On the semantics of “anti-american”:
Great! So I take it then you will be using SAAABG from now on, december?
I suggest you start a SAAABG thread where you officially launch this new term, explain it, and where we can continue the current discussion with a clean slate and proper terminology.
Milossarian, thanks for your helpful input. One important distinction though. If Moore, or Chomsky or me for that matter are to stand for examples of this criticism, the criticism is rarely of “the USA”; almost always about specific policies, and typically government policies associated with a particular ideology. The criticism also isn’t “endless” though it may appear that way to people who know very little else about the figures in question outside of their criticism.
In many years of working and socializing within largely left-of-center circles I can honestly say I’ve never met any American who hated the United States, or wished it ill. Most of us are very attached to certain American initutitions which we aim very much to defend and, speaking for myself, I also have warm feelings towards the US as a locus of specifically American culture and people because I grew up here and I’m a warm-n-fuzzy kinda gal.
This may strike you as odd but when I’ve passed pro-war protesters in my car, holding signs that say “Support our Troops,” or “God Bless America,” I’ve felt sorry that I couldn’t honk my horn–b/c I appreciated their caring enough to be out on the streets (just as I care enough to be out on the streets), and I’m convinced that what mainly divides us, at least on these simple issues, is a failure of communication.
From our perspective it’s just sort of sad that the people on that “side” believe so strongly that we don’t support the troops, or that we want bad things to happen to America b/c we think America is bad, or that we support Saddam. For our part, we (the people I know) don’t attribute such mean-spirited motivations to them–though we do have a tendency to think they’re not very knowledgeabe (to put it politely) and perhaps that comes off as just as hostile–if it comes off at all.
But where december is at, with his insistence on anti-Americanism, suggests that it really *does come down to * a failure of communication; as well as an underlying unwillingness on his part to accept differences of political opinion as part of the American fabric.
**december **:
Actually, the immigrant isn’t agreeing with your view that those who criticize the Bush administration on the war are themselves anti-American. She is making a different point about how to account for anti-Americanism abroad.
It’s funny how you are capable of thinking very crisply at times; yet when you’re scrambling to score a point for the home team it all sometimes goes to mush. Is there anyway for you to put your thinking cap on and keep it on?
“Note all the people on this board who buy the idea that the majority of the world’s citizens oppose America, even though there are no reliable polls.”
That is a very reasonable deduction given what we know about world opinion, december. The coalition of the willing is a sham, though it’s true that the former communist nations in Eastern Europe (though not Russia itself) feel genuine attachment to the US. Elsewhere that’s simply not the case. Remember that just prior to the war, over 50% of Britons, IIRC, thought George Bush was a greater danger to the world than Saddam Hussein. How’s that for a poll?
It’s tough to be the world’s most powerful country, with the world’s most powerful economy. Some American leaders have what it takes to wield that kind of power in American interests (rightly or wrongly) in a way that does not offend others as much as it otherwise would. JFK had it because he and Jackie were so cosmopolitan. Clinton had it to some degree because he staid well within the mainstream of previous US policy, and he spoke as (and probably believed himself to be) a multilateralist and internationalist (despite often not being so, as on land mines, or global warming).
Bush has adopted a monumentally different foreign policy and has flaunted it as such: the Bush doctrine. He is not a cultured man of the world or cosmpolitan; he is disdainful of the rhetoric as well as the substance of internationalism. He is boastful of US military might, and convinced that God is on his side. He is abrasive and ham-fisted in response to any kind of criticism from allies (moreso even the people who work for him), and dismissive of international institutions. This does not fly well with the rest of the world: it foments anti-Americanism.
Those who criticize Bush right now may well love their country in a more effective way than you do december.
True. And, pro-Americans generally praise specific policies. The difference is, one side looks for the good, the other looks for the bad.
I agree that the majority (but not all) of anti-Americanism comes from the left, so it criticizes problems associated with the right.
I’m quite sure that the overwhelming majority of those I call “anti-American” feel as you do, Mandelstam. Clearly those of you who feel that way do not see too much criticism as being harmful to the country you love.
That’s not how I defined “anti-American”. It goes back 30 or 40 years. It has little to do with Bush, except that he happens to be the current President, he’s Republican, and he’s playing an activist, leading foreign policy role.
Yes, but she also specifically alluded to anti-Americanism in this country. Please re-read the last paragraph that I quoted.
The term “thinking cap” takes me back to my childhood. I didn’t know anybody still used it. Thanks for the nostalgia fix.
Is it? Who knows whether it’s reasonable? Frankly, my guess is that the overwhelming majority of the world’s population doesn’t give a hoot one way or the other. Do you think the starving populace in Zimbabwe cares whether Saddam is overthrown my military force? (Actually, some of them want George Bush to “Saddam” them.) Or, the Chinese people worrying about SARS?
