Sweden dislikes Bush?

[Amok]

On cnn.com I noticed this story (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/11/08/euro.reaction.02/index.html) about how quite a few countries congratulated Bush after the networks declared him the winner last night, only to have to backpedal when everyone realized it was too close to call. While I suppose it's mildly embarrassing for the countries involved, especially if Gore ends up winning, I figure it's no big deal. If the networks had predicted Gore as the winner, they would have been congratulating him. The warm wishes are just a matter of being polite.

However, the last sentence of the story reads:


Only Sweden openly expressed any regrets when faced with an apparent Bush win.


This intrigued me, and I looked around to see if I could find what the government of Sweden actually said, and why they might have said it, but I couldn't turn anything up. Anyone have the info on this? It would be naive to think that the governments of various countries might not prefer one canidate over another, but it seems rather bad form to express your sorrow that a guy you're going to have to work with for at least four years happened to win.

[Montfort]

Originally posted by Amok

Only Sweden openly expressed any regrets when faced with an apparent Bush win.


This intrigued me, and I looked around to see if I could find what the government of Sweden actually said, and why they might have said it, but I couldn't turn anything up. Anyone have the info on this? It would be naive to think that the governments of various countries might not prefer one canidate over another, but it seems rather bad form to express your sorrow that a guy you're going to have to work with for at least four years happened to win.
Yeah, I read the same thing, and I have two explanations, and a third theory:
1. From personal experience, I can unequivocably state that Swedes have excellent taste in things American. ;)
2. Sweden is a very progressive/liberal society. Bush is very regressive/conservative. Those are two very basic opposites, and I can certainly see where their government would oppose a Bush ascendancy.
3. (WAG) Bush's foreign policy ideas are rather unpopular there.

Paging Anniz, flodnak, Skümmet, and other Scandinavian Dopers...

[KeithB]

This may have nothing to do with Sweeden, but I will answer it anyway. While I was having a nice business lunch in Rouen, France, a few weeks ago, we got to talking about politics.

My lunchmates basically were against Bush because they perceived him as being very pro death penalty, and that he has had so many people in Texas executed.

Anyway, I think most of Europe thinks that Bush is "less-civilized" than Gore. (I think that offering the NBMD without consulting them probably ticked them off, too.)

[DougC]

"Dears Mrr Busches,
-As a peoples we are being very happily of this country yours, being you are rich and we send cars and, bicycle racks and, other things of these types for you to pay us. If you were to being like us more civilian we thinks, you would be seeing benefit of being good Socialilsts and good peoples, but not so rich. We are so, happily and sadder. -Siined, Sweden"

[charizard]

I'm not pro-Bush, and I'm anti-death-penalty. But I do live in Texas, and I like to clear up misunderstandings where I can...

A) Bush can't "have somebody executed". This is a penalty imposed in a court trial.

B) Bush also can't commute anyone's sentence once they've been sentenced to death. Well, he can if the Texas Board of <something> recommends it, but this almost never happens.

C) Gore is just as pro-death-penalty as Bush is. That's one reason why this issue didn't come up in this last election (except on late-nite TV, for laughs.)

[Anniz]

First, I'm from Sweden and I'm also hoping on Gore to win.

I have searched the Swedish newpapers on the net
and also read my morning news paper
and there is nothing about it there.
The only thing I've heard was on the tv news,
where our Preminister said that he hoped for Gore to win.
That's all.
I can't see anything wrong in that,
since The Democratics party are closer to The Socialist
party here than to The Republican.

[sailor]

How many electoral votes does Sweeden have?

At any rate and while we're talking about bush... I have never tasted any from Sweeden so I really can't compare.

[Jman]

It's simple, really...Swedes can spot an idiot from 4,000 miles away.

Jman

[Montfort]

Originally posted by charizard
C) Gore is just as pro-death-penalty as Bush is. That's one reason why this issue didn't come up in this last election (except on late-nite TV, for laughs.)
This came up in one of the debates, mostly having to do with Bush's opposition of a Hate Crimes law in Texas. He was beaming as he explained that all three of James Byrd, Jr.'s murderers received the death penalty for their act. Of course, he lied because only two of the three did: the third copped a plea to testify against the other two.

