World 'wants Kerry as president'...

Great Debates
1

This poll shows clearly worldwide dissaproval for Bush and a very clear preference to the alternative: Mr. Kerry.

Well so much for those who disputed the claim that the “world” doesn’t like Bush. The not surprising exceptions were Poland and Phillipines. Nigeria prefered Bush too. Check out the numbers… some are very lopsided… especially Norway an “ally” of Bush (74%-7%)

Discussion: Mexico isn’t much against Bush compared to Brazil for example… why ? Canada, UK and Spain I thought would have greater support for Bush than average “europeans”… but they don’t. India is half half almost. Lets analyze these numbers.

(PS… don’t bring those silly “polls don’t matter or don’t show reality” please)

2

The more relevant question is, so?

Do Venezuelans care what the U.S. thinks about Hugo Chavez? Apparently not.

The French are surely aware of the contempt in which many Americans hold them. Has that knowledge led them to change their policies? No- nor should it!

The French, the Venezuelans, and every other nation on Earth have the right to pursue their own interests and elect the people they like. We Americans have a right to approve or disapprove, but we don’t get a vote or a veto. If we don’t like their choices, that’s our problem.

Similarly, the French, the Venezuelans, et al. have a right to approve or disapprove of American policy. But they don’t get a vote or a veto. We’ll elect Bush or Kerry as we see fit. And if the rest of the world doesn’t like it, that’s THEIR problem.

Next question?

3

Well, of course polls reflect reality. Unfortunately, part of the reality is the George W. Bush and John Kerry are neither of them trying to appeal to those people in other countries. If they were, their campaigns might both be a little different. Another part of the reality is that the US is much more conservative than other western democracies.

4

Rashak, I intend to vote Kerry unless it turns out between now and November that he has been regularly having sex with goats, but what is your point? Kerry isn’t running for president of the world, is he? Are you contending that the rest of the world should decide the US presidential elections, or what?

5

I’m not saying the world decides… and I think the article points that out. Still I have seen a lot of Bushites (mostly not here in SMDB) that actually think the world isn’t against Bush. Or is indifferent. Its nice to have the poll numbers rather than assumptions to back it up now.

Another argument (not one I’m starting in this thread) of course is that the “War on Terrorism”(tm-GOP) requires collaboration and the goodwill of foreign countries. The 9/11 Commission mentions the need for this. Well seems Bush isn’t doing a good job of convincing world opinion. This means anyone who backs Bush will get some negative election results as punishment.

6

What the rest of the world thinks of the US only becomes relevant if the US affects the rest of the world in some way.

If they indulge their fetish for militaria and waste by stomping around the globe in Soviet-style boots, funding regimes with a dubious human rights record, setting tarriffs on even their supposed allies’ goods and billowing greenhouse gases vastly disproportionately, there is perhaps scope for legitimate grievance.

7

Incidentally, if you look at the numbers, what I got from that poll was an overwhelming "Neither!"

8

We’ve had similar poll numbers for a couple of years now. It’s just that people choose to ignore them.

I doubt he is, but I would contend that - since it’s way easier both to do business and protect the country in a world that doesn’t largely detest your government - US voters should probably take the global antipathy towards Bush et al into account when casting their votes in November.

9

Can you give us cites (plural) of all these"Bushite" of whom you speak? Not just names, but actual posts that support your claim. I can’t think of anyone around here who thinks “the world” likes Bush.

BTW, this poll might be exactly what sinks Kerry. It’s probably more common here for people to think that “the world” wanting us to do something is exactly the reason for not doing it.

10

The point is that Kerry’s high favor overseas is something undecided Americans should at least vaguely be aware of before deciding who might be the most effective all around leader. I would think anyone who cares about even a modest degree of harmony in the international community would want to be aware of such disparate numbers as this.

11

My guess is that India isn’t decidedly Kerry because Bush has been a huge boon to their economy.

12

There was a recent thread where I was called to cite my claim that the world didn’t like Bush for example. Still its in Orkut and elsewhere, not here, that I see this “illusion” of world support. An illusion fed buy repeating mantra like the 32 country Coalition of the Willing numbers… the common 16 Nato countries supporting us talk.

So americans should take the "childish" attitude of defying others ? If your going to pick K I'm going to pick W ? I think this poll is information... relevant information. I agree that Bush isn't in a popularity contest... but he shouldn't be so unpopular if he were doing the "right" things. If americans chose to disregard this its their choice... but they can't claim the world backs Bush.

International opinion doesn’t take into account US domestic issues and conservative values… but they do paint a bleak picture for future cooperation against Terrorism and Western unity.

13

One person asking for a cite does not equal lots of “Bushites” think the world likes Bush. It’s a nickpick, maybe, and I doubt anyone believes your original statement anyway, so keep on thinking it if it makes you feel better.

I never said should. It’s certainly one factor to take into account. Do you think it should be the overriding factor? You know the old saying, people vote their pocketbooks. I doubt that is unique to Americans. Foreign affairs might play more of a roll this time around, especially if the economy doesn’t get worse (not enough time for that to happen, really).

