American anti-Americanism: What's the cause? Will it persist? If not, then what?

Great Debates
141

Right. Maybe the others can be accomplished, maybe not. A prejudice is “An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.” Those who pre-judge America’s failure or its lack of competence are showing a prejudice against America. That’s the first definition of what the word means.

tomndebb, you are such a good debater that it pains me to see you stoop to mis-stating my position. You know that I didn’t say “consider any possibility.”

pantom, I appreciate your straight-forward description of your position of being concerned only about the US and monumentally uninterested in other nations. I didn’t share that POV before 9/11. I think 9/11 showed that we must care about every nation on earth, if only because any nation might prove a threat to the US.

Blalron I agree that to keep silent when you believe your nation is taking the wrong path would be wrong. Ditto for keeping silent when your nation is taking the right path.

Mtgman, if we have upset the Syrian government, so much the better. It’s essentially a fascist dictatorship, only not as bad as Iraq’s Ba’ath Party. I’d be disappointed if our foreign policy pleased these people. Wouldn’t you?

futureman, you say you are an undergraduate. You say you don’t support the war, because the Bush admin seems to think it can win only because of hubris. But if there were some circumstance that showed you that they indeed knew more than you, you are flexible enough to change your mind.

You’re entitled to your position and beliefs. I admire you for reaching your own independent conclusions. Still, if you think you know more than Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Bush’s other foreign policy advisors, then perhaps you’re engaging in a bit of hubris yourself.

Eva Luna, I agree that my point will be stronger if and when these things have been accomplished. I will point out that the war has gone far better than a lot of critics had predicted, in terms of short duration, relatively few civilian deaths, relatively few coalition casualties, acceptance of America by Iraqi civilians, etc. Eric Alterman had the cojones to say he was wrong about the war, and Bush was right. It would be nice to hear other war critics make a similar acknowledgment. It would also be nice to hear them say that American success so far gives them more confidence of success in the next steps.

142

I do not intend to debate whether Clinton is or isn’t anti-American. However, moxie thinks he is.

143

I’ve skimmed rather than reading intensively this long debate, but I seem to have missed anybody drawing out the distinction between condemnation of America as a nation – the idea of America – and what a given Administration happens to be pursuing as its own vision of what America ought to be doing.

I love my country, and I’m proud of what it has been, what it stands for, and what it can be. I am of mixed minds about the Bush administration – it’s not so evil as some liberals claim, but it has definitely compromised some major American values in the interests of a 21st Century gunboat diplomacy and the questionable economic decisions that leave us with a large deficit and a shaky (to say the least) economy – when a Democratic President balanced the budget and was responsible, so far as Administrations have any effect, for a rather prosperous economy. I fail to see the money being saved in taxes by the well-to-do going into new businesses, new job creation, etc. – the alleged benefit to the general public of giving tax cuts to them. I question the wisdom of our “unilaterally” (with some support from other nations, to be sure, but without the blessing of many of our longtime allies) intervening in every country we decide is not “with us” – Syria apparently being Bush’s next target.

If it’s improper to criticize our President during a war, somebody should have told the Republicans that in 1942-45. (I can just hear Bill Clinton: “Hey, if I’d known that, I’d have just committed us to a war, and shut them up that way!”) If criticizing our President is un-American, then every Republican who was in major public office between 1993 and 2000 is un-American.

And what is most important in my mind is that we are a democratic republic. That means that it’s every citizen’s right and responsibility to be educated on the facts behind his or her country’s policies, and to comment on them to his or her elected representatives and in such other ways as strike him/her as appropriate to get the message across.

I’ve said that I support this war reluctantly, for reasons I’ve put before you in other threads. But I am just plain appalled at the idea being propounded that we should simply accept the opinions of the incumbent and his advisors without question – that’s not American at all. GWB deserves my support as the President who was chosen under our system of law; he does not deserve my unquestioning adulation, but my informed and if necessary critical views on what he ought and ought not do. And I’d point out, at the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, that Germany’s 1938-39 takeover of Czechoslovakia involved very few casualties, took very little time, and was tolerated by the majority of Czech citizens – largely because they had no choice. Now Bush is no Hitler, Saddam is no Benes, and the situations are in no way parallel. But my point is that the ability to impose one’s domination by force is not equivalent to the moral nature of what one does. If we manage to produce a stable, free Afghanistan and Iraq (and now probably Syria) it will be a triumph of American ideals. But IMHO what we’re in for is instability and/or a “might makes right” situation – and we’ve squandered our moral capital in the process. The world generally doesn’t view us as liberators but as the strong guys who have the power to force others to their will, perhaps against the others’ own. In short, we’ve become as a nation the Uglier Americans. That makes me extremely sad for our country.

