October 15, 2004

• 27% support Bush? That's higher than I expected.
• 27% support Bush? That's higher than I expected.
• I certainly mind. When I used to go abroad, and people asked me where I was from, I would always say "Texas." If the people were generally cool, we'd have a pleasant conversation. (Yes, someone in my family owns (part of) an oil well. No, I don't ride a horse to school, but a cousin of mine did!) Now, saying I'm from Texas has been ruined :( This is petty, yes, but so is disliking me, personally, because of some president guy.
• It's certainly not surprising.
• I don't like Bush either. I'm not sure why people would hold Bush against me since I voted for Gore, as did a majority of Americans. I'm also continually amazed by countries like England, where Tony Blair apparently got elected without having a single supporter. Blair is exactly as bad as Bush, yet every single English person I hear from has an incredibly superior attitude towards us about Bush...
• Hell, I don't even like us right now, and I am us. One of us. Anyway ... It's a little worrisome; we're not going to war with any of these guys anytime soon, but they're also less likely to help us out when we need it. I blame Bush, he's peed in all our Wheaties and it's not going away for a long time.
• I'm ashamed. That's it. Just ashamed.
• What meridithea said! I got by on being a Texas expat when I lived in Northern England as a teen during the Reagan years. They hated the president, but they were OK with Texans. That's all over. I'm not surprised by the results of the survey. My husband and I looked at the possibility of looking for an overseas job a while back, and we both figured it would be a suck time to be an American abroad because of worsening attitudes toward the US. On the other hand, I'm a pantywaist pinko commie who reads the BBC's newsfeed, so what did you expect? ;)
• drjimmy brings up a good point. Why are all Americans held up to comparison and judgement based on the Bush? All UKian's (aside: slight jab there, that USian thing drives me f'n nuts!) cannot be generalized to Blair's actions (indeed Blair seems to be America's fault as well, somehow), or all Muslims to Bin Laden's. That would be/is deemed unfair, and of course "typically American". Why is it kosher the other way around? Not ashamed, not surprised re:the survey. Not ashamed as anyone who has a poor view of all Americans based on the sitting President or current media stereotype is A) guilty of big time hypocrisy and B) probably not the holder of opinions I would value. Not surprised as almost all surveys are biased, designed with the desired outcome in mind at the start. Without the question and response set on this one, I have to assume that is the case here as well. Sorry for the pseudo-rant. Just another small venting to preclude an eruption.
• Do I care? Not too much, because I know that poll results do not reflect individuals. I'm quite sure that I could along very well with most Canadians (or French, etc). I understand other (non-US) people's reactions to America's recent actions, although I disagree with those people--strongly. And besides---in the arena of global politics, national security, and leadership, it's much better to be *right* than simply popular.
• Do I mind? No. Do I care? No. People will think whatever they wish.
• Why do they hate America?
• That survey was much more interesting than simply asking about the popularity of the current President. Notably, than even when they disagree with the government, most think favourably of Americans. So Americans are popular, current policy is not. That said, all should be taken with a grain of salt. Canadians are often annoyed at the US, but in exactly the same way as the "flyover zone" is annoyed at the east and west coasts inside the U.S., and the West is annoyed at Ontario (especially Toronto (MP3, courtesy of Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie) - the same reason Scotland is annoyed at England, and Northerners (in England) complains about Southerners - and you can just keep on going with the examples. Peripheries always sneer at the centre - it's a mixture of envy, but also annoyance at being ignored. More seriously, Canadians are worried about being an economic periphery who nonetheless has no say in economic policy - worse than that, one which is bullied by its partner. Policy that really bugs us (on a personal, rather than abstract, level)? Softwood lumber. Not exactly headline news - just a case of a trade dispute. Fishing disuptes are endless - there were bloackades up in BC because of that. Iraq may get out the protesters, but when was the last time boats were held hostage over the middle east, at least by Canadians? We have economic treaties that are either set to benefit the US or simply ignored (as in the softwood lumber case). This is the real reason I support the EU as much as I do - the U.S. is a great country, but its a 400 pound gorilla, and it can't help but sit on people - the whole system works better with more equal members. All this doesn't mean I think Canada should join the U.S. - though there might economic reasons, there are a lot of other reasons it would be a bad idea. But maybe Canada should be looking for other markets, to be more protected in their own interests.