Bush’s policy is indeed very different from Clinton’s. OTOH I see Bush as being much closer to Kennedy or Truman. All three Presidents were willing to take the lead in using our power to defend us and our allies from international threats. Don’t forget the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
OK. So what? Neither was Carter or Clinton.
I agree that he’s somewhat disdainful of rhetoric. However, I believe he is much more serious about the substance of internationalism than Clinton. E.g., Clinton called for Iraq regime change; Bush did it.
That’s a lie put out by Bush’s enemies on the left, with no basis. Too bad you fell for it.
I totally disagree. In fact, a majority of Brits came around to support the war in Iraq. I presume a lot more of them also support America. IOW, Bush’s successful and correct prosecution of the war in Iraq appears to have increased pro-Americanism in Britain. I bet it has done the same in lots of other places. Good actions are more important than style.
That’s certainly possible.
*december, ** is it at all relevant to you if those who call “anti-American” (and I strongly disagree with your chosen usage, BTW) are just as critical of other governments and/or nongovernmental entities? Maybe we’re just trying to keep everyone on their toes, and it has nothing to do with America, * per se.
Nice try. I would have made the same judgement of Bush’s perception of his relationship with God only by listening to his speeches. I have never even seen an attack on him on that point from the Left.
I have started a new thread to debate this specific question. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179759
That’s a lie put out by Bush’s enemies on the left, with no basis. Too bad you fell for it. "
From David Frum’s book The Right Man, recounting his experiences as a Bush speechwriter: He says Bush told him “there is only one reason I am in the Oval Office…I found faith. I found God. I am here because of the power of prayer.”
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm]Before September 11, President George W Bush kept his evangelical Christian beliefs largely to himself.
Bush convinced God wants him to engage the forces of evil
He had turned to God at the age of 40 as a way of kicking alcoholism, and his faith had kept him on the straight and narrow ever since, giving him the drive to reach the White House.
But all that changed on the day of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
**Those close to Mr Bush say that day he discovered his life’s mission.
He became convinced that God was calling him to engage the forces of evil in battle**, and this one time baseball-team owner from Texas did not shrink from the task.
“We are in a conflict between good and evil. And America will call evil by its name,” Mr Bush told West Point graduates in a speech last year.
In this battle, he placed his country firmly on the side of the angels.
[/quote]
Who fell for what lie? Is there any basis to believe he is not guided by his own religious beliefs? There is much to say he is.
Looks like I missed this coda from you:
Well, in that case, having acknowledged that those whom you’ve been denouncing as “anti-American” may in fact be more pro-American than yourself, are you willing to withdraw the OP?
**ElvisL1ves **, I have responded to your post about Bush and God here.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3331146#post3331146
The OP asked to debate whether the number of such people would wane and what the consequences might be.
But are you willing to withdraw the OP?
I would like to debate the OP. * Will there be a reduction in the number of people who seek to criticize the US. If so, what will be the consequences of the reduction?*
Debating that point isn’t possible until you establish a working definition of “American” and a reliable litmus test to determine if someone truly is “anti” or not. And you weren’t quite fair with your summary. All through this thread you’ve said some criticism is valid and valuable. The subset of critics that you claim are actually harmful are the ones that harbor irrational anti-American prejudices. You have to help us understand how to determine which subset of critics are doing so out of anti-American bigotry before we can determine any change in their numbers or the effects of such a change. We can’t debate the effects of forces we don’t understand. We’d end up lumping patriotic critics in with bigots.
Enjoy,
Steven
A citizen of the United States.
I’ve defined it as reliably as one defines most political terms, such as “liberal” or “conservative” or “extremist”.
This sort of judgment is hard to outline in a few words, but I’ll try. Here are some factors to look at:[ul][]Accuracy. Someone who often criticizes America inaccurately is apt to be an AAA (anti-American American) []Prematurity. Someone who criticizes the US before the facts are in is apt to be an AAA. (E.g., Newsweek’s criticism of Cheney’s prediction of how well the war would go.)[]Hypothetical. Someone who deals in hypothetical bad results while ignoring actual good results may be an AAA. (e.g., Gov. Dean it would be so difficult to bring a good governement to Iraq that he couldn’t yet say whether the war had been a success.) []Exaggeration of US badness or problems. []Minimization of US successes.[]Consistency of negativity toward America.Disproportionate POV. E.g., focusing on small negatives, while ignoring more important successes. [/ul]On re-reading, these may overlap to a degree, but they’re a start.
OK. Now I understand. Using the above criteria outlined by december, it is fairly clear that Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, and Don Nickles are Anti-American Americans.
(And if necessary, I can find a lot more persistent anti-American rhetoric from those three and their confederates between 1993 and 2000.)
You have a point. Their criticism of Clinton’s air war in the former Yugoslavia was inaccurate premature and wrongly disputed the capability and morality of America’s action there.
