Trouble ahead?
By glazou on Tuesday 28 September 2004, 09:10 - Bushisms - Permalink
I was yesterday night discussing with an american friend living in Paris. By the way, he really enjoys it and never perceived any kind of bitterness or even threat because of the US politics; when some media or people on the other side of the Atlantic say it's dangerous for american citizens to visit France these days, that's pure demagogic propaganda... Of course, because we're friends, we discussed a little bit the State of the Union, and finally agreed on a scary point: for the moment, the Western World makes a big difference between the american administration and the american people. But if Bush is re-elected, and the last polls are quite bad for Kerry, the people here are going to say "hey, _they_ voted for him again and are happy with him!". Americans in Europe will not face danger, of course; but I'm sure they will face anger. And not only here in France. That will be the same in the whole continent, including the UK.
Note: I'm allowing comments on this post (although "Pete" is banned) but I'll censor flames/insults without mercy. Don't say I did not warn you.
Comments
i think you are right... ;(
You're abosultely right.
Bush has proven he is incompetent - regarding both domestic economy and foreign politics.
Of course, the voters don't know that the first time around, but if they vote for him again the second time, US citizens will be branded as equally incompetent - at least the next 4 years.
Which Pete do you mean? Can you give a link to a previous comment to show that I am the one? I personally can't remember any comment in this context.
[Note de Daniel] it's not you, it's another one [/Note de Daniel]
J'en profite tant que les commentaires ne sont pas fermés et cet article potentiellement polémique parti en émeute, pour vous signaler l'article de Anthony Arnove, « ABB (Tout sauf Bush), cela ne suffit pas », www.humanite.presse.fr/jo...
Some of us in America felt the same about Clinton getting re-eleced...and Bush...but we can't stand Kerry...we don't need a person who doesn't know where he is from...or where he is going...so that leaves us with a blank look on our faces...since we seem to be limited to 2 parties with any power...we will vote...but for who? a third party....and is it a wasted vote. If you see Kerry the way some of us do...as someone we wouldn't want leading our kids in war...(he really did vote against the bill to get them the weapons the soldiers needed)then maybe you'll understand that some will hold their noses...and pull the lever for Bush...the one they will consider the lesser of two evils...which many of us have been doing for years in this country.
[Note de Daniel] "someone we wouldn't want leading our kids in war"... Ah. Let's phrase the problem differently then: do you want a president that sends your kids to war? Speaking of war, I think everyone agrees on the fact Kerry knows what it is. Hey, even the Viets agree... [/Note de Daniel]
Daniel, you have to consider another option and it is that he is not that incompetent. Looking from an US-centric view although he is running a large deficit (partly originated on the love of USD that the world has), he has lowered taxes, managed a mild recession and getting some growth.
Again, from an US-centric view, who cares about the world? If the French or the Germans are angry with us, it is not going to change my way of life, I only care having the US in the right side and respected and being able to spend and buy things. Unemployment is low (especially compared with Europe), there was plenty of susbsidies thrown everywhere and he is a true american. Not like Kerry, married to a Mozambican heiress.
Before you start yelling, I tried to put myself in the skin of a medium class american, the one who wants to buy a house, have a job, raise a family and not care for the rest. It is not my personal opinion.
Now, I wouldn't vote for him, he lied, his administration has been bad for the world, but again I don't vote.
Sorry Daniel, but no: they won't face anger on the whole continent. Even if a majority would elect Bush, most people I know still can distinguish between the people as a whole and the single person one is talking with.
Or are Italians facing anger because they elected a party which consists merely of criminals? At least here in Berlin not. And I would consider it stupid to be angry against one person because the majority of his people elected this or that way.
daniel: yeah, I probably went too far using the word "anger", but I could not find another one. My point was that for the moment, europeans seem to forget almost one half of US citizens voted for Bush. If he is reelected, they'll keep it in mind.
Javier-> "he is a true american. Not like Kerry, married to a Mozambican heiress."
I don't understand this. please clarify (I understand all words but not your demonstration).
Comme le dit Bush lui-même dans Farenheit 9/11 : "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Les électeurs devraient y réfléchir à deux fois...