But, anyway, I think Europe as a whole looks down at the barbaric practice of capital punishment in the US, and the Swedes are the only one with the balls to publicly not kiss Bush's ass.

And, sailor, the OP was about Sweden's reaction to the election, not their influence. Although, the election may influence my reaction to Sweden.

Thanks for posting, Anniz. :)

[KeithB]

*I* knew that the Governor's actual power in death penalty cases is limited. They were very skeptical when I mentioned that Bush was from a weak-governor state. In fact I brought up many of those arguments when talking to my lunchmates. However, I did not want this to end up in GD, so I just gave their opinion.

[flodnak]

I definitely have the impression that most Scandinavians, and indeed most Europeans, would rather that Gore won the election than Bush. The perception is that foreign policy wouldn't change much under Gore, while Bush would follow a more isolationist line. With all the changes going on in the world, Europe would rather have the US as an active participant than as a spectator.

There are other things, too, of course, but I think this is the most important.

[Floater]

Originally posted by flodnak
I definitely have the impression that most Scandinavians, and indeed most Europeans, would rather that Gore won the election than Bush

The reason being that he is the lesser of two evils. From a Swedish party politics point of view I'd say that Gore is way out on the right wing and Bush even more so.

As the late Swedish Prime minister Olof Palme once put it (although I don't remember the context): It's a choice between bubonic plague and cholera

[Spiny Norman]

The Swedish CNN homepage directly quotes the Swedish Prime Minister, Göran Persson, as preferring Gore to Bush.

http://cnn.passagen.se/varlden/presidentval/article.jhtml?articleID=780651

For the Swedish-impaired, some of the quotes VERY roughly translates as:


"If Bush wins, he'll become the president after an election where his opponent got a majority of the votes. This will probably lead to a constitutional debate"

- also:

"The PM sees no reason to hide the fact thet he would have preferred having Al Gore as "the most powerful man on Earth": - I think Gore is a person with modern left-leaning politics. "

- and finally:

"Persson predicts a "very unsecure domestic situation". On the other hand, he doesn't foresee any major changes in American foreign policy with Bush as President."


Note: I am neither a translator nor a Swede, and Mr. Persson is a politician. Don't declare war on Sweden just now. (But if you do, can we Danes have Scania back ? :p)

Anniz, feel free to correct any errors I might've made.

S. Norman

[Floater]

Originally posted by Spiny Norman

Note: I am neither a translator nor a Swede, and Mr. Persson is a politician. Don't declare war on Sweden just now. (But if you do, can we Danes have Scania back ? :p)


No problems with that translation. And, BTW, even if you get Skåne back, we will keep the Gammeldansk ,-)

[Spiny Norman]

Didn't mean to muscle onto what is rightfully Swedish territory, Floater, but I was checking out the story anyway.

To return briefly to the thread: My gut feeling is that the PM was expressing his own point of view and not speaking on behalf on his governemnet or, indeed, Sweden.

Oh, and Floater: On-on!

Spiny Norman

[Amok]

Thanks for the info, all. It doesn't suprise me that the Prime Minister of Sweden would prefer Gore, it just mildly suprised me that he would openly say so. I suspect that quite a few of the other governments that called to congratulate Bush would have prefered Gore as well (such as the government of Tony Blair), but they played the political game. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Persson saying what he did (a bit of honesty in international politics is refreshing), though if Bush holds on to win, meetings between them might be fairly chilly.

[JoeyBlades]

Floater:


The reason being that he is the lesser of two evils.


Isn't that the lesser of two weasles?

BTW, I heard a similar report on one of the news stations that claimed that Bush is unpopular in quite a few foreign nations. The ones they singled out as being particularly anti-Bush were the UK, Germany, Russia, Japan, and Iraq (guess Saddam is afraid Bush might have him executed). Sorry no quotes or cites, so I don't know how valid the claims were.

[Floater]

Originally posted by Spiny Norman

Oh, and Floater: On-on!


Ditto

[TampaFlyer]

Isn't Sweden one of the more Socialist countries? There's your answer.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Montfort
...But, anyway, I think Europe as a whole looks down at (what most of Europe considers to be) the barbaric practice of capital punishment in the US...

