Ya know - I don’t really want to get into this too much. I sort of like the US (except for your idiot administration - and for the record, our’s is no better), and I’m very fond of many, many Americans.
BUT - I really have the question the “American Envy” thing that Tibby seems to think is happening.
I have no doubt that there are people in the world that envy the lifestyle of the US, but I don’t think they live in the countries being discussed in this thread.
Canada, Australia, and most parts of Europe generally score higher on “Swell Places to Live” lists, in part because of the health care, labor laws, social programs, etc, etc.
I’m not saying that the US is a crap place to live, but given the choice, I think Canada is better if only because neither I nor anyone I know will ever go broke because they had a heart attack. Further, I think certain European places would kick Canada’s ass in “cushy places to live.”
I dunno - the whole “envy” thing I’m just not getting.
You know, someone mentioned a generation gap in this whole thing, and I think this may come into play in what you’re talking about here. My family lived for almost a decade in Europe (albeit with the US military), and even though everyone in my family has thus seen how most of (Western) Europe is the US’s equal or superior in many quality of life issues, my parents will still make occassional “American Envy” comments like you’re talking about.
Why? I think it’s because to some extent they still see Europe as it was for the majority of their lives, not as it is today. When they were kids there was still rubble from WWII left to be cleared in Europe; the continent was definitely a much poorer place than the US, and the quality of life was a lot worse. Immigrants were still coming over in large numbers – the US really was the place where everyone wanted to be. The Cold War brought the perpetual threat of war over the whole Continent. Refugees and defectors from Poland and Czechoslovakia were still trying to get across the Iron Curtain. WWII memories were still pretty fresh, and Europe still had the possibility of danger.
And really, the disparity lasted for quite a while. When my family moved to Italy in the early-mid 80s, we had the only telephone on the whole block. In the mid '80s!! And this was northern Italy, the richer part of the country. The East German exchange student who came to stay with us in the mid 90s shared one telephone with everyone in her crumbling, Stalinist-era apartment building. In the mid-90s! That was like, yesterday!
So I think that’s why some particularly older Americans are used to the “American envy” argument. My siblings and I, on the other hand, like many people of my generation, are used to a prosperous, safe, post-Cold War Europe. Poland and Czech (and Slovakia) are free and getting rich, everyone has cell phones, living standards are high… It seems as nonsensical to us as it does to you that most Europeans would have “America envy.”
The people of my generation who do go for that argument have, in my experience, never been to Europe, and are probably repeating the things they hear from their parents and grandparents.
That makes perfect sense, actually. I remember my mom telling really bad “Starving Europeaing Children” jokes (Mom - I hate grandma’s guts. Shut up and keep eating! har de har) and not getting it, at all.
I am not as naïve as you have proposed toward the condition of present day Europe: half of my family lives there and most of the other half visits quite often, so I am aware of the improvments. You are, however, missing my point concerning American envy. I am not saying that it is all-inclusive at all. It most certainly would not be in the best interest for many Europeans to immigrate to the United States, for a variety of reasons (and we’re not asking you to). Conversely, there are a variety of reasons why it would be advantageous for me to immigrate to Western Europe. Yes, you generally do pay more taxes than we do, but a higher percentage of your taxes go toward social entitlements. I would enjoy those benefits as much as anyone else: you have a greater net to catch you in case you hit hard times, you generally work fewer hours, take more holiday leave…etc. (I do believe that negative population growth will adversely affect socilaized countries moreso than the United States, but that is not a source of envy). Unfortunately for us, a large percentage of the taxes that citizens of the United States pay goes toward defense and the military, and I am inclined to complain about it as much as other Americans. The question becomes: is it important to the United States, and to other democratic nations in the world, for the United States to have a strong military footprint? Although the size of the footprint may be open for debate, I believe that the answer is, “yes”. And you don’t have to be a warmonger to believe that, only a realist. If you believe that the world would be a safer place and the global economy would be more stable if the United States re-grouped and isolated itself from the rest of the world, you are entitled to you opinion, but I respectfully disagree. And, I don’t think that you would hear too many Americans complain if our allied nations took some of the load off of us and became militarily mightier – maybe then we could divert some of our taxes toward something more socially beneficial.
The type of envy that I am referring to is at the national level and it has to do with power and influence, particularly in countries that had more in the past than they have now (France, England, Germany etc.). The United States is in a position of power and influence more so than other countries at this point in time. Do you think that the heads of state or even the will of the people in many other countries would decline the offer of superior power and influence, if it were handed to them on a silver platter? I don’t think that they would. So, if one country has something that another country wants, in that particular area, envy may be said to exist. And, although I often hear the argument that Americans are simply lucky to have fallen into a country with abundant natural resources, our power and influence were not handed to us on a silver platter – we earned it. Envy in the broader sense goes both ways: You may envy our power, influence, pop culture and good looks, but we envy Germany’s beergartens, England’s steak & kidney pie and France’s fries (aka Freedom Fries).
