Just wanted to point out that Bush already went to grad school. Harvard Business School, as a matter of fact.
For many of those, it’s not just his “cronies” who agree with him, but most people in the country. Bush is far from the lone voice calling out for the death penalty. The proper legal drinking age has been the same since the eighties, without any politician seriously opposing it recently. The land-mine treaty and international court were refused by the Clinton administration as well, and would not pass Congress anyways.
I think the European leaders are smart enough to recognize that in matters of international diplomacy, Bush’s opinions are fairly typical of the country. If they had met with Clinton, they’d have been used to hearing Americans object to the same points. The only serious change is the Star Wars proposal, which I’m sure Bush will be well prepared to defend, and everyone will simply agree to disagree, as the EU really can’t stop the US from doing it, and the US can’t make the EU like it.
Personally, I think Bush seems like a friendly enough guy, and capable of being congenial without really saying anything of import.
>> No…it’s whether the President of the United States should rely on “personal charm” rather than sound policy during diplomatic visits to Europe.
Well, taking into account so much anti-Americanism in Europe is completely irrational, I would say charm is what is needed much more than sound policy which won’t make much difference.
Sound policies are needed but at another level. The fact is politics is a matter of perception much more than of substance. Charm will gain America much more than substance. Unfortunately that’s the way it is in Europe just like it is in the US.
When Europeans go and smash the windows at a McDonalds they are not being rational. No sound policy is going to change that. Public relations and charm might help though. I guarantee that if they had sent Sharon Stone rather than G. Bush, America would have gained many points in Europe.
Anyone remember Three Mile Island? What happened? In summary: nothing. Yet it sparked anti-American and anti-nuclear demonstrations everywhere in Europe. A few years later, Chernobyl. You’d think the same people would have a reason to demonstrate against the Soviets but Nah! They’re not Americans so even though they contaminated half of Europe with radioactivity, we’ll be nice to them. I never heard of a demonstration against Chernobyl or the soviets that built it. Is this a double standard or what?
You see American flags being burnt in Europe. What has America done to deserve this? Why have I never seen a Soviet or Russian flag burnt at a demonstration?
waterj2 - yup, the Harvard Business School thing has been debated before.
My dear minty green. My statement was not directed at any State or country or way of life or culture or sexual preference or eating habits or gender or colour. It was, however, directed at an individual based on what appears to be an influential self-serving agenda and who happens to be American. It’s not from where he comes that’s the issue.
Furthermore, I have the utmost respect for the Office of the President I just happen to think that, like everyone else in the world, the person in that Office has to earn respect. It’s difficult to afford Mr Bush that respect when he plainly misrepresents important issues.
I’d add that by focusing on protesters smashing windows you are rather missing the point. Protesters are but one extreme of a spectrum of opinion, the silent majority don’t take to the streets unless it’s an outright revolution.
In this case and IMHO, protesters are an indication – the tip of an iceberg - of the general weight of opinion within the more rational consensus.
The Russians aren’t anyone’s friend in Europe. You don’t protest against someone who really has no relevance on your day to day life. Many Europeans, particularly the French, fear losing their culture to US media, products and “lifestyles”. (Yes, I know this is an exaggeration; Europeans want US goods as much as we complain about them)
America gets protests because you can’t escape American influences in Europe. It’s a highly visible target. What would protesting against Russia do?
(Disclaimer: I’m not saying protests against the US are all rational and right)
Ok, for one thing, there were Chernobyl demos. But they weren’t good imagery, because they were better behaved.
European street demonstrations used to be the territory of the left wing - and those fellows certainly disliked the US. Of course, a bunch of them were pretty thoroughly controlled by the Communist parties, who had some serious funding coming from Moscow. (I’m going from Danish circumstances here, but there are signs that the same mechanics were in place in other countries.) The more moderate parts of the population wouldn’t be caught dead trying to make a political point by taking to the streets, let alone setting any flag on fire, ever. Chernobyl was handled with scalding criticism through diplomatic channels, which I happen to think was more efficient under the circumstances anyway.
So the parliament of the street had/has a definite anti-US bend. (These days I think it’s more of a anti-establishment bend, but that’s another story.) Check out the real parliament debates, letters to the editor in the major newspapers etc., and I think you’ll see a much more balanced picture.
Another thing is: The US are expected to be the good guys. We’re allies, partners, etc., and if the US makes a decision that appears to be ill-informed, we cry out, loud. Noone expects Russia (or expected the Soviet Union) to pursue anything but the most short-sighted and egotistical goals. But the US should do better than that, right ? The US has the means to influence the world, and with that comes a responsibility to do right. Tough luck, but that comes with being a superpower. Would you really appreciate it if we shrugged and expected the US to act as ethically as, say, Ukraine ?
