Y’all should re-read the OP or is it that you didn’t get the news that the North won the Civil War? 
Haj
Speaking as an American, from what I read in European press, liberal presidents (and politicians) are usually regarded well, while conservative ones are dismissed as “stupid”, “scary”, “arrogant”, “ignorant”, and so on. I would say this is primarily due to the leftward tilt of the European mindset; their attitudes tend to mimic those of the American left-wing. Thus, Clinton was a likeable and capable leader. Jimmy Carter is extremely liberal, and thus adored. Reagan is the epitome of conservative ideology, and thus the epitome of evil and stupidity. GWB isn’t quite as conservative, so he’s not quite as evil (or stupid). And so on.
Generally speaking, of course.
Jeff
Reagan is probably looked down on because his policies were detrimental to a lot of people outside the US-particularly in Latin America. Not to mention Iran-Contra.
Liberal and conservative have nothing to do with it.
:rolleyes:
could you expand on this? This is the second or third time that I’ve heard that America and Bush are popular with the Czech Republic(not to mention that their leader signed that letter of support). Could someone confirm/deny this? and if it is true, why?
I am certain that there is at least one Canadian who respects Bush the elder and Reagan, the latter immensely.
OTOH, there is at least one Canadian who thinks Clinton was a crooked good ol’ boy who, while clever, was fundamentally devoid of scruples.
Interesting topic. As a Moroccan, I’ll tell you what I thought of the U.S presidents since Reagan.
Reagan: I was too young to actually have any opinion. For me, he was just the american president.
Bush Sr: Nobody liked him at all. Things The gulf war made people hate him.
Clinton: Quite popular. I always relatively liked him and I was glad when he was reelected. I thought he was a bright guy. And after he finished his second mandate, he had to go tour europe for cash so i’d guess he didn’t get bribed as much as he could have. Let’s face it, all high-level politicians are crooks to a degree or another…About the Monica affair: she’s not underage, she consented to have sex. Nothing to see here, move on.
George W Bush: Total moron. Absolutely unfit to become president. I was appalled when he won the elections. Al gore didn’t really cut it either but for me, he was the lesser of two evils. Everytime I see bush on tv, with his leaning postures (god, they look so stupid) and carefully studied pauses, I just want to slap him until he starts crying.
Surprisingly enough, I recently talked to an ex-U.N. ambassador about exactly this topic: what the people outside of the U.S. think of post-WWII presidents (making no specification that we are only talking about any particular class of people, or country of origin).
His answers, from decades of informally asking this question, were a little surprising to me.
For non-Americans above a certain age, the answer he found most often is: Truman.
For non-Americans below a certain age, the answer he found most often was, believe it or not: Nixon.
When I think about it though, that makes a lot of sense, knowing what I know about world history.
So, what was the question they were answering - MOST respected, or LEAST respected? Because, to me, those two presidents are such opposites that I can’t imagine them being the same answer, no matter what the age difference. (and Truman despised Nixon, if I remember correctly)
I’ll think you’ll find in nearly every country outside of the US with the exception of Israel (maybe Micronesia too, but I don’t know anything about Micronesian public opinion) the general reaction to GWB varies from fear to derision or both.
In the UK there are some people who support him, but still about 80-90% of people think that he is an idoit and probably 60-70% think he is a dangerous idoit. On continental Europe he has even less support. Public opinion in Australia, I have been told (I have a sister currently in Australia), is pretty simlair to the UK on this issue.
Clinton on the other hand as siad before is still pretty much respected in the UK and Ireland and though not universally loved around the world, still maintains an infintely higher standing than Bush Jnr.
Bush Snr isn’t really liked or loathed at all, only serving 4 years perhaps is a factor in this, but he also he really didn’t do anything in particular to be liked or loathed about.
Ronald Reegan is still liked in some right-wing circles around the world - the kind of people who like Magaret Thatcher too
Leaving Hussein in power was definitely a mistake, but remember that the U.N. mandate was solely to remove Iraq from Kuwait. It is funny how those (i’m not saying you, nogginhead) who would criticize Bush I for not pushing on into Baghdad and eliminating Hussein, which would have gone against the U.N. resolution, are the same ones who are criticizing Bush II for not getting in line with the wishes of the U.N. on the same matter.
It could possibly have something to do with the fall of communism, and the policies of Reagan that brought it about.
From the impression I get Clinton is well liked in Israel.
Truman is not well liked in Japan.
I personally would take Nixon over Truman.
And as far as the US, most people I know respect Clinton immensely. So I don’t know what you’re on about with no one respecting him.
Erek
I’m Australian.
Here, Bush is hated. It is unusual given the present climate to not see many letters in the opinion pages of major newspapers strongly criticising him, and even calling him a threat to world peace. He is seen as an idiot, a person who stumbled into a presidency that he didn’t deserve and through his own unintelligence has helped make the world a more dangerous place.
In today’s Sydney Morning Herald (one of the largest papers in Australia), the Editor commented in his weekly review of the letters pages:
Should there still be any doubt, recent polls show that 62% of Australians do not wish us to be involved in a war without UN backing, whilst 30% do not want us to be involved in the war at all.
As I said, people here don’t like Bush, or what he stands for.