Ce qui me parait un peu regrettable dans ce commentaire, c'est le coté menace contre les américains s'ils ne votent pas pour Kerry. Effectivement, l'article de l'humanité "hits the nail". Jusqu'à présent, Kerry est tombé dans le piège du "tout sauf bush" en arrivant pas à donner une personnalité à sa campagne. Les américains ne savant pas très bien pour quoi ils votent s'ils votent Kerry, et ca ne risque pas d'être convainquant pour les indécis ...
> My point was that for the moment, europeans seem to forget
> almost one half of US citizens voted for Bush
Uhm actually no, the voting population represents about half of all US citizens (very rough estimation, I'm too lazy to look up for the numbers), and then *less* than half of them voted for Bush.
That leaves quite a couple of people than can cay: hey, I didn't vote for that moron
Unfortunately it looks like Bush will get back in and so will Blair.
Theoretically the UK has 3 main political parties. But, no-one gives the Liberals a chance and the Conservatives make themselves less electable every week. Which leaves Labour and Blair.
Neither situation is Democracy, more like Democratic Feudalism. We need to scrap both systems and start again.
"a third party....and is it a wasted vote."
That phrase is nothing more than sheep mentality. If you're not going to vote for what you believe in, then you've only got yourself to blame.
Bob,
what I meant (and honestly I don't give a damm if someone is married to a martian or not) is that some US citizens feel that Kerry has too much "foreign" influence given his education in Europe and his current wife. Bush on the other side is almost a redneck, one of theirs of true blood.
Not my personal opinion, I was only trying to think as some US citizens do.
i don't belive that Kerry is a "better choice". Both are bad, but Bush had time to show his skills in arrogance while Kerry not... yet.
Sorry for mis-interpreting you. Indeed, lots of Americans do seem to think that way, which is rather depressing.
As an American, Bush doesn't really scare me, his staff does. People like Ashcroft, the Attorney General, who cover up Justice (the statue, because of a breast) and support the Patriot Act. I think all alone Bush wouldn't be so bad, but I still wouldn't vote for the guy.
[censored reason="author is banned"/]
Pete: "In the US, when the left is losing an exchange of ideas, they'll first call you a racist, a nazi, a zionist, etc. And then they resort to censorship and threats. You jumped right to the censorship part - just giving you a heads up for next time."
Actually, Pete, you've got that backwards. It's the conservatives that do that. Ann Coulter says if you're not for Bush you're a traitor and guilty of treason. Bush says if you're not for him you're against him and givind aid and comfort to the enemy. The Left (and most rational people) ARE "zionist" in that we think that everyone, even the scary scary Jews, deserve a home where they can live in peace. (by the way, thre are fewer Jews than Californians, so why the hell are you people so damn scared of them?)
As for Censorship, that's also a tool of the right. you're the ones who ban books, want to censor music, raised holy hell because a nipple aired on TV for a microsecond, try to shut down news agencies that report the truth of the war (and yet you use the news when leaking the identities of CIA agents you don't like). Dan tried to ban you because you drag down the average IQ where ever you go.
Je crains que Bush ne gagne les élections, car il se sert de la peur pour asseoir son pouvoir. C'est exactement la même méthode que Vladimir Poutine ou Ariel Sharon. Ils se servent du malheur de leur peuple et d'un état de guerre, ou de menace, pour s'imposer par n'importe quel moyen (les medias en premier) comme le sauveur, l'évidence, celui qui les protègera. Le raisonnement est le suivant : je provoque la violence, puis je brandis cette même violence pour provoquer la terreur (par exemple avec l'aide des medias), puis je mets en avant mon action militaire pour démontrer que je suis l'homme de la situation, tout en provoquant à nouveau la violence par cette action militaire, histoire de perpétuer le mécanisme. Evidemment tout ceci se produit de manière entrelacée avec d'atroces attentats de terroristes à qui je n'ai vraiment pas envie d'enlever leur responsabilité, mais je pense néanmoins que la stratégie politique de bush suis en partie mon raisonnement
What happened to recognizing Evil for what it is.
The Eifell tower was not attacked on Sept 11
Yet the statue of liberty still stands in the harbor.