144

1st.
You didn’t give me the circumstances under which you would stop supporting the administration. I want them. If the exist.

Also, reread my post, I think I clearly stated that I take the position of Socrates on the matter. I don’t know anything, but you nor, condi rice, nor don rumsfeld, nor wolfowitz do either. When was the last time any of you spend some time in the Mid-East?

I’m sticking to my position that they aren’t especially wise. I don’t think I know more, but I sure as hell know that they don’t know enough either.

Just tell me, I want to hear it right now? Are you ever wrong?

Tell me what would have to occur for you to change your mind about ANYTHING

145

You have, on multiple occasions in this thread and on multiple occasions on other threads both implied and stated explicitly that we have achieved some wondrous victory and met all our goals. We have not. And as long as you define people who expressed legitimate concerns as “anti-American” (as you did in the OP, claiming that Newsweek erred on three points, two and a half of which have yet proven to be in error*), then my characterization stands, regardless if you want to backpedal.

  • We will not know whether this victory is Pyrrhic until we see the results played out in the MENA region over the next two to five years.

We have been met by a few hundred cheering people, hardly the sort of post-liberation crowds that greeted troops in Europe during WWII as indicated by Cheney–and we have also been met by gunshots, suicide bombers, and people highly critical of our actions. Newsweek may have overstated their case, but no more than did Cheney.

While giving “retired generals” a platform to criticize the war was stupid (even if merely quoting the generals on all the TV broadcasts), I saw no mention by the administration before the war that they were expecting the fedayeen and the live interviews with administration spokespeople seemed to show them a bit nonplussed at the initial fedayeen resistance.

146

I don’t support them when I think they’re wrong. E.g., I oppose their restrictions on stem cell research. I regret that they do not support an effort to legalize gay unions.

I have been very wrong indeed. When I was your age, I was an ardent liberal! :eek:

Mostly when I see actual results. E.g., my respect for Communism plummeted in 1963, when I toured Europe and had a chance to compare conditions in West Berlin vs. East Berlin. My respect for LBJ’s Great Society went down when his programs failed to achieve their promised results. My dislike for bilingual education was validated after California voted to abandon the program, and education improved for Hispanic students. The value of reforming welfare was proved when the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform was enacted, and it helped many welfare recipients to become self-sufficient.

tomndebb, you know I didn’t complain about people who merely “expressed legitimate concerns.” Furthermore, you know that speakers at anti-war rallies went far beyond merely expressing concerns.

147

You just don’t get it. America doesn’t have a “policy”, the Bush Administration has a policy. You continue to try to equate criticism of specific policies of the government with an antagonistic attitude toward America in general. Apparently you believe that if you repeat it often enough, we will accept it. I, for one, will continue to hold your feet to the fire until you relent and admit that the President (no matter which party is in power) is not the embodiment of America, and it is neither unpatriotic, nor does it portay an anti-American posture to criticise either the Administration, or the policies of the government at large. Indeed, by denigrating those who express their dissatisfaction with the government in ways totally consistent with the Constitution, you have become the anti-American!

148

Actually, I do not know that you are not complaining about people who expressed legitimate concerns. My reading of your posts for the last couple of years suggests that you are complaining of anyone who challenges the noble plan for whatever reason. If you are only addressing the extreme end of the spectrum, you seem to be making a big deal about nothing–rather like someone who would go on for multiple posts and threads criticising unthinking jingoism with references to any pro-war argument, who then claims that their real target is Cal Thomas.

As to the anti-war rallies: you did not cite them in the OP, you picked at the little micro-editorials from Newsweek.

149

Oh, were those the stated goals ? Silly me, I seem to recall WMD being an integral part of that list - actually, I recall them being mentioned as the main reason for the necesssity of rapid action. Y’know, nukes in six months and all that jazz. Apparently, WMD were never that important after all. (Although, in all fairness, if any are found I’m sure they’ll be let back on the list of “stated goals” again. It seems to be a flexible grouping, after all.)