The typical argument against American military involvement around the world is that you didn’t ask for it, that we are too aggressive, that we don’t prostrate ourselves before the UN, that we overstep our bounds, that we are destabilizing the world and that our agenda is completely self-serving with little regard to anyone else. IMO, those are weak arguments. The United States is indeed self-serving, but it is also in our best interest to cooperate, as best we can, with other allied nations. However, cooperating with other nations does not mean becoming completely subservient to them.
Despite loud protestations to the contrary (even from many Americans), American policy makers are not warmongering idiots who can’t see the forest for the trees – not even the Bush administration. Our government is too broad in scope and enmeshed in democratic ideals for global chaos to be a likely outcome from our actions. When other nations speak, I believe that we listen quite well, but I think that we are entitled to chart our own course, at times, when we believe that ours is the better way.
I do get a bit peeved when Americans go well beyond productive criticism toward a particular Administration. Whoever is in office should be respected as the leader of the free world for as long as he is in office, period. There are many past presidential administrations that I did not vote into office, and who’s policies I did not wholly support, but I respected their authority, I felt confident that they had the best interest of my country at heart and I felt that they would cooperate with the rest of the free world as much as they could and to the benefit of most. To a somewhat lesser degree, I feel that citizens of other democratic nations should show a little more respect to the people that we vote into office who have an effect on foreign affairs – or, at least refrain from outright vilification. It’s simply not productive, and in many cases, it may be counterproductive – weakening the allied front may strengthen the non-allied front.
You may see me as engaging in obnoxious American bravado and being a patriotic zealot, but I can assure you that is an inaccurate assessment. I am typically happy to keep my political feelings to myself and accept the status quo. However, when I hear what I consider to be an over-abundance of counter-productive diatribe against my county’s government (i.e. Bush is an idiot, a liar, and he should be lynched)** and against my fellow Americans (i.e. they are materialistic, militaristic, loud, obnoxious idiots who should be lynched for electing Bush)**, then I feel justified to mount a simple defense.
We would all like to live in a world in which aggression is a thing of the past, where everyone gets along with everyone else and pulls for each other, where we can put more money toward new frontiers and less into the military and where ogres, terrorists and tyrants did not exist. Maybe we’ll get there someday, but we are not there yet.
If you look behind the façade that power and influence projects on the global scene, you will see that the real power brokers are not in the Pentagon. Our military machine may clear the path, but it is not what the path is being cleared for. Our most important exportation isn’t missiles and tanks, but rather slide rules and free markets. Five-star generals are simply the pawns of the economists, and on that front, I think our exports are second to none and beneficial to all.
**(I am paraphrasing and including what I have heard expressed not only from this thread, but also from other foreign sources).
Generally, I would agree, Tibbycat, save when the President does, not only the incorrect, but the wrong thing. In this administration, we have a wrong thing going on, the Iraq War. It was a product of lies.
This does not relieve us of the duty to finish the war, and create a better Iraq, but I will say that it is one of several things that have nigh-eliminated my respect for the current administration.
The second largest being the faith-based logic. Not a matter of religion, but a conviction that opinions should be held over facts as the truth.
I see reasons for the rest of the world to be highly nervous about now.
About the religion, here’s an article written by a Pastor of the United Church of Jesus Christ from a few days ago, which you may find interesting concerning Christians leading the battle cry: Iraq war debate enters new phase
And Sen. John Danforth, who is also an ordained minister, though I forget the denomination, has written I believe at least two op-eds on the subject.
I’m getting kind of frustrated from reading this. When I read the Americans writing, with all due respect, I don’t agree with very many things you are saying.
First, I find it hard to believe that anyone still thinks the war was a good idea. To start, I’ll let you in on a little secret, if just to show my bias: I voted for Bush in 2000 (not that voting for Gore in South Carolina would have changed the outcome). This ties into what I think Rogers01 made a refernce to. I voted for Bush because I had been raised in a Republican household where Clinton-sleazeball jokes were a’ plenty. I thought that’s what good polite boys did, voted for Republicans.
Now, back to Iraq, have you ever seen the CIA agents in the news talking about how big of a mistake Iraq was, that it was a christmas present for Osama, that it has done nothing but increase terrorism (note: about a year ago the State department wouldn’t even release the numbers because the terrorist attacks had risen several times higher than 2003, which was before then the record), etc. Have read of how the NIC came to the president and said that all of this would happen if he invaded Iraq?