From a time when Evil was confronted and defeated.
It would be nice if a stroll down the Champs Elysees
would make it all go away.......... but I think not.
American view: your comment just shows you have no knowledge of the history of terrorism in Europe and general and France in particular. Document yourself a little bit... We know too what means terrorism and terror on our soil...
From time to time I think that voting for Bush might be the right choice. Why?
I'm half german and half egypt. When talking to my arabic relatives I got fundamental messages that are really scary. They had their opinion long before 9/11 and Bush. And believe me, they are the liberal ones.
What I want to say: In the arabic world raised something against US, Israel and the whole western world.
Bush's behaviour only speeded up things but I'm afraid that the arabic-west conflict would have been escalated anyway.
So the quetion now is: How to deal with the situation? The arabic world wants the west to withdraw. But this is no option for the west. So military confrontation will show up sooner or later.
Unlike europe the Bush administration says: Yes, we are imperialists and we stand for that. Europe's behaviour is imperialst too but they don't say it.
BTW: Have a look at Clinton having the best image in europe. What did he do? Under his administration the CIA installed microphones in the brussels.
The Bush administration is corrupt and arrogant. I guess the transatlantic partnership might break within the next 4 years because of their behaviour. But: Be aware that we have two only options regarding the arabic world:
a) Leave them alone
b) fight them and try to install a democracy like it happend after WW2 here.
I think that a) is the correct one but there is too much money involved to do that.
Bottomline: I'm afraid that Bush only speeds up things things that would happen anyway.
Sachant que les Français ont élu deux fois un Jacques Chirac dont le pédigrée ferait rougir un Richard Nixon, le côté self-righteous de cette entrée de blog me semble un peu déplacé.
Let me be clear, for every American, including myself, it is very important to realize that it DOES matter what the rest of the world thinks of us.
Many conservatives in the US have the very misguided notion, in my opinion, that the US will always be the world's superpower. Their ego has certainly blinded them, because what will happen to our descendents when the time comes where the US is not a superpower, and we have attacked different countries all over the world because we didn't agree with their politics. How much mercy or understanding will the new superpower have for us after we showed no mercy or understanding for anyone different from us?
But I of course do not expect the conservatives to think long-term... they apparently can't. They all beleive they deserve massive tax cuts for the rich, ballooning our deficit, so that our children can pick up the tab in the future.
I've never seen such a self-interested and selfish generation in all of my life.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for common sense.
Javier wrote: "Again, from an US-centric view, who cares about the world? If the French or the Germans are angry with us, it is not going to change my way of life, I only care having the US in the right side and respected and being able to spend and buy things."
I know you are generalizing, but I hope your analysis is wrong, because if this really is 'the US-centric view', then maybe there isn't that much difference between the american people and the american government after all.
Anyway, thanks to the Bush administration, the US nowadays is anything _but_ respected! It merely has become the laughing stock of the world; people outside the US have understood long ago that this administration can't be taken serious, simply because all they can do is lie. People who seriously think that pathetic liars will ever earn respect have lost all grip on reality.
Moreover, the US is frequently _not_ on the right side. Why? Because there _is_ no such thing as 'the' right side. That's a fairy-tale concept, believed by six-year-olds. The real world is neither black, nor white. The simplistic US-centric view of good versus evil is utterly childish, utterly dangerous, and thus utterly foolish.
Don't forget that Kerry has been in the US Senate for 19 years - and really the Senate carries more power than the president. Yet most americans have never heard of him prior to this presidential race.
That does not bode well for his leadership skills.
Also, he chose a trial lawyer of the worst kind for his running mate. John Edwards decided to run for president because his political career was about to end since he was facing a definite defeat for his seat in his home state.
I'm not going to try to defend Bush's actions, but keep in mind you never vote AGAINST someone, in our system you always vote FOR someone. be sure you know who you are voting for, because you might just get it.
