And then there's this

[windelina]

Again, from Salon:
Last week, War Room reported that more than 80 percent of the citizens of Germany and France favored John Kerry in the November election. A poll released today by the University of Maryland in conjunction with an international survey company called Globescan shows support for Kerry all over the globe. The people of 35 nations favor Kerry by more than a 2-to-1 margin, according to the survey. "Asked how the foreign policy of President Bush has affected their feelings toward the US, in 30 countries a majority or plurality said it made them feel 'worse' about America."

The list of countries that disapprove of how America currently handles its foreign affairs is too long to print in full, and ranges from China to Britain to Argentina to Kazakhstan. Globescan's president notes that "perhaps most sobering for Americans is the strength of the view that US foreign policy is on the wrong track, even in countries contributing troops in Iraq."

Opposition to the Bush administration was not unanimous, however. Should Bush take a long vacation in January, the poll identifies three countries in which he can expect a moderately warm welcome: The Philippines, Poland and Nigeria

* * * * *

I think this should be sobering to any American citizen.
This is not a poll of global leaders - this is a poll of the people of the world.
Like it or not, we are a part of the world and as Iraq has shown - going it alone doesn't work so well. (Please do not even bother to bring up the "Coalition of the Willing" which should be retitled the "Coalition of Countries willing to take US money but not willing to commit more than a token military force".)

Comments

[purplesquirrel.livejournal.com]

It's frightening that so many Americans don't see what is so obvious to us and the rest of the world. They're blinded by their religion I suppose.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

No, we just don't give a fat rat's butt what you or "the rest of the world" thinks. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with having a different set of priorities...like thinking for ourselves instead of following what a bunch of polls say.

[petsnakereggie.livejournal.com]

I have to observe that what this comment suggests is that Conservatives are capable of thinking for themselves while Liberals are not.

I take considerable exception to that.

The polls, for instance, give GWB a slight lead. I do not plan to vote for him as a result.

The polls suggest that the majority of Americans disapprove of Gay Marriage. I believe that majority is wrong and will do everything in my power to oppose a ban on gay marriage.

Am I thinking for myself or being a slave to the polls?

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

Am I thinking for myself or being a slave to the polls?

I guess that depends. Did you have a different opinion before, but then read the polls and changed your mind? Were you undecided on these issues before, and used the polls to help you form your opinion?

[petsnakereggie.livejournal.com]

I did not have a different opinion prior to reading the polls and would not change my mind without research that has nothing to do with polls.

You have dodged the basic question I was asking:

You statement implies you believe that Conservatives are capable of thinking for themselves and Liberals are not? Do you really believe that?

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

You statement implies you believe that Conservatives are capable of thinking for themselves and Liberals are not? Do you really believe that?

You may have inferred that from my answer, but if I had meant to say that, I would have. What I think is that there are a lot of people who don't put much thought into who they're going to vote for, whether they're liberals or conservatives. This is based not just on reading the papers but on personal experience as a political candidate. Some people will support a candidate because that candidate is committed to supporting a point of view that they support, and others exactly the reverse - if a candidate has position A on an issue, they'll vote for the other candidate because they feel so strongly about that issue. Others will vote for a party's endorsed candidate regardless of the candidate's actual views. This is the world of politics as I have experienced it.

[petsnakereggie.livejournal.com]

It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with having a different set of priorities...like thinking for ourselves instead of following what a bunch of polls say.

That is what you wrote. You say that you have a different set of priorities and state that one of those priorities is thinking for yourself. Speaking as a conservative, you made it sound like a liberal was not capable of thinking for themselves.

I would hope you can understand where that inference came from.

What I think is that there are a lot of people who don't put much thought into who they're going to vote for, whether they're liberals or conservatives.

I completely agree. The electorite in this country is grossly uninformed and makes decisions based on far less than all the information.

That is not what I inferred from your statement and why I asked you to clarify.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

"It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with having a different set of priorities...like thinking for ourselves instead of following what a bunch of polls say."

That is what you wrote. You say that you have a different set of priorities and state that one of those priorities is thinking for yourself. Speaking as a conservative, you made it sound like a liberal was not capable of thinking for themselves.
I would hope you can understand where that inference came from.

Ah, so desu ka. I do understand. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify what I was thinking.

[michaellee.livejournal.com]

I think it's unfortunate when people don't give a fat rat's butt what other people think.

I think it's important to consider what other people think, even (or perhaps especially) if they don't agree with me. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your opinion, but it's still worthwhile.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

It's important to know what they think, but it's a serious mistake (imo) to let other peoples' opinions drive your actions if those opinions go against doing what is best for yourself.

[michaellee.livejournal.com]

True, but I don't think that's what we're doing.

I think it's more like friends telling you that you have a drinking problem.

The Intervention.