150

tomnedebb, the little micro-editorials from Newsweek also went far beyond expressing concerns.

151

Maybe this thread will help you understand the concept of anti-American. I grant you that it can be difficult to distinguish between prejuedice against America and prejudice against its leader.

152

**december, ** I will go farther than tomndebb and say that I believe the next 5-10 years, or even the next 20-50 years, will be a determinative period for the future of the Middle East in general, and Iraq in particular. I think we will be able to consider this war a success when it creates a less violent Iraq in the long term, and a better life for Iraqis in the long term. Let’s see if 50 years from now, Iraq has a viable government that treats its citizens well, and if so, whether that has been because of this war, or in spite of this war.

Given the U.S.’ overall track record in overthrowing governments and encouraging the establishment of ones that were more legitimate and/or created better living conditions for their citizens, I’d certainly say that any worry about the nature and effectiveness of any U.S.-enabled successor government to the Ba’ath regime is a legitimate concern. I think that given the misgivings of some extremely experienced military folks and Middle East experts about how the U.S. was planning to conduct the military campaign, and what the nature and strength of Iraqi military resistance would be, that fears for the U.S.’ military success were legitimate concerns. I don’t think anyone but a few radicals wanted to see U.S. forces, or Iraqi civilians for that matter experience a bloodbath. Those on the podium at an anti-war rally are, of course, not among the most moderate people attending any given rally. On that front, at least, I’m happy to have been wrong so far, but a) the war sure ain’t over yet, and b) the “peace” has yet to begin, at least if you consider peace to be something beyond the mere absence of bombing raids, which I certainly do.

And if you didn’t complain about people who expressed legitimate concerns, then could we please have a list of what you consider to be legitimate concerns? Because you sure were kvetching loudly about anyone who raised the aforementioned issues, as well as a host of others which had a solid factual and historical basis. Or are you going to consider all the retired generals who criticized Rumsfeld’s battle plan to be anti-American?

153

I am in favor of people expressing legitimate concerns. However, when VP Cheney predicted (accurately, as it turned out) that we would be greeted as liberators, Newsweek didn’t just express concern that he might be wrong. They characterized his comment as “An arrogant blunder for the ages.”

154

december’s absolutely right – all the Iraqi people love us.

(I do have other news sources for the same story, but thought you’d appreciate this one in particular, december ;))

155

Just tell me, I want to hear it right now? Are you ever wrong?

I have been very wrong indeed. When I was your age, I was an ardent liberal!
[/quote]

december, that question deserves a non-flippant answer, lest your tone be taken as confirmation of the questioner’s (and readers’) suspicions.

Very seriously, do you ever consider the possibility that you, and the opinion sources you rely on for, might not be fully accurate and fair? When was the last time you reconsidered?

156

You still haven’t answered the question.

The war ain’t over yet. Whether some Coalition troops were initially greeted as liberators by some Iraqis is largely meaningless if the situation rapidly deteriorates to the point that U.S. troops are being shot at and viewed as an illegitimate imperialist occupying force by the majority of Iraqis, not to mention by the rest of the Middle East or even the world at large. Please explain how concern at this possibility is not legitimate.

There are lots more legitimate concerns where that one came from. I’m just asking for you to elaborate on the specific example you chose.

157

P.S. regarding the Newsweek quote:

Note the telling word, “arrogant.” One side doubts America’s ability to accomplish certain aims, such as winning the support of the Iraqi people; they see the confident side as “arrogant.” The confident side thinks the doubters are undervaluing American competence.

I see the doubters as stemming from Vietnam. The Johnson administration lied to us, and Nixon as well. We suffered a humiliating defeat. Many lost confidence in America’s abilities. Our lack of success in fighting terrorism under Reagan and Clinton fit that image. Bush Sr. had one big success in Kuwait, but the failure to overthrow Saddam left a bad feeling in our mouths.

Bush Jr.'s success in Afghanistan and Iraq is apt to change the country’s mind-set. In some ways, this may not be a good thing, since a self-confident America could go too far with our military power. Regardless of whether it’s good or bad, I think most Americans will find it more pleasant to take pride in being a part of an effective country than to be embarassed for being a part of a f*ckup country. That’s why I expect the doubters to decline in number and influence.

Eva, I agree that whether some Coalition troops were initially greeted as liberators by some Iraqis could be meaningless if the situation rapidly deteriorated. Or, it could be meaningful if it proves to be a harbinger.