Me personally? i think that Kerry stands for Socialist ideals, which is simply not what the US was founded on. I'm not making a positive or negative comment on Socialism, i'm just saying that Socialism by definition is unamerican and i do not care to see the US go down that path. With the mixed population and wide-ranging morals, Socialsim does not work because it ignores some of the more animal aspects of basic human nature. It might work for a while in very homogeneous European state where the majority of the people have the same ideas about things, but here? no way - too many people are thinking about how to screw the system and Socialism in this day and age is pretty easy to drain the coffers on and screw.
Oh yes - i saw a few posts which could use some clairification.
The United States is not a Democracy and never has been. It is a Democratic Republic.
I don't know of any theorist who thinks that a pure democracy is a good idea.
There's a reason pure democracy is described as "The tyranny of the majority" and "Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." ;D
Granted our electoral college has been altered in harmful ways since it was created, but it still exists for a reason. Just as we vote for Senators to represent us, we vote for electorates to decide the outcome of the presidential race.
"i think that Kerry stands for Socialist ideals, which is simply not what the US was founded on. I'm not making a positive or negative comment on Socialism, i'm just saying that Socialism by definition is unamerican and i do not care to see the US go down that path."
Then why does the US have a socialist school system?
While it may be true that half of america voted for (and will again for) bush i would guess that most of the americans travelling to europe did NOT.
so it's not fair to be angry at american visitors to europe in general....
they probably hate bush more than you do.
-A Canadian living in the US
Darren - GREAT point.
i've brought this up to some of my more leftist friends before and they flamed me when i suggested that the government-run school system was a bad idea. I was accused of everything from elitism to promoting class stratification.
I do not think it is the governement's job to forcibly take part of my wage in order to create an inefficient schooling system. i'd be ok with a far smaller amount of my wage taken for the government to create an accreditation program and to maintain some auditing. Even then, i could do without even that. Colleges would eventually drive a third-party independent accreditor (or multiple accreditors) because they would need some basis for evaluating prospective students.
Oh yeah, i've yet to get any solid reason for the outright hatred people have for President Bush. it comes across as a very personal hatred which makes no sense to me. i can understand not liking policies - lord knows i think he's far too centrist and i think he's really screwed up by not taking a hard line with the US-Mexican border. I'll never understand why he panders to V. Fox of Mexico.
Janos: "lord knows i think he's far too centrist"... ROFL!!!!! You and I don't live in the same world, apparently.
"Socialsim does not work because it ignores some of the more animal aspects of basic human nature. It might work for a while in very homogeneous European state where the majority of the people have the same ideas about things, but here?"
Please Janos, don't make the same foolish assumptions that you reproach us of doing. And liberalism has the very same problem about the human nature, we do not always act rationally.
Janos: You forgot to wrap your comments with the <ironic> tag.
Janos: At least you're consistent in your views, even if I do disagree with them. Personally, I feel that pure socialism would work about as well as pure capitalism. The problem with both extremes is that they are far too prone to corruption. I would say that the way forward is by utilising a balance of the two.
As for the hatred of Bush, mine stems from the fact that his actions negatively affect my way of life and yet I have no say in the matter. His way of putting the US before everyone else hurts because it's impractical. After all, we share the same air that he's pumping full of crap. We share the same water that he's pumping full of crap. Ultimately, I think it will bite him in the ass. Other countries are rising up the ladder and they're getting a very poor opinion of the US. A little bit of mutual respect would go a long way.
Darren -
I agree. Mutual respect does go a long way.
Personally i think many alternative energy resources would be much more far along and much more viable were it not for the squeeze the oil industry (and automotive industry) keeps on things. There is too much crap being pumped into the atmosphere.
As i'm sure is quite obvious, i'm an unbashed conservative. I'm not a Republican per se, because all politcal parties are horrid abberations of consistent thought - they serve too many masters.
You're right - pure capitalism and pure socialism can work. I choose capitalism because in order to achieve pure socialism, you really have to subjugate individual human will. under socialism there's no incentive to to be better, or to do better because it does not benefit you. Corruption is a problem in all systems. There are government controls like anti-monopoly laws to control the ultimate problem in a capitalist system. Granted, nothing is perfect.