Speaking of tyrants whose failed states, I don’t remember who said it, foster terrorism and other devious things. Have you considered the bigger, more emminent threats, and more, well, failed states:
Sudan (hell, why not all of sub-saharan africa)
North Korea
Iran
Afghanistan (read Mike Scheuer, and you’ll see why)
Syria
Pakistan
Somalia (that one’s a class of it’s own, apart from SS Africa
Where do you stop when you’re taking out tyrants? The world has no shortage of them. Is that really what we want to be doing? In fact, one thing I often hear sighted by CIA agents (again, one of them being Mike Sheuer) is that one of the BIGGEST problems Bin Ladon and Co. have with US is NOT that we attack Islamic countries but, to the contrary, we prop up horribly corrupt Middle Eastern regimes.
Failed states don’t right themselves when bombed, attacked, whatever. I hate to say it, because I know the people that disagree with me won’t listen, but there are things that the US is MORE capable of doing (like ending malaria and AIDS epidemics, feeding people, teaching farming methods in towns that have lost whole generations to war and disease, etc.) than any other country in the world. I recommend Jeffrey Sachs’ The End of Poverty. I know it just sounds like liberal idealism, mumbo-jumbo, but trust me it’s an interesting book.
I cringe every time I hear that the United States defense budget (hovering at about $400 Billion, I believe) could (1) provide basic healthcare for everyone in the world for $15 Billion, (2) provide global famine releif for $2 Billion, (3) and fund education for all for $5 Billion. That still leaves around $378 Billion for defense!
Then, take the Bush tax-cuts: to put it simply, the $50 Billion dollars saved by people earning above $500,000 is equal to the GDP of Senegal, Botswana, and Nigeria combined! On top of that, 72% of those tax cuts went to only 29 million (the top 20% of richest Americans) of the total 144 million American, tax-paying households. A friend of mine (more like a kid I grew up with, and hang out with from time to time) is heir to one of the worlds biggest pharmaceutical company fortunes, and when I asked him about the tax cuts, he laughed and said, “Yeah, that’s pretty fucked up isn’t it.”
Now, I’m not suggesting that the US spend all it’s money on saving the world (not because I disagree, it just doesn’t serve a purpose here), but for those who say we’re going out in the world with the force we are (ie. Iraq) spending the money we are to make the world a better place, do you honestly think, judging the two, that wandering into Iraq is really making the world a better place?
If anything, Iraq has been such a monumental clusterfuck that it’s brought many important issues to the forefront. People are starting to realize the need for different energy sources, people are starting to question our defense spending, etc.
On the other hand, don’t think I’m not paying attention to the good things that have happened. I know Iraqi’s are voting, as are Afghans. I know things are progressing, but I sure as hell am not going to let that justify all of this. I can’t remember who said a healthy amount of criticism is a good thing; I say, for a country built on the rejection of injustice, we aren’t living up to our forefathers.
I love America. I don’t take pride in it, again, because I don’t see why that’s my choice. I didn’t build it. The thing that gets me so frustrated, is that I see so much possibility there. Living in Europe and living with someone from Asia, the impression I’ve gathered, is that there is no better creative environment and drive in the world than in the US, but I also worry that that’s fading when I look at singapore, india, south korea, taiwan, etc. etc. and in what is happening to American education (especially how many conservatives seem to be demonizing well-educated people).
I think there is a huge generation gap in all of this talk. I believe, again, with all due respect, that some people don’t realize how connected and intertwined people are now adays. It is so easy to go abroad and to find that people, as much as has been said otherwise on this board, really aren’t that different. One big problem is that the idea of travel has become so messed up as it’s become more easy. People go abroad to take pretty pictures pretty views and big churches, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve asked someone who came home from a trip, “How were the people?” The response is always, “Oh, well, we didn’t really talk to anyone.” This isn’t an American thing (if anything, at least the Asians are in it with us, though their language barrier is slightly more exaggerated). My gosh, though, I would love for people to start seeing traveling as means to talk to people with a different point of view. So, Rogers01, I suggest you do go to Europe. Then again, I haven’t been everywhere in the world, and I might just be an idealist.
Did y’all know that last year in the US was the “Year of languages”? Did you know that 2006 will be the “Year of Study Abroad”? Passed unanimously by the senate. I’m not the only one that sees a connection, I don’t think.
I know that most of this has really nothing to do with the original question, but I saw someone’s post saying that “we” Americans just want to live in peace and that’s why we’re kicking over a few rats. Well, damnit to hell, who doesn’t want to live in peace? I want it so badly, so let’s do something with all this wicked awesome, way-better-than-everyone power that’s actually going to change the course of history. Hah? I mean, even if we cure all diseases and start living to be 300, we’re all going to be stuck here together.