However, meaningful or not, that prediction was what precisely what Cheney was wrongly dinged for. BTW note that your term “initially greeted” is a redundancy. “Greeted” means “initially greeted.” No matter what happens in the future, it’s now a fact that coalition troops were greeted as liberators.

My point is not to argue that all will go well in the future. My point is that Newsweek’s harsh comment illustrated a lack of confidence in American abilities, which, in this case, was misplaced.

Elvis, I try to look at various opinions and to compare predictions with facts and how things turn out. For many years, I have regularly read the editorials and op-eds in the liberal New York Times and in the conservative Wall St. Journal and paid attention to which POV more often turned out right. My impression is that the WSJ has a considerably higher batting average. E.g., they were right about America’s ability to win the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan relatively quickly and easily. They were right about supporting Bush’s policy to demand that a meeting with North Korea be multi-lateral. They were right about welfare reform and bilingual education.

158

You should know by now that I don’t play your game. You are not allowed to set the framework in which I respond with your leading questions and false dilemmas. You really should stop this practice.

As to the question of if making an enemy of Syria is good or bad foreign policy, well, I can’t but think that creating an enemy is bad policy. There is a broad spectrum of possible reactions to US foreign policy. The US can adopt policies which clearly disfavor certain countries without going to the point which incites them to consider us “enemies”. I also think it should go without saying that your opinion on the government of Syria “a fascist dictatorship”, is not universal, nor is it adequate basis for foreign policy. (Anyone wishing to elucidate themselves on the Syrian government, form and modern history, is cordially invited to start here.)

Simply put, I abhor your attempt to create a new form of bigotry with which you can attack your political opponents. You have NOT established that it A) exists B) is harmful C) a litmus test to correctly identify it. ALL of these things have to be established before you can start even TRYING to accuse people of “anti-America prejudice”. You still have to prove each individual case. And, no, lack of evidence is NOT evidence. Period.

Enjoy,
Steven

159

Ah, but there are more than two sides to this issue. Even those who think the invasion was the correct thing to do under the circumstances can still think it was badly executed, either from a military or from a P.R. standpoint. Even if the invasion had been executed perfectly from a military standpoint (and the jury is still out on that one), the way it has been spun to the rest of the world can still be counterproductive to the stated goal of enabling the creation of a democratic government in Iraq which is viable in the long term. Why is doubting the ability of the current administration to achieve its stated goals “un-American”? If anything, I’d hope an expression of doubt by people who are in a position to have some knowledge of the likely success of the current approach would lead to a more careful examination of the approach, and hopefully some fine-tuning. Not that I’m placing myself in the “expert” category by any means, but I sure as hell don’t think Bush is a foreign policy expert, either. I also find it very telling that the administration member with the highest level of successful military experience, Colin Powell, has generally been the biggest dove on the team.

If there had been more solid evidence of potential for long-term success in Afghanistan and Iraq, I’d be more confident. I don’t want to be a citizen of a fuckup country either. If I had more confidence in the long-term effectiveness of the current course of action, which seems to be of the “blow ‘em up first, and figure out how to fix the mess later” variety, I’d be a much happier camper.

Glad we at least agree on something.

No, it may be a fact that some coalition troops were greeted as liberators by some Iraqis. There are plenty of anecdotal reports that suggest some Iraqis felt otherwise, and even more reports that although they are glad to see Saddam apparently out of the picture, many Iraqis are very concerned about the prospect of the U.S. as an occupying force. I can’t say that I blame them.

I’ve been trying to hold off on bugging my cousin the journalist, who as of a few days ago is now back from Iraq, to let him get some much-needed R&R and quality time with his family. I’ll try to see if he’s ready to speak his piece on the issue, as an eyewitness.

Their lack of confidence may or may not have been misplaced. It’s far too soon to judge, IMO. Even if the U.S. wins the military battle, they may well still lose the war, which if I recall correctly was supposed to have something to do with long-term peace and stability in the Middle East. There is a very large distinction between military abilities and diplomatic abilities, and I think the latter are far more useful for the purpose of facilitating the nation-building process.

160

december, answer the question. You’re 0 for 2 so far. It isn’t about the WSJ.

When have you ever admitted that you were wrong?

When have you ever admitted that you had criticized a differing view and those who hold it unfairly or thoughtlessly?

Would anything in this thread be an example?