14

As a follow-up to that comment… a month or so ago NPR did a story about what people in other countries thought about the U.S. election, which candidate they preferred.

NPR later read at least one angry letter from a listener who felt that foreigners were “Telling the U.S. what to do” and was pissily planning to vote for Bush to spite them for their bossy, overbearing interference.

It really struck me, how the mere OPINIONS of foreigners, (or the reporting of them) would be construed as “Foreginers telling us how to vote” but apparently that is how some people read it. I have no idea how representative that gentleman’s reaction was. I found it irrational.

15

I don’t understand this last statement.

I back Bush. If Kerry wins, that will certainly be a “negative election result”, but that is true regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. If Bush wins, I care relatively little what effect it will have on elections in other countries, if that is what you meant.

What else do you think other countries will do to punish us for re-electing Bush? Cut off trade? That hurts you more than us. Pass a resolution against it in the UN? We have already seen the reluctance of the UN to enforce their own resolutions. What is left - write a really nasty editorial in Le Monde?

No, Americans should take the attitude that we are an independent country, with interests that do not always correspond exactly with what various other countries want us to do. The attitude, in other words, that we make up our own minds.

Of course the election is a popularity contest. But it only measures popularity in the US. “World opinion” doesn’t enter into it.

Plus I think this is a little naive. People who do the “right” things aren’t necessarily popular, and those who don’t aren’t necessarily unpopular.

And it is also not necessarily true that Bush’s unpopularity is based entirely on a foreign commitment to the “right” things. Maybe Bush is unpopular with the French because the French are so unswervingly committed to truth and justice. Or maybe they wanted to go on helping Saddam steal from the oil-for-food program, and are pissed off that they can no longer do this. Maybe Europe hates Bush because of their deep-seated belief in peaceful international relations and the rule of law. Or maybe they are trying to appease their own fundamentalist Muslim minorities by attacking the conqueror of Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe the Middle East is riled up by Bush interfering with Iraq’s sovereignity. Or maybe the tinpot terrorist dictators of that region feel their position to be a bit less secure because the US has a President who has both the ability and the willingness to act against a perceived threat. Maybe some Palestinians really feel like Kerry is the better leader for the world. Or maybe they really feel that Bush is a more reliable ally of Israel, and thus more likely to interfere with terrorist plans to kill Israeli children.

People support Bush for all kinds of reasons, some noble and some not. It would seem pretty clear that opposition to Bush here and abroad is based on the same range of justification - sometimes high-minded, sometimes completely venal, and sometimes a mix of both.

Besides, as some have already pointed out, the notion that Kerry might go with hat in hand to that hot air society at the UN before he acts in defense of US interests is not exactly a selling point for him. At least not in the US.

Regards,
Shodan

16

I’m surprised that you would be shocked at this. America is known for it’s reflexive ‘you’re not the boss of me!’ philosophy. Frankly, this attitude is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to progress that I’ve ever encountered, both on a policy and personal level.

People are very afraid of being bossed around…but that leaves them vulnberable to people that know how to manipluate this attitude to their advantage.

17

"Well seems Bush isn’t doing a good job of convincing world opinion. This means anyone who backs Bush will get some negative election results as punishment.

I don’t understand this last statement. "

Ok… badly worded… I meant that politicians out of the US that openly back Bush will get bad electoral results. If allies are rejected in elections by association it doesn’t work too well for Bush (IMHO)

John Mace, I wasn’t being picky or making up stuff about Bushites. I clearly indicated I saw it elsewhere. In other boards every once in a while I would hear whenever I claimed the world didn’t support Bush: “Coalition of the Willing”. Also if someone asks for a cite on “world support” I might wonder if he doubts it no ?

18

RE the thread title:

They can have him! :wink:

19

Thanks for the clarification.

But what you describe might account for a reluctance by foreign politicians to support Bush openly even if they were to believe he was doing the “right” things, if they wanted to be re-elected. And what politician doesn’t want that?

But it might be that “negative election results” should not be the only thing to avoid. Hark back to the elections in Madrid some months back. Certainly the terrorist bombings there had “negative election results” for those who supported Bush. But I would not classify the resultant election returns as necessarily high-minded.

Think of the French Vichy government of WWII and the term “collaborationist”. There are all sorts of reasons to cooperate with a government, some of them worthwhile and some very definitely not. Same with Bush and the War on Terror. IMO.

Regards,
Shodan

20

So we re-elect Bush, and as a result, foreign leaders who ally with him on the issue of the War on Terror get defeated? Is this really the hypothesis?

Leader gets tough on terror in alliance with the Americans. Leader gets defeated, presumably by someone who isn’t tough on terror? And this is bad for us? How, exactly? It brings to mind some saying about noses and cutting and spite.

What I’m curious about, for all these foreigners who are so aggreived at President Bush, is what exactly he has done that has affected them so grievously. Actual, concrete things. (This of course does not extend to Iraqi or Afghani nationals, who have reason to be angry, if only in the short term.)