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.
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.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**
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.
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.
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. 
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).
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.
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).
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.
Yep. The OP is asked and answered. Take your debate to, well, you know where.