Unless this is a Great Debate, would you respectfully agree or disagree with that correction, Montfort? (bolding because I keep mis-typing the "t" ;) )

Of course, from my many trips to and experiences in Europe, it really seems to me that the people of the United States in general are viewed as a barbaric, backwards, dangerous culture of sub-humans that must simply be humored and suffered with for the time being. Which is the reason I get so bitchy, so to speak, when I hear Europeans passing judgement on the US. But this is just IMO, so take it in that context.

While the comments being reported are exceedingly mild, it nonetheless still seems somewhat unprofessional and unpolitical to have a World leader make comments about their preference as to who they would rather not win the elecetion. And the US is guilty of this more than anyone else, I'm not saying that we are perfect at all. I think in general World leaders should not indicate a preference at all in matters like this. They can have one, sure, but they should not discuss it. Like I said, it seems like bad politics.

[hazza]

The reason us europeans are so down on the US and frankly mistrusting is perfectly summed up in the debacle that is your electoral system, and more specifically the abhorrent showboat that is the campaign trail. Al Gore stated in one of his many ill-informed and sickeningly nationalistic speeches that the u.s was right to take up its place as the natural leaders of the world and that it was right and just for the u.s to shove its noses into everybody elses affairs for, lets face it, its own political ends. And this is from the candididate that most English people do seem to prefer.
Now i'm from the UK, and i realise that we are somewhat of a lapdog to the u.s and we are equally guilty of policing the world for our own ends. However we have at least managed to conduct ourselves with a measure of decorum, and at least our political candidates appear to have an education and more importantly common sense (or perhaps better spin doctors?). Now i know there are alot of very bright people in the states as alot of these message boards show, its just a shame more of these people don't run for president, something to do with not being astonishingly wealthy and lacking the right contacts i supspect; it's not what you know...
Bush is unpopular for the very simple reason that no-one appears to trust the guy. He is too cocky, far too self assured and he is a terrible orator. The guy seems to lack humilty and owing to the fact that i felt the sme way about bush snr, and he rightfully only only survived one term, i hope bush doesn't get the chance to be the self proclaimed leader of the planet earth and the known universe, though the alternatives offer little more hope.
it may seem like i have gone off at the deep end a little, but i have got to vent all this angst owing to the media saturation this bloody election is recieving in the UK, i can't imagine how bad it must be in the states.

[Juggler]

Göran Persson (The PM) statement was strictly personal. I don't think the government would dare to make a public statement of it's opinion even though I know they would prefer Gore or even Nader.

We are just so happy that an president is coming to Sweden... *rollseyes*

Also I think most swedes would prefer Gore because he seems to know more about foreign affairs and isn't against abortion rights.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Anthracite
[QUOTE]Of course, from my many trips to and experiences in Europe, it really seems to me that the people of the United States in general are viewed as a barbaric, backwards, dangerous culture of sub-humans that must simply be humored and suffered with for the time being.

This from the continent where people were tortured over religion, that invented "ghettoization" and anti-Semitism, that was responsible for the Inquisition, fascism, starting BOTH World Wars, and various genocides.

And they call US barbaric?!

"You hypocrite! Take the plank out of your own eye before you complain about the speck in your neighbors'."
-J. Christ


Sorry, but this issue always gets me steamed.

[Chronos]

I'm seeing a lot of noble efforts to keep this in GQ, but I get the impression that folks would be more comfortable with the topic in GD. Ought I to move it?

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Chronos
I'm seeing a lot of noble efforts to keep this in GQ, but I get the impression that folks would be more comfortable with the topic in GD. Ought I to move it?

The OP seems to somewhat straddle the line. My opinion is to wait and see a bit how the posts go, or for some feedback from posters who have strong feelings to make it a GD, personally. But it's your call, of course.

[Montfort]

Actually, Chronos, I think the question has been asked and answered, so it probably should be closed.

Anthracite: I don't mind your edit to my post. I think capital punishment is barbaric, and I daresay most Europeans (including their governments) agree with me. You don't, obviously. I don't want to argue it with you.

Juggler: A US president is visiting Sweden? Clinton, or the next one? When? Maybe I can hitch a ride on Air Force One. :)

[Floater]

Originally posted by TampaFlyer
Isn't Sweden one of the more Socialist countries? There's your answer.

