After a passably good night’s rest, I’m still wondering about this post. Despite it being off topic, can you tell us what you may by capitalistic vs. scoialistic? I think the reason I was thinking democracy is that when the people have a real voice the government tends to respond by at least throwing them a bone: social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. I doubt you (or anyone left of Genghis Khan) would call the US ‘socialistic’, but these programs have a definitely socialist flavor to them, I believe.
Regardless of the way the debate would swing on this point (worth its own thread? Not 20 years ago, but today you have a much better position), you may have answered your question about why there aren’t more responses from people residing in these countries: however much freedom for commerce is available, freedom of expression is almost always non-existent in an autocracy, so people residing there may be unwlling to speak out on a topic with possible political ramifications.
litost—Um… do you know many non-Americans? Do you read the foreign media? Looking in from the outside provides a clear picture of fear and loathing toward the United States, largely due to the new Bush administration.
Interestingly, The Economist (Feb 1) characterized the viewpoints of certain Europeans twice in the current issue. (Note: In Europe, The Economist is considered a conservative business newspaper - they endorsed GWB, after all. However, if US conservatives want to characterize it as extremely liberal by US standards, I won’t disagree).
Anyway, here’s the British take on GWB:
“Mr. Bush, much like Ronald Reagan before him, travels badly. The qualities that make him a highly effective political operator at home-- in particular his directness and the apparent simplicity of the language and images he employs-- grate terribly on British ears. For many here, Mr. Bush is the quintessential naive but over-bearing American.” (from Bagehot)
Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic:
“Many editorials in the region’s papers depict President George Bush as a lightweight and accuse his administration of being driven by a desire to get a hold of Iraq’s oil… This is not to say that anti-Americanism is anything like as strong as it is, in France and (at least over Iraq) Germany. There are few votes to be won by bashing Bush.” (p. 44, US edition)
**flowbark—**It’s also worth noting that in November 2001 The Economist retracted its news report of December 2000 that stated that George W. Bush had been legitimately elected president, and the magazine apologized for the error.
Furthermore, to its credit, The Economist doesn’t seem to think so highly of the George W. Bush it backed in 2000. But, to be fair, it didn’t seem to think much of either Bush or Gore. (Neither did I, but this thread is about foreigners’ perspectives, not mine, so I’ll stop here.)
ChanceYa, that retraction was in the Lexington column, IIRC. Those Brits can be pretty droll. They haven’t retracted their endorsement of W, though, even with tongue in cheek.
**flowbark—**True, even though the British conservatives tend to be more willing to question Bush’s legitimacy than their American counterparts, the Economist staff never did retract their endorsement of Junior. However, I get the sense that The Economist would have been as hard on President Gore, had the Supreme Court installed him. They tend to be much more willing to call anyone on any point, even though I can’t say I myself always find their viewpoint agreeable. Much better than, say, Fox News, which keeps harping on its “Republican good, Democrat bad” editorial policy.
Sometimes it is surprising which president is popular in other countries. For instance, in Paraguay, there is a province (departmento) and city named after Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881), as well as statues, parks, avenues, and - the ultimate honor - soccer sides - named in his honor. (You actually see scores like "Presidente Hayes 3, Guaranis 1).
Hayes isn’t all that big in American history - actually for coming to power through rather dubious means and ending the Reconstruction, he is probably not highly regarded by American historians, but he did intercede on Paraguay’s behalf in a long running border dispute with Bolivia during his presidency and was honored as a result.
Chance: I must admit that there is another factor to consider regarding the Economist’s endorsement. I understand that Presidential endorsement decisions are often made by the publisher of many newspapers, as opposed to the editorial staff. Which is only to say that a broad range of considerations may have influenced The Economist’s decision and that some of those consideration may have been commercial.
In other words, The Economist may have endorsed W partly to insulated themselves from accusations of left wing bias among a certain segment of their US market. (Please forgive my presumptuousness and note that I have qualified my statements - in italics!)
Put another way, I assert that your typical American Democratic politician would feel comfortable in a European center-right party, just as the Brookings Institution would be considered center-right if it was located in Europe (or Australia, New Zealand, etc.). As it is, it often represents “the left” in your typical US TV mugfest.