[jenx.livejournal.com]

"Steve, we're your friends, and we care for you a great deal. We're worried because, well, we think you may be a Republican. Not that being a Republican is bad - heaven knows there have been some excellent Republicans. But we think you might be planning to vote for Bush . . ."

[windelina.livejournal.com]

We have to live with the rest of the world, like it or not.

I suppose we could just conquer them all.
Or just ignore them.

You are basically saying that the rest of the world is wrong, doesn't know anything and should be summarily discounted. Yes?

They DO outnumber us, you know. And pretty soon China is gonna be the biggest economic kid on the block and then people aren't gonna be willing to put up with our BS.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

You are basically saying that the rest of the world is wrong, doesn't know anything and should be summarily discounted. Yes?

No. What I am saying is that what they think is not going to affect my actions with respect to doing what I believe is best for me or my family.

Frankly, I was also insulted by the implication that my decisions, and the decisions of others I agree with, are driven by religion and nothing else. That's a pretty broad statement to make about a group of people about whom the poster apparently doesn't know very much.

[windelina.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it is safe to say that a major part of the GOP platform is based largely on appealing to conservative Christian groups. Granted, PurpleSquirrel made a generalization.

So, you believe it is best for your family for the rest of the world to dislike the US? How does this make us safer? Our policies and actions are turning the world against us. This can't be good for our safety, security or economy.

[tokenfanboy.livejournal.com]

Umm, the rest of the world isn't plotting to kill us, just the extremist terrorist organizations that were plotting to kill Americans regardless of who was/is in the White House. People tend to ignore the fact that the WTC was attacked during the Clinton administration as well. That bit of world-hatred had nothing to do with Bush.

What Europe thinks doesn't really matter much. We are a sovreign nation. It's not up to them to decide who should be President. I am not a right-wing conservative christian, yet I can still find reasons to support Bush over Kerry that have nothing to do with religion or anybody's war-record.

I am open-minded. I watched the acceptance speeches from both conventions. I will be following the news. Plus, I will be watching the debates. As of right now, there really hasn't been anything to make me want to change my vote. Time will tell. I've only ever voted Republican for President once in all the years I've been voting. I didn't like Gore and I haven't heard anything of substance from Kerry that makes me want to vote for him either.

[windelina.livejournal.com]

The economy is in the toilet. Our civil rights are being eroded. The environment is suffering lasting damage (due specifically to policies of this administration). We have the largest deficit EVER.

All of this in the last 4 years. (The economy is a bit wibblier to pin, but the other three are definites.)

And you think keeping Bush around is a good idea?

[tokenfanboy.livejournal.com]

Uh, last time I checked the Patriot Act has sunset provisions in it that require Congress to reapprove it. If you are refering to his not signing the Kyoto treaty that's pretty weak for a "lasting damage" arguement. Not all scientists even agree that global warming is real. Deficits just mean the government can't grow as fast. Look at how much Minnesota's government spending grew during the State's surplus years. When the economy started to slow down a bit it caused huge budget shortfalls because of the unrestricted spending of the Legislature. The economy has been growing for the last year or so. The trends have been moving upward for a long time now and this past year more jobs have been coming back. Don't give me that BS about the quality of them either. When you lose your job, while you try to do get one equal to what you had you can't always do that. It's a layoff, not a promotion. I've been unemployed for a while now but it has absolutely nothing to do with who is in the White House. I got laid off because my boss ran his business poorly. And how exactly is Kerry going to balance the budget if he expands the prescription drug benefit and nationalizes health care? I can't wait to see Kerry make us energy independent without drilling for oil anywhere.

[petsnakereggie.livejournal.com]

I tried to resist responding to this but I couldn't. Shame on me.

Uh, last time I checked the Patriot Act has sunset provisions in it that require Congress to reapprove it.

Sunset provision. Check. Bush Administration wants to ensure that those provisions are not enacted. Check

If you are refering to his not signing the Kyoto treaty that's pretty weak for a "lasting damage" arguement. Not all scientists even agree that global warming is real.

You don't honestly believe - in the wake of overwhealming global evidence (read the latest National Geographic) - that global warming does not exist? Do you?

A few scientists thought that Jews and blacks were naturally inferior during the middle part of the 20th century. They were wrong.

So too are the few scientists that suggest global warming is a myth. It is real and it is getting worse.

And I expect that windelina was also referring to the Bush administrations relaxation of almost every major pollution standard the EPA now barely enforces.

Deficits just mean the government can't grow as fast.

I wrote a major paper about this in college. That isn't all they mean.

The largest portion of the federal budget is not defense. It is maitenance on the federal debt. Fully 1/3 of the federal budget goes to pay off our debt to foreign and domestic banks.

When you run a deficit, that number goes up. All other programs feel more and more strain as that number approaches 1/2 of the federal budget. That, by the way is the interest. We aren't touching the principal.