By American standards Sweden could probably be called a "socialist country", whatever that means as we have switched on and off between social democratic and conservative/liberal governments for the last 25 years or so.

However, the present government (social democrat) is doing their best to thatcherise the country by selling out publicly owned assets like the telephone company and the national railway company (both were once created to get some sort of order in a situation were there were literally dozens of competing companies with no coordination whatsoever).

[London_Calling]

I don’t think it’s necessarily as simple as ‘Europe prefers Gore’.

On the question of (US) domestic social policy, Gore is far to the right of Europe but that’s a whole lot better than Dubya who is apparently off-planet. One curiosity of this Presidential election was how, for the first time IMHO, the agenda reflected those subjects that dominate European elections: Pensions, Social Welfare, Public Schools, Medicare, etc. Usually, the US has a distinct agenda but this time while Abortion, the Death Penalty and Gun Control were issues, they didn’t appear to outweigh the aforementioned. There’s no war, the economy is good and unemployment not a serious election issue. Seemingly, a very Euro stylie election debate.

On the economy, Clinton and Gore have (luckily, in my view) overseen the most sustained economic growth of the capitalist era. It’s as much circumstance as judgement (new technologies, dotcom’s, Alan Greenspan’s ‘steady as she goes’, etc). Euro’s probably feel it’s better to stick with the devil you know rather than the Idiot Son (whose grasp of economic fundamentals is, at best, worrying).

Generally, Gore is a known quantity and to the left of Dubya – Euro’s would be naturally inclined towards him. There is a sense that he feels some kind of balance between society / community / opportunity / social inequality issues and big business is important. I think this is further underlined by the apparent absence of hard policy from Bush. One is inclined to think of the Reagan administration where the President vaguely determined a broad brush idea (gee, if Corporations think it’s a good idea lets do it) and ‘advisers’ advised and filled in the details. Gore, whether you agree with him or not, gives the impression of a man with a kind of vision Bush, in contrast, may be seen as something of a loose cannon.

In short, Euro’s might view Gore as barking but the Idiot Son as howling (having said that, Dad and his cronies might have at least one hand on the tiller and Euro’s might find that reassuring in a kind of ‘at least there’s a lifeboat’ kind of way) – but remember, we don’t think too much of our lot, either.

Of course, there is the notion that Swede’s prefer Gore because they feel a kinship with his personality but, on that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

[Floater]

Originally posted by Montfort
Juggler: A US president is visiting Sweden? Clinton, or the next one? When? Maybe I can hitch a ride on Air Force One. :)

Sweden will chair the European Community next year and whoever will be in the White House next year will visit the EC summit in Gothenburg next June (I think it is).

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by London_Calling
(snip)There’s no war, the economy is good and unemployment not a serious election issue. Seemingly, a very Euro stylie election debate.

On the economy, Clinton and Gore have (luckily, in my view) overseen the most sustained economic growth of the capitalist era. It’s as much circumstance as judgement (new technologies, dotcom’s, Alan Greenspan’s ‘steady as she goes’, etc). Euro’s probably feel it’s better to stick with the devil you know rather than the Idiot Son (whose grasp of economic fundamentals is, at best, worrying).

Well here's a question, London_Calling: I've seen mentioned by people again and again that "Clinton/Gore have overseen this great economy, etc". And my European friends and clients will bring this up as well, except they often put it in different terms - that is, that Clinton and Gore are in fact responsible or mostly responsible for the great economy of the US. I think, however, that most Europeans not understand that for 6 out of 8 years the entire Congress has been of the opposition party - a party openly hostile to the President. And that for the most part still, the Congress has quite a bit more power and influence over setting the budget and controlling the economy.

You see, this burns me a bit that many focus on "Clinton's great job with the economy", but in fact IMO the President actually has little at all to do with it. Greenspan's policies, the Congress, and most importantly the Web are what saved Clinton's presidency, IMO.

In truth, I also attribute the presence of this President-Congress gridlock as being responsible for our great economy. Each side keeps the other "honest", and does not allow radical legislation to pass.

This of course is now dangerously close to a Great Debate, as Chronos warned.

[manhattan]

Yep. The OP is asked and answered. Take your debate to, well, you know where.