Opinions of Bill Clinton tend to range from support or admiration through to, at worst, ambvalence. Nowhere have I witnessed the hatred of him exhibited by some members of this board. The Lewinsky scandal seemed to be a lot of media hooplah and overall, a big fuss about nothing.
George Bush Snr, I was too young to properly gauge public response to. However, he seems to fly below the radar - people don’t generally like or dislike him either way. I cannot comment on attitudes at the time of his presidency.
Reagan is still thought poorly of.
Before that, I’d say that JFK, Carter, FDR and Woodrow Wilson are most highly thought of, although you must understand that former US presidents doesn’t come up as a topic of conversation all too often.
People, of course, do not respect Nixon, and LBJ is only spoke of with derision, as ‘all the way with LBJ,’ has become a cliche to describe an unthinking attitude of follwing the US wherever they may lead us.
This is very accurate.
I don’t know of any foreigners who consider Clinton to be liberal. Generally, Clinton was a moderate conservative who did a decent job, if not better, as far as most non-Americans I’ve known look at it. Anyone who’s had any experience outside the United States understands that the U.S. doesn’t really have a left wing of any real influence.
Again, foreigners who know Carter don’t seem to think of him as “extremely liberal.” His administration certainly wasn’t. I think the adoration of Carter has more to do with his work with Habitat for Humanity, elections monitoring and, of course, his recent Nobel Prize.
More or less, I think yes, this is an accurate depiction of foreign impressions. I only take issue with your assessment of Bush Junior: I think the loathing of him is stronger abroad mostly because he’s the current cowboy conservative in office. Bush Junior is certainly more conservative than Reagan, but that’s another debate altogether.
Of course, people hold him to a double standard on the “removing Saddam” issue. If I recall, the UN didn’t authorize the United States to invade Iraq – only to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Fine, we played ball with the UN. Only did what the resolutions allowed us to. Now, who takes the blame for not removing Saddam from power? The US, of course. Had we gone in and removed Saddam, we would have been derided for acting unilaterally, not following the proper UN process, etc.
—So, what was the question they were answering - MOST respected, or LEAST respected?—
Greatest/best president, post-WWII
—Because, to me, those two presidents are such opposites that I can’t imagine them being the same answer, no matter what the age difference. (and Truman despised Nixon, if I remember correctly)—
It isn’t so much about politics (which tend to appear mostly domestic) but about foriegn policy. That they hated each other is immaterial. Remember: we’re not necessarily talking about people who are savvy historians, just a broad swath of people all other world who may or may not pay too much in depth attention to which dude is President of the U.S.
Generational concerns are a big issue.
“When they look back, and think on everything he’s done… they will realize… Nixon’s the one!” - Mono Puff
If anyone brought about the fall of communism, it was Gorbachev and Pope John Paul II. Certainly they deserve more credit than Reagan ever will.
I’m largely liberal and pro-UN, and have very many misgivings about the forthcoming conflict, but I do concede this point.
What I remember of the views here in Germany begins with the Carter presidency (I was 14 in 1976).
Carter: regarded as a well-meaning moderate conservative. Popular Image (incorrectly I think) much more influenced by the “peanut farmer” than the “nuclear engineer” background. That he wanted to place a stronger focus on human rights in foreign policy was widely appreciated. The Tehran hostage affair wasn’t blamed on him and its part on his losing in 1980 was IMO widely thought unjust.
Reagan: in the democratic (i.e. non-extremist) spectrum only really liked by the right wing of the conservatives. Politics widely considered scary in that it was widely thought the destruction of the Soviet Union was a higher priority to him than the nonincineration of Europe. Interventions in Latin America widely criticised. Actor background often considered to count against him (not sound - German politicians usually have a teacher or lawyer backgrund or something else that requires a long formal education) Sometimes considered a pawn of his officials (who did not fall asleep at the desk). Everyone I knew (and that included conservative voters) rooted for Mondale in 1984.
Bush Sr: regarded as decent well-meaning conservative conservative. Being rich thought to count against him somewhat. Iraq war not very popular but not regarded as evil (what the coming war will be considered as by a lot of Germans).
Clinton: well-meaning moderate conservative, a bit too overtly opportunistic in following the turns of the political wind in matters like health insurance and welfare. More hawkish than a lot of Germans would have liked wrt ex-Yugoslavia. The political significance the Lewinsky was given was baffling to most Germans - I mean I behaved like a pig towards his wife and if she’d wanted to kick the sh*t out of him most people I knew would gladly held him down for her, but how was that a political matter (trusting your country rather than your daughter to him) - he just lied to questions that people had no business asking.
Bush II: well let’s just say people begin to appreciate Reagan’s redeeming features.
From my encounters with other Egyptians:
-
Bush Sr: Seen as intelligent and capable; Viewed blandly; overall positive
-
Clinton: Seen by many as incredibly intelligent and charismatic; many people were disgusted with the sex scandals; overall positive
-
W: Unanimously hated and despised; seen as a war mongerer without a bit of common sense; Interestingly enough, when I visited Egypt during the election scandal (December 2000) most people thought that Bush was intelligent and of exceptional moral constitution–the exact opposite is the current percption; overall extremely negative