

Diana Kiesners | 

A Woman in Amber

A book should serve as an axe for the frozen sea within us.—Franz Kafka

"I must not speak and I must not cry….It was essential to be compliant and to pretend to be all right."

These are the lessons of war that six-year-old Agate Nesaule learns when her family is evacuated by the Germans from Latvia toward the end of the Second World War. They are conscripted to work at Lobethal, a home for the mentally ill. When the Germans are routed and conquering Russian soldiers burst into the basement where the refugees huddle, their only hope for survival is to become invisible. The men, Agate’s father among them, are marched away to an unknown fate. These are among moments Nesaule reveals in her memoir, A Woman in Amber.

The Russian soldiers begin to drag young women behind a partition, where their cries are plainly audible to those on the other side. Agate and her sister Beate are too young to understand what is happening, but eventually the soldiers forego the partition. When their mother is not quick enough to cover their eyes, they learn how women become the spoils of war. For Agate, these memories will remain unspoken for more than 40 years.

But A Woman in Amber is not so much an account of wartime atrocities as of their aftermath, the devastation that floats like an iceberg through refugee lives, freezing emotion while remaining nine-tenths submerged. It is about the circularity of personal history and how the past forces its shape on the future.

Agate’s family spends five years in British camps for displaced persons. "The riches of the heart do not rust," says a frequently quoted poem by Karlis Skalbe, and the Latvians take these riches to mean education. The resourceful refugees organize schools, musical groups, cultural events.

When Agate finally arrives in America, she is given to understand that she is safe at last. When her nightmares pursue her, she feels guilt and self-loathing; after all, things aren’t so bad, she is alive. Others are so much worse off. "It was disgraceful not to be thankful for everything."

It is difficult, but Agate learns to function in the new country. "Learning English was thrilling, the most wonderful part of learning America." A teacher encourages her to write, gives her The Diary of Anne Frank. At the library, Agate obsessively studies photographs of concentration camps, looking for Anne. The mountains of eyeglasses convince her again that her own sufferings are trivial: "How dare I even think of writing about my own minor inconveniences, my privileged existence?"

Above all, no one must know what happened to the women in the basement at Lobethal. When the local Latvian center holds a debate to establish who suffered more in the war, men or women, it is a foregone conclusion that it is the men who suffered most. They have the statistics to prove it. The few women who disagree (Agate’s mother is one of them) are shouted down; what are their losses by comparison? "There are worse things than death,’ they say, but the word ‘rape’ cannot be spoken. Otherwise they will be ostracized, blamed for their own tragedy. Agate puts up her hand to vote "with the winning side."

When she makes an unsuitable marriage before completing her education, her father says, "How could you do this to us?" Her mother echoes the sentiment. "You’ve chosen between me and him," she tells Agate, "you’ve abandoned the Latvians for the Americans, go on, go with him." And Agate too feels that she has "abandoned Latvia itself." Only her grandmother calls her back to bless her with the gift of a few bed sheets and a handful of change, because now she will be "alone in a strange land."

It takes an acutely perceptive therapist to extract her story from Agate. The telling of it breaks the ice of her emotional life. She will still dream of soldiers and trains, of being pursued or separated from her loved ones. But there will also be opportunities for healing and growth, and the ability to trust in the small gestures of care and love that still exist in spite of cruelty and destruction.

This is a beautiful and complex book, full of the contradictions and ambivalence of life. Kindness can come from any unexpected quarter, as can cruelty. Victors are not always villainous, the vanquished not always innocent. A Woman in Amber is like a painful blessing. If the last part of the book—in its concentration on the therapeutic solution—seems less vibrant in comparison to the richly textured past, one cannot begrudge the author her hard-won epiphanies, or wish her anything but the happiest of endings.

Details

A Woman in Amber: Healing the Trauma of War and Exile

Agate Nesaule

New York:  Soho Press Inc.,  1995

ISBN 1569470464

Where to buy

Purchase A Woman in Amber: Healing the Trauma of War and Exile from Amazon.com.

Note: Latvians Online receives a commission on purchases.