Eventually, someone has to raise taxes to help pay for that massive interest bill.

Clinton was the most forward thinking politician of our era. He recognized that if you are patient and wait 12-16 years, you can pay down that debt and then you can really cut taxes. None of this 3% for the middle class stuff. We are talking 10 - 20% across the board.

So what does a deficit mean? Higher taxes. Plain and simple, you run a deficit the size this country is running, your taxes will go up. Mark my words.

And how exactly is Kerry going to balance the budget if he expands the prescription drug benefit and nationalizes health care?

That is a good question but nationalized health care has to happen.

A couple conservative economists agreed to this in a fine segment on MPR about a year ago. They pointed out that entrepenourship in the US is way down because fledgling business owners can't afford to cover their own health care let alone that of their employees. To grown this Economy in a real sense, we need to get small business expanding and the only way to do that is to make health care affordable to all Americans.

They also pointed out that most major corporations would be willing to foot the tax bill because the extra taxes wouldn't even come close to the money they would save on lowered premiums for their employees.

I can't wait to see Kerry make us energy independent without drilling for oil anywhere.

"Reduction of dependance on foreign oil" does not mean we'll stop using oil.

It means we push the Auto makers to make more fuel efficient cars (regulations relaxed by the Bush administration).

It means we push the use of alternative/reusable fuel sources (all but ignored by the Bush administration in the push to drill in Alaska).

In my book, it means we cut fuel subsidies so the US is paying as much for gas as the rest of the world. Maybe if we were paying $3.00 a gallon, we would think a little harder before we bought that Hummer.

The oil will not last forever. It will likely not last another 100 years. We MUST find alternate sources before the oil runs out. We don't have a choice.

No, I don't know why I wrote all this. You believe what you believe and I am not about to change your mind.

[tokenfanboy.livejournal.com]

WTF are you doing bringing race into a comment about Global warming? And here I thought Windelina was worried about conservatives bringing down the level of discussion to the gutter.

[windelina.livejournal.com]

Wow - you are WAY off base there.

Reggie's point was:
a few scientists don't believe global warming is real. The MAJORITY of scientists do.

he used as a case in point:
back when segregation and miscegenation were the issues, a few scientists said that minorities were "naturally inferior" and those scientists were used in political debate to support the discrimination laws.
That doesn't mean those scientists were right.

Reggie was using a historical example.

Good heavens.

[tokenfanboy.livejournal.com]

Defend him all you like. He was the one that played the race card. He could have just as easily refered to people thinking the world was flat or the sun revolving around the Earth and not been offensive. He chose otherwise. So much for your civil discourse.

[windelina.livejournal.com]

He didn't play "the race card".

I don't understand what you found offensive.
He was clearly saying that some scientists (freaks) said minorities were "naturally inferior" and those scientists were - rightly - disproved and discredited.
Same with global warming.

That was his point.

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to figure out where the hell you got offended. Except for someone attacking your argument about global warming.

[petsnakereggie.livejournal.com]

I am using an analagy to point out that saying "not all" scientists agree with Global Warming is hardly an appropriate argument.

I am not saying that you are racist. I am saying that there are always crackpots who disagree with the overwhealming weight of scientific study and they should not be given credence simply because they exist.

It is unfortunate that your only response is to say that I was dragging this discussion into the gutter. I believe your arguments are spurious and I used another spurious argument for an example. It was the first example I could think of although there are certainly others.

A few scientists argued that there was no such thing as nuclear winter.

A few scientists still think the world is flat.

A few scientists dismissed the theory of relativity.

A few scientists said nuclear power was impossible.

That didn't make them right.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it is safe to say that a major part of the GOP platform is based largely on appealing to conservative Christian groups. Granted, PurpleSquirrel made a generalization.

I don't think that's the case at all, but you're entitled to your opinion.

So, you believe it is best for your family for the rest of the world to dislike the US? How does this make us safer? Our policies and actions are turning the world against us. This can't be good for our safety, security or economy.

They may, perhaps, be turning the elites abroad against us (which I find a questionable proposition to start with, since most people who make this claim point to our "allies" France and Germany) but I believe we appeal to the common people much more than we repel the leaders.

For a country allegedly so reviled, we certainly seem to attract a heck of a lot of people and sell a lot of our dreams & visions overseas. Somebody obviously likes us.

[windelina.livejournal.com]

So, you're basically refuting this poll and denying its validity or relevance?

It specifically states that only three countries were moderately in favor of our foreign policy, but you immediately go directly to France and Germany as being against us. One of the countries listed as against our foreign policy is BRITAIN - our big Iraq War pal.

And France is a long-time ally - we wouldn't exist if it weren't for France (Revolutionary War). There are long-standing ties between France and the US.

"Countries" here being used as shorthand for "people polled in those countries".