In closing, to all of those people with whom I so greatly disagree, I would like to say that the one way I may differ from some other people on this board is that I don’t think you’re a horrible person. Like I said, I grew up in a family with pretty much the same views (though my family’s views come more from a day to day, strictly US, point of view, with pretty much total ambivilance to foreign policy, which I would like to change). My parents are very good people who would and do help anyone, irregardless of who they are, in need. Not all Bush supporters are bad people, they just watch too much Bill O’Reilly, and listen to too much Rush (before you say it, I can’t stand Michael Moore either).
Huh? Are you sure you meant to put my name there? If you’ve read my posts, you’ll know I alluded several times to my experiences in Europe – and not just as a tourist: I’ve lived, traveled, worked, and studied over there. I’ve had roommates from Poland, France, Britain, and Ireland, and worked with people from many more countries besides.
And yes, I still believe anti-Americanism exists. (As does anti-Europeanism in the US, for that matter, but that can be a topic of its own.)
Tibby, when I say ‘faith based’, I don’t mean religion. I mean that science is ignored, planning is ignored, in favor of gut feelings. There was no plan after the war was won to develop a peace. Scientists cry out that their work is ignored, distorted, and maligned in favor of political decisions and interpretations.
Bad decisions that are easily avoidable are being made.
My bad, Mr. Dibble. It was late, I didn’t want to go through all the countries by name, but correct me if I’m wrong in saying that South Africa is about the only exception. Botswana, as well, perhaps?
Rogers01 I read this quote a little too quickly. My fault.
Referring to Prez as “The Leader Of The Free World” might be seen as mildly offensive to democracies that aren’t the US. Add it to the list of annoyances, why not. I know Americans are brought up to be polite and respectful, but I think you should be allowed to disrespect bad politicians. Try it, you might like it - it’s quite cathartic.
And what’s all this bollocks about “European nationalism”? It’s pure fantasy, and it just doesn’t exist. For a start, Europe isn’t a nation, it’s a geographical area made up of a bunch of very different countries, or if you’re talking about the European Union, it’s a smaller bunch of very different countries with a common set of trade rules, standards, human rights laws, agricultural management etc. It’s taken a few thousand years to reach this happy state, and it’s only maintained and progressed by constant debate and negotiation. The notion that the whole of Europe conspires together against the US is just hilarious. If a common anti-American sentiment is expressed in various ways throughout each Euorpean nation, then you may presume that each country has their own reasons for being pissed off with the US.
I’d quite agree. The unfortunate thing is that US foreign policy isn’t in the best long-term interests of the United States or it’s citizens; it’s the product of the lobbying of big business. The short-term interests of big business and the long-term interests of the US aren’t necessarily the same thing.
I mentioned in a previous post that the US is an opportunity tragically missed, and figures like this just make me want to weep. There’s so much potential for good in the US, and it’s completely misdirected.
“War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.” - Ambrose Bierce, (1842-1914)
Given that only about 20% of US citizens own passports (figures vary), it isn’t really surprising that not many in the US have a clue about anything that goes on outside their borders. How much world news is reported in US newspapers? How many non-US artists in the music charts at the moment? How many non-US films in the film charts? And yet the US view that they have some sort of paternalistic duty over “lesser” countries is oft quoted. From the viewpoint of a “lesser” country, the US doesn’t come across as the “world’s policeman”; rather the image is of a big bullying high-school jock. The shithead adolescent analogy isn’t a bad one, given the inexperience of the US in international affairs (it’s a young country after all) and the swaggering gung-ho manner in which military adventuring is undertaken. Author Kurt Vonnegut may have put his finger on the button when he said that the US had the misfortune to have won a truly righteous war (against the evil of Nazism), and that all conflicts since have been based on this yardstick of good vs. evil, whereas the truth in most conflicts is much more complex.
To be fair to the US military-industrial complex, I can think of one example where it’s actually welcomed - it keeps China from reclaiming Taiwan by force, and for that the Taiwanese do seem genuinely grateful. Being British I was constantly being mistaken for an American whenever I was in Taipei, and as such was generally subjected to extra friendliness.
Never been to Taiwan, but I live with a Taiwanese girl and spend most of my time with Taiwanese people here in Paris, and, to be honest, every time I read about the hundreds of long- and short-range missiles lined on the coast of china I have to stop and appreciate the fact that some country’s military (I don’t care who’s), just by existing, can sway the Chinese from using brute force in Taiwan.
I do still worry about it though. Actually, far more than my girlfriend, just because I can’t imagine knowing that someone’s got 800 missiles pointed at my back door.
There definitely is an anti americanism. Here in the uk it’s pretty good humoured most of you yanks take it in good part and throw it back, a healthy situation i would say. where i find it somewhat darker is in europe, i work for a french company(thankfully not for much longer) and they have a disturbing deep dislike for Americans verging on racism which i cannot understand. It is this and the other bigotries, and general ignorance that is my reason for quitting.