By the way, Daniel - you have a very mature audience here. if i said half these things anywhere else, i would have been flamed to heck and back by now. ;D
And really, i'm trying not to look at one system or another as being superior to another, or one as right and another as wrong - what i am doing is looking at the principles on which the United States was founded and to stick with them in their initial concept. the founding fathers of the US really studied up on history and governmental forms. What they drafted was truly fantastic. Unfortunately some of the basic structures, balanaces or power, and concepts have been horribly altered since then - so the US government and laws are not what they should be.
Also keep in mind that it is the duty of the President to further the interests of the United States, whatever those might be. And also bear in mind that the President does not make laws - Congress does, but people don't find it as easy to point fingers at them.
Damien - you said this: "Please Janos, don't make the same foolish assumptions that you reproach us of doing."
what foolish assumptions was i reproaching you for? I welcome these discussions obviously, but soemtimes i need examples.
Janos: "you have a very mature audience here. if i said half these things anywhere else, i would have been flamed to heck and back by now."
That's because most us know the limits. You almost reached them with comments that I could qualify "extreme-rightist" with some views that everyone could qualify "fascist" (I am *not* making the confusion between "fascist" and "nazi"), but you stayed just a little beyond these limits. Whoever goes beyond is banned from this blog. So most of the trollers are already gone:-)
Daniel,
thanks. I am quite right in my political leanings. I'm sorry to hear that it nearly got me banned though. I'm not interested in making personal attacks on anyone, which is what i would definitely consider a good reason to get banned. I hope i have not said anything which would be construed as a personal attack. i'm not here to troll.
So if you would ban some extreme-right idealogy, would you also ban extreme-left? I realize this is your site and you can do as you see fit, of course.
I'm just interested in honest conversation, and it's refreshing to get some after hearing the garbage that the major news outlets pump out - they've lost any credibility of having no particular political preference.
I hope no one thinks i'm a monster or something. I work hard, i have a family, i give to charity frequently. One of the things that makes me a conservative is that i think it's the individual's responsibility to help out the community and give to charity, not the government's forcible removal of my wage to insist that i give the amount they want and use it how they see fit. Personally i think the federal government has far overstepped their bounds and trampled on the rights of States and the rights of individuals in many respects.
Oh yeah i forgot to ask - which statements are ones that everyone could qualify as fascist? I'm curious.
and no worries, i don't automatically think 'nazi' when 'fascism' is said. i think 'nazi', 'hitler', etc are absued terms stretched by people in a poor attempt at what i hope is intentional hyperbole.
I don't think I'll be angry. I might despair for a while and worry a little bit about the future of the world in general, but I don't think i'll be angry in the slightest. We shall see though.
Contrary to many others, i think (outside of the US) the bush-administration gets more attention than it deserves. Whenever you notice that people are all turning their head into one direction, its time to look to the opposite one. The US has given the govs of many other countries a "great" fictional excuse to take peoples rights away. So, while the rest of the world is bashing bush, your own gov may have started to do similiar non-foreign-politics. This is what i really hate the us-administration for - they were the one who started this "war on freedom" and my personal life is affected by it as well, because the created phantom-thread(which is now slowly turning into something real - self-fulfilling-prophecy) is a great excuse for other govs to jump on the bandwaggon.
So, is this a paradox? Something else in the world deserving much more attention - but at the same time the US being the one who got that stone rolling - and now as well being the one who could stop it the easiest way - which again brings us back to the original question: the US voters currently are not just voting for their country - their vote to a large degree may affect the rest of the world - which imho sucks! Especially if they do the same mistake again. I will still be able to distinguish between individuals and americans as a whole - but i asume joe-average would show a bit more hostility.
- Lyx
Janos: "what foolish assumptions was i reproaching you for? I welcome these discussions obviously, but sometimes i need examples."
My bad. I've mistaken you with some peoples with roughly the same political orientations as you, but who come along with non-american bashing for our misconceptions about americans and the USA. Sorry for that.
No problem Damien.
I try to be respectful of other countries. Heck, my father was not born in the US. He had the displeasure of escaping Russian labor camps as a child with his family to come here with nothing.
I live in the US and am very right-wing, but i try not to be a basher.