I'm sorry - but your rebuttal stems entirely from discounting the opinions expressed as being from "the elite". And supporting your opinion with "they still buy American". I deplore the man who owns Domino's Pizza because he's violently anti-choice, but I still buy Domino's once in a while because I like the taste.

I'm curious to know your reaction and thoughts based on this premise:
Suppose that this poll accurately reflected the views of the regular Joe citizen of each country. And suppose that 80% of the countries in the world ended up firmly in the anti-America camp.

What then would your response be? Would it still be to deny that it is relevant to the US that the rest of the world actively dislikes us?

[purplesquirrel.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did make a generalization. As Windelina pointed out, a lot of the Republican platform is targeted towards the religious right - anti-abortion, opposition to gay marriage; and the party uses a lot of simplistic good vs. evil rhetoric which likely strikes a chord in that target audience.

I didn't mean to say that all Bush supporters are motivated by religion. Yet one cannot deny the clearly religious messages that Bush and others in the party are using to appeal to voters.

The world...

[vackovich.livejournal.com]

It's a good thing people who live in other countries and no little or nothing about America cannot vote in the election. Otherwise it would be clear win for Nader!

Seriously, what do people in other countries know what it is like living in America? Why do you think their opinion even counts? What does anyone know on this board about the lifestyles Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and the Middle East for that matter? We only know about other countries based on how the media portrays them to us and they never go into any positive detail.

I could care less what people living in other countries think about the American government as a whole, regardless of who the president is at that current time. Their opinion is moot.

When did the world ever like the USA? Am I missing some history on when world opinion changed?

Re: The world...

[michaellee.livejournal.com]

When did the world ever like the USA? Am I missing some history on when world opinion changed?

Probably on September 11th and 12th, 2001.

And probably in the mid 1940s.

But I suppose that's probably about it.

Re: The world...

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

I think you're being overly generous, but then I tend to be a cynical Jacksonian.

Re: The world...

[windelina.livejournal.com]

I feel that this "I don't care what the world thinks" attitude is very short-sighted.

We need the rest of the world to buy our stuff. To come visit America and give us their tourist dollars. To join with us in matters of world security.

To believe us when we say there is a problem.

The rest of the world doesn't trust us right now.

Do we need them to LIKE us? No. Do we need them to be willing to work with us? Yes. That willingness is eroding.

And we COULD know about other countries if we bothered to find out. International news is readily available on the internet. Most other countries (especially First World ones) make international news a priority - not so in the US.

To put the shoe on a different foot: what does it say that the rest of the world knows and cares enough to have a definite opinion?

Re: The world...

[mattmn.livejournal.com]

If everyone doesn't start getting along soon in the world, how can we ever come under one government and create the United Federation of Planets? I mean, come on?!?!

Jesting aside, I'm not the world's biggest Star Trek fan but I do believe in the concept of the Prime Directive and Bush broke the Prime Directive when he invaded Iraq. It was not a pre-emptive strike.

The United Nations is a great idea and concept. It needs more power and authority. I think we could have maybe avoided World War II if we as a country believed in Woodrow Wilson's convictions after WWI and joined the League of Nations. Our senate at the time foolishly did not approve that treaty.

Re: The world...

[(Anonymous)]

Every Star Trek captain has broken the Prime Directive many, many times.

The UN is filled with countries whose political systems are anything but Democratic. We don't want to ever be under their authority.

Re: The world...

[vackovich.livejournal.com]

The world did not like America on Sept 11th or 12th. Perhaps it was a sense of pity for the lives lost with a twist foreign rationalization of "they had it coming". If there was ever a day where a president could have dropped a nuclear weapon on a country with little or no public disapproval, it was September 12th, 2001. But the US did not, is this not the greatest country on Earth?

As for the 1940's, and WWII. America was disliked for entering the war late and then dropping the bomb on Japan.

Glad I could clear that up. The world in general has never liked the USA ever since around the time the USA fought for its indepence from Britain. Perhaps even before that day because of the social outcast coming here for Europe for a new start.

This sense of misplaced optimism of world approval based on who the president is not representative of the history in general.

The American Image

[gunthar.livejournal.com]

Is it important to be liked by other countries?

Not practical in every case, though good allies help support American goals around the world.

It is important to be respected around the world?

Again, you can't make everybody treat your government and business representives with polite cooperation, but there are definite advantages to pursuing that goal.

It is important to be seen as honorable by other nations?

Yes. Simply, yes. You can argue this if you wish--I think the Patriot Act still allows you that priviledge. But I think the effort necessary to form an argument against it would be better spent trying to grow up.

[lio.livejournal.com]

My opinion of American politics tends to side with the foreigners. Then again, I don't really like ANY politics. If I didn't seriously love the freedoms this country enjoys, I'd consider moving to someplace in Europe.