So much anti-Americanism is irrational? Of course it’s bloody irrational. It’s as irrational as France’s dislike of Britain, Germany’s dislike of Italy, Scotland’s dislike of England…the point I’m trying to make here is that every nation has to a fairly large extent a tendency to criticise the dealings of others. If anything,
the biggest criticism is done of nations we’re closest too. I rather believe Spiny’s argument that we hold our allies to higher standards than those we apply to countries we have less ties to.
“So much anti-Americanism”? The protests you’ll be witnessing will either be Greenpeace pushing the Kyoto issue (and quite right they are), and Anti-Nook-You-Ler activists pussing the Star Wars issue (and dammit, they’re bloody well right too). That’s based on issues, not an irrational fear or loathing of one of our allies. Politicians will address those issues as well. The fact that many Americans seem to interpret European nays on those matters as an attack on the person who happens to be President probably says more about their confidence in their elected leader than it does about the concerns raised on my side of the Atlantic.
Furthermore, I’d like to point out that Europe is NOT a country. Attitudes towards the United States vary somewhat across the individual countries, you know. The Netherlands are not “anti-US” in any possible way - which is not to say they don’t oppose the abovementioned issues. Strongly. And rightly so. I honestly don’t think it takes that much imagination to put yourself in the shoes of a European leader. Just when the US seemed to be in synch with Europe, a new president bollocks up a few key issues which his predecessor handled with great knowledge and an accurate world view. Did you honestly expect European NATO allies and Kyoto Treaty co-signers to just accept that?
Nonsense. While I agree that Clintons charisma got him further in Europe than Dubya’s ever will, Bill would have cought the same amount of shit had he pushed the Kyoto Treaty aside, and had he re-ignited the Star Wars program. Bear in mind that US politics is pretty much “right wing” on a European political scale anyway. Whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican doesn’t HAVE to make a lot of difference. Unfortunately in this case, it does.
Again, you’re talking about very small groups of activists here. It’s not like every McDonalds affiliate in Europe was wiped from the map. Besides, those examples were related to other factors than the ones Dubya is being criticised for now.
Not if she brought along the same agenda. 'Sides, Sharon Stone needed a Dutchman to make it into the Big League.
I can assure you there were PLENTY of protests all throughout Europe at the time. So a double standard, it ain’t.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see a lot of flag burning at ALL in European protests. That seems to be a Middle East thing, mostly.
If I weren’t so lazy, I would go back through the archives to last October and see how some of the people in this thread thought W would perform in the debates. I can just imagine.
“Hah! That glad-handling, numb-nuts, brain dead Duhbya is gonna get sliced and diced by Al Gore! Shrub is gonna look so bad, Gerald “no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” Ford will look like a college professor by comparison! Gore by a landslide in November!”
As it turned out, Bush didn’t mispronounce any words, made no major gaffes, and came across as decently competent. Whoever you think “won” the debate on points, Bush came out of them in a much better position than when he went in, thus “winning” the debates in the only sense that mattered, because he exceeded expectations.
What the posters here don’t seem to realize is that W has consistently benefitted from low expectations of him, and he is likely to do so again, including but not limited to this trip to Europe. By mocking him as being a rube, and the son of a man who puked on a state trip to Japan, they are contributing in their own small way to this effect.
Thus the one prediction I feel I can safely make about this trip is that W will exceed the general level of expectations as expressed in this thread.
As to the OP, yes of course W is going to use whatever personal charm he has to advance his political goals. He is a politician, after all. This does not automatically mean that he or any other politician will rely on charm exclusively, though I imagine in W’s case a lot of the rational arguments will be made by Ms. Rice and others.
although, according to this the Bush folk were attempting to ‘lower expectations’
In addition, it mentions Mr. Bush mispronouncing the name of the Spanish Prime Minister, and oddly enough, the much touted ‘second language’ caused him problems as well.
Odd, since SCOTUS recently stopped an execution of a mentally ill person exactly for that reason (a Texan, as fate would have it, in November). odder yet,
Ahhh, that French charm and savoir faire! That je-ne-sais-quoi! Always making friends!
Of course the French minister has no objection to his government dealing with China, Iraq and other such countries and would never say such things about their leaders because he knows this irritates the US to no end and c’est tres bon!
France, motto: “Contradicting the USA so long as the Germans do not look threatening”
sailor: if your point is that many French politicians are semi-xenophobic bastards that are keen on spouting ill-informed rhetoric about other nations, then I fully agree with you.
If your point is that this is a common European occurance, then I don’t.
Hell, no. That “folksy charm” stuff barely works here as it is. I’m sure I’m not the only person whose teeth grind in irritation whenever they hear Dubya trying to spread the manure around.
I don’t think Dubya is capable of speaking “honestly and candidly” about anything. I know he can’t name a single “rogue nation” or “terrorist group” that can threaten the United States with a nuclear missile…
