Isn’t this one of the main reasons that the US is no longer part of Britain? The US is the most individualist nation on earth, and while some may think this makes it difficult to deal with them, I would consider it their strongest asset.
Are you suggesting that people in other countries are not afraid of being bossed around? Or that they just accept and deal with it when it happens? If you are then you are correct. Other cultures are more accepting than Americans of authority and the excesses that can occur if abused therein. Can someone imagine a way in which a Chirac (President of France) or a Chretien (Former PM of Canada) could ever get re-elected in the US as President given their scandals?
I don’t think Americans are afraid of being bossed around. I think they just don’t like it. And when it does happen they push back. So, they can be manipulated if you take this into account. Just like others can be manipulated, or ignored, in other countries given their attitudes.
So what? I am willing to bet big bucks that I damned well ‘better travelled’ than you are, so does that make me a better person than you? Am I more qualified to be President than you because I have been to every continent (other than Antarctica)? Bullshit. Granted, I am a better person than you, and am more qualified (other than those pesky constitutional barriers) to be President, but it has nothing to do with travel. You are just repeating the old ‘provincial rube’ line that psueda-intellectuals love so much.
Iraq. Pre-emptive war is an obscene term in many parts of the world.
I think that a lot of people felt that the Bush administration tried to manipulate the (actually very heartfelt - I was there) sympathy from 9/11 to get support for his little Iraq project. The two things have nothing to do with each other, and people did not appreciate the attempt at trying to use a major crime and tragedy like 9/11 to market the war in Iraq.
Also, the entire Guantanamo bay debacle didn’t sit well with a lot of people - I have a feeling that the US electorate wouldn’t be much inclined to cooperate with (for instance) Sweden if Sweden had a couple of US citizens locked up in a naval base on remote island in the Baltic, basically speaking without any access to any sort of due process. Actually, I think the US electorate would be pissed, and with good reason.
And obviously, mouthing off about “Old Europe” and the lack of cooperation when gering up for the Iraq war when German and French soldiers were getting shot at in Afghanistan didn’t go over all that bloody well, either.
That’s a big part of it. One of the questions overlooked in the BBC story on the German Marshall Fund poll was whether Europeans “find strong U.S. leadership” in world affairs desirable or undesirable. 58 percent found strong U.S. leadership to be undesirable, up nine points from last year. There was also a big drop in that number after the U.S. led the Kosovo war in 1999, FWIIW, though not as big.
To my knowledge, Europeans were not asked if they found strong U.S. leadership “undesirable, unless they’re exerting strong leading of a coalation to liberate me, as opposed to some Arabs.”
I don’t think DMark’s point was that Bush’s provincialness ALONE means he’s a bad president. Of course, you would know this if you weren’t being purposefully obtuse.
Wouldn’t you question the experience of a councilman who’d never left his hometown?
How about a gubernatorial candidate who’d never left his state?
On the scale of national politics, that’s what Bush is. A mealy-mouth hick who doesn’t know Brazil has black people, thinks Africa is a country, makes all sorts of faux paus every time he visits another place, and thinks being a swaggering cowboy is a good way to make allies.
Being provincial is usually something people can’t help being, due to socioeconomics and geographic isolation. I don’t even fault someone who’s a homebody by choice, because not everyone is cut out to be a world-traveler even if they can afford it. But I look down on someone who belongs to the upper-eschelon of society, aspires to control the most powerful country in the world, and yet can’t see the benefit of voluntarily crossing the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean to visit another land. Not even to a tourist destination like Paris or London.
It’s like wanting to drive a $50,000 Lexus around in the middle of nowhere, with no map, and a windshield obscured by red,white, and blue fingerpaint. Only the wise understand why that Lexus is now riddled with dents and scratches and gunshot holes. The fools are the ones who cry the strawman, “Being well-traveled don’t make you a better person!!” Of course, it doesn’t! But it sure makes for an educated American. We want an educated person leading us, don’t we?
Why shouldn’t we expect a prospective president to have done some traveling, for Pete’s Sake!? Why is this an unreasonable expectation in the global economy of the 21st century?!
(PS… don’t bring those silly “polls don’t matter or don’t show reality” please)[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I’m underwhelmed by your protestations. If they aren’t US citizens, they don’t cast valid votes. Polling is a load of hooey anyway, it does great harm to democracy.
And there it is again. After wading through some incredibly stupid analogies, I get to the 'old ‘provincial rube line that psuedo-intellectuals love so much’ once again. Be realistic here. It’s not like GW was going to get your vote even if he regularly summered at Euro-Disney. You are just grabbing whatever little detail of his life that you can and trying to twist it to show that he is a ‘mealy-mouth hick’ (or whatever other endearing appellation you use.)
If nothing else, Bush’s deer-in-the-headlights intellect — despite his rather expensive education — ought to give leftists who advocate shoveling money into the coal-fire of education considerable pause.
One of the late night wags pointed out that if you expand the poll to the United Federation of Planets, then Nader wins.
Of course other countries would rather have a president that reaches out to the world and considers their opinions as opposed to the shoot first and ask questions later mentality of Mr. Bush. I can’t believe the anti-French sentiment that still permeates the US despite the fact that France was proven right and the whole Iraq fiasco was not necessary. Unfortunately, many Americans see no need to work in concert with other nations and they are all voting for Bush.
Good point… and one that makes me sad. I thought if we raised educational levels in Brazil that voting would become less erratic and emotionally driven… less corrupt politicians getting elected…but when I see americans with a much higher average years and quality of study being driven like cattle to vote I am very sad about our prospects down south. I hate populism…
Brutus, Bush is provincial. No way of getting around that. Now do you think being provincial is not a limiting factor ? You better counter their points that way. I think your fighting up hill... and it really doesn't matter very much how much you've travelled... but the lack of travel is condemning. That a rich guy doesn't even bother to travel speak badly of his curiosity and interest for knowing the world.
(To be fair I read Bush Jr. went with daddy on a presidential trip to Italy once and got the first flight he managed back less than a week later.)
Unfortunately, corruption is born in the heart, not in the mind. Some of history’s most vicious tyrants have been brilliant men. All the best to you and yours in Brazil.
A majority of Europeans don’t want strong U.S. leadership in world affairs. A majority of Europeans also prefer JFK over GWB. Could it be, then, that a majority of Europeans view Kerry as a weak leader?
You’re right, it is quite a stretch to say that any nation expressing an opinion is the same thing as bossing people around. However, I can understand the tendency of Americans to want to vote the opposite of nations that admit that they’d like to see the U.S. brought down a peg or two.
So, how do you suppose Kerry will make use of Rashak’s polls. Somehow, I doubt that American voters will go fo a campaign that says, “Vote for me, because foreigners who don’t want strong U.S. leadership support me!”
Well if Cheney wants to scare americans into not voting for Kerry ... will americans reaction be the opposite too ? Curious how things have different weights.
Populism is the new democracy ?