Cute. Useless, but cute. Tell me what “anti-Americanism” means with this definition of “American”. Someone who is anti-Citizens of the US? What in hell does that mean? An unreasoning prejudice against individual citizens? Sounds like sociopathy to me.
This is still extremely vague december. Point by point:
[ul][li]Accuracy. Someone who often criticizes America inaccurately is apt to be an AAA (anti-American American) [/ul]Who judges accuracy? If someone says “America’s foreign policy is endangering the US’s position in the global community”. Is this inaccurate? It is clearly negative. Or is it? From the reaction of other nations it seems that current policies HAVE weakened our standing in the eyes of some nations. OTOH some are claiming current foreign policy has strengthened the US position by showing the US will follow through with their threats and take strong action against percieved threats. They claim the US is now a “strong horse” and say this is an improvement over being considered a “paper tiger”.[ul][]Prematurity. Someone who criticizes the US before the facts are in is apt to be an AAA. [/ul]If critics were to wait for all the facts to be in it would be virtually impossible to ever speak against wide swaths of government actions. Environmental policy, for instance, typically has extremely long term results. It may not be known for generations if a wildlife conservation bill would actually aid in rebuilding the wildlife population. Foreign policy often has these kind of long-reacing effects as does Fiscal policy. The original implementation of Social Security and the proportions of the workforce at the time gave the impression that it would be stable in the future. This is obviously not the case now. If someone could have predicted the effects of the workforce working/retired ratio shifts as well as the increase in average lifespan and criticised the plan as being a potential failure if such change came about it may have provided impetus to implement/administrate it differently. This is the biggest problem I have with this bullet point. It requires critics to remain silent until the facts, good or bad, are in. If a policy, say environmental, begins doing/allowing damage, or shows a trend towards being harmful/ineffective we have to sit and wait until the harm is done to criticise it? I strongly disagree.[ul][]Hypothetical. Someone who deals in hypothetical bad results while ignoring actual good results may be an AAA.[/ul]I disagree with this one on principle. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is especially not evidence of the motives behind the absence.[ul][]Exaggeration of US badness or problems. [/ul]Who gets to judge if a statement is exaggeration? If someone says US Environmental policy is “devestating”, are they AAA? I can see discrediting someone who would doctor statistics to make policies seem worse than they are, but the criteria as you wrote it is entirely too subjective.[ul][]Minimization of US successes.[/ul]So if one says something like “the US has made marginal improvements in working conditions in the past century” they’re AAA? This one is very similar to the above point in that it assumes motives behind the statement which are not present in the statement itself. Who decides if adjectives such as “marginal” are “minimizing”? What standards of evidence do they use? [ul][]Consistency of negativity toward America.[/ul]This is your strongest point, but since all of your other criteria are incredibly subjective how can one possibly fairly determine a trend? Let’s visualize a graph with a horizontal line somewhere above the X axis and the magnitude of each offense against the other criteria in your test was plotted. Then a rule was made that Y number of points above the horizontal line would indicate “consistency of negativity”. As soon as someone had achieved Y data points above the line it would become important to prove all of those data points actually deserved to be above the line. With such subjective criteria how can we be certain each individual instance deserves to be above the line or not?[ul][]Disproportionate POV. E.g., focusing on small negatives, while ignoring more important successes. [/ul]This one is probably the most subjective. Each individual has their own priorities. Some may say economic stability is the primary responsibility of an administration and if an administration sacrifices economic stability for the sake of foreign relations then these “economy-firsters” would surely criticise such decisions. If there was another individual who believed the US’s image in the world community was extremely important and should be safeguarded even above economic stability then surely these two would both characterise each other as having “disproportionate POV”. Both seem like legitimate positions to me. Which one is the Anti-American?[/li]
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, by my count that’s the second major concession you’ve made. That is, you concede that by my definition the people you criticize might actually be more effective citizens than you yourself, and you now concede that your definition leaves several conservatives open to charges of anti-Americansim.
Isn’t it time to admit the idea of conflating criticism of US policy or leaders with “anti-Americanism” is ill-conceived and ultimately indefensible?
What are you saying? Maybe you and I are carrying on separate debates and talking past each other. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but that’s not really what the OP was about.
I think there are some Americans who are vividly anti-American. I think there are settings where being anti-American is a way to command respect. I think that American media give considerable coverage to anti-American viewpoints. (Of course, they should cover all points of view.)
The point of my OP is that I expect this situation to change. I expect universities and Hollywood to become somewhat more balanced. I expect media to give less attention to anti-American POVs. I expect that an anti-American stand will be less likely to command respect.
BTW I was pleased to see many leftists take a strong stand against Fidel Castro’s recent crackdown of dissidents. Perhaps this is a sign of the times.
I’m afraid this isn’t about the OP any more, december. Your frightful conception of “anti-americanism” is much more provocative than the forgetable questions that followed it.