In the U.S., we have a two-party system. Other parties are allowed, but the two largest, which have been the Democrats and the Republicans for about 150 years, get special treatment, in that the Governments of all 50 States spend taxpayer money to put on primary elections, etc. This leads to a more-stable government than the Parliamentary system, but makes it _extremely_ painful to enact _any_ change. Since people can be persuaded in large numbers to make drastic changes _for a while_, this definitely has its upside (how much 'low-carb' dieting goes on in Europe?). BTW, please don't think that I think Parliamentary systems are unstable; I'm only saying that our two-party system tends to have less change (e.g., Italy used to get a new Government about every nine months for the first thirty or forty years after WWII).
Because of this stability, those who are attracted to power choose one party or the other, learn to 'work' the system, compromise any ideals they may once have had, and eventually become political prostitutes who will do and say just about anything to get elected. Because this type of person is willing to take ethical shortcuts and to 'work' the system, honest citizens who take time out of their lives to serve their fellow citizens in the Government tend to be overshadowed, and our two-party system, like a cesspool, tends to collect the largest lumps at the top.
I have been a voter in the U.S. my entire adult life (I'm 52), and only rarely have I voted for somebody because I wholeheartedly agreed with him; rather, I usually vote for somebody because I perceive him to be the lesser of two evils. The best suggestion I have seen to improve the situation is to add a 'None of the Above' selection to every list of candidates on the ballot, with a new election with _different candidates_ being required upon 'None of the Above' getting a plurality. Since the status quo suits those running the system, I'm not holding my breath until it happens!
Finally, there were almost 3000 non-combatants _murdered_ on 20040911. There is no excuse for such behavior; if U hate me and my government, attempt to take out our armed forces, or have your government enact a complete trade embargo, or buy my employer and have me fired. These attacks were the actions of rabid animals, and I will _insist_ that my government, no matter _what_ its political affiliation, attack and destroy such creatures. If U want to hate the U.S. because we don't want to be murdered, then go ahead and hate us; I won't lose any sleep over it. On the other hand, look at your family and the people in your town, and try to guess which ones these monsters will let live when they decide _your_ country needs to be taught a lesson.
Old coder: right, right, but has all of that to do with Iraq ? Did Iraq attack the US ? Did it pose a threat to the US ? Where were the WMD ?
No, Iraq did not attack the U.S., but had he had the means, Saddaam Hussein no doubt would have done _something_ to attack us. Of course, this knowledge alone does not justify an attack, but I shed no tears for him or his fellow murderers; I shed tears for his victims _and_ for the innocents who inevitably die when _any_ war is fought (there is no such thing as a good war).
Perhaps the U.S. made a terrible mistake in attacking Iraq. Should the people who live within the borders of Iraq then not be free? I am a free man first, only then an American; I am loyal to the U.S. Government only because it agrees to be bound (more or less) by the U.S. Constitution. Should I not grant the people living in Iraq similar consideration?
What I'm trying to say here is that I believe freedom should transcend _any_ Government, and that I believe in aiding and abetting the spread of freedom. It may have been a mistake (or even a Federal crime, if the right people told the right lies) for the U.S. to invade Iraq, but that is no reason abandon those who live there to another dictatorship.
Since Republics and Democracies rarely go to war voluntarily, it also suits the interests of every Republic in the world to come to the aid of the people living in Iraq. I fully understand that this is likely to be a multi-generational undertaking, because the creatures who perpetrated the monstrous attacks on my country have the sympathies of about 40 percent or more of the general public in the Middle East; it will take a very long time to reverse the effects of decades of lies told by Middle Eastern dictatorships. This means that it is _very_ likely that my seven-year-old son will someday be in the U.S. military in the Middle East, and quite likely that his children (if he lives long enough) will be there as well. Believe me, I am _not happy_ about that.
Although U and I may disagree, I believe it is a _serious_ mistake to fail to listen carefully and respectfully to those who are on the other side of the question. What is done is done; what would U have us do now?
I'm not overly concerned about what people in Europe think. I don't mean that to be insulting. All I'm saying is that the good people of Europe don't get a say in who the American president is. I doubt the people of France, Germany, or the UK are concerned about our opinion of their leaders either -- and I don't blame them for that. Why should they? Why should we?