• When my wife and I were in London, we were happy when someone asked us if we were Canadian. We took it to mean that we didn't come across as overbearing, loud, boorish, or arrogant. (Being from Los Angeles, we are quite confident that our accent was not being misassigned.) This, I'd say is largely the fault of Dubya. On 9/12/01, even the press in France said something to the effect of "we are all americans today." But now, I'm pleased that someone thinks I'm Canadian.
• While I don't deny that Americans can, as individuals, get a lot of unfair flak because of their Prez, this survey did show that large majorities in all the countries still had positive impressions of the American people (as one would hope). So it's a bit misleading to imply that this is, you know, personal. What jb said. I'd just like to put it on record that I love Americans, and I hope to have sexual intercourse with one a soon as possible. ...countries like England, where Tony Blair apparently got elected without having a single supporter. Blair is exactly as bad as Bush... On a side note - the British electoral system means that Blair is not directly elected by the public (well, except for in his own constituency of Sedgefield), so that's kind of true. The Labour Party still has widespread support for its domestic policies; Blair's personal popularity has slumped since the last election, especially amongst his own party supporters. The lack of a credible opposition, however, makes a Labour victory in next year's election almost certain. Oh, and I believe the country's actually called "Britain", not "England"... don't you stupid, fat, oil-guzzling, stetson-wearing, warmongering Americans know anything?.. ;-)
• Hmmm... interesting. (note to drjimmy and pivo: i am not now, nor ever have been a Brit. Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi! Ahem.) I understand though - often the leadership of a country can be seen to stand for that country's people - hence: Saddam was/is a symbol of all Iraqis, Bush of all Americans. There is certainly an understanding of the level to which the Bush administration reflects the everyday American (which is to say, he's just the fella running the country) here in Oz: 72% of respondents here maintained a favourable view of Americans. I've met only a few of our American Cousins - not through any desire to avoid them, I just don't know any! Obvious cultural/linguistic differences aside, they don't all have flak jackets and enough small arms to equip a squad of SAS lads. Nor are they rabidly racist High Metabolism World Dominators. Just regular folks. Welcome to crash at my place. However, GWB... I'd kick him in the monkeynuts...
• "Peripheries always sneer at the centre"--well said, jb. My first reaction is that I don't much care. We got a lot of this in the Reagan era: "Oh, we can't match the new Soviet missiles in Europe, it might anger Le Monde!" On the other hand, and as Kerry keeps pointing out, we need allies in the current struggle. As bad as Bush Jr's policies are, worse is his inarticulate and stubborn refusal to even try and defend them to the world.
• Continuing Blair-related derail: How's Price's impeachment deal going? Have they had a debate on it in the House of Commons yet?
• I was under the impression that it's The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland don't you tea guzzling biscuit eaters know your own countrys name? ;)
• And besides---in the arena of global politics, national security, and leadership, it's much better to be *right* than simply popular. posted by davidmsc Yeah David but the US is neither "right" nor popular. I think up til now people overseas have made a seperation between the US people and the actions of their lunatic president. That will all change, of course, if the American people are stupid enough to re-elect Bush given what has happened.
• Blair impeachment thingy: nothing's happened yet, to the best of my knowledge. If it has, it was so insignificant I didn't even catch it in the news. I'm very sceptical about ti going anywhere; I'd chalk it up more to end-of-silly-season publicity seeking on Price's part. However, there is a hell of a lot of pressure on Blair to account for his handling of the war, especially since the confirmation that there weren't any WMD came out. Much of this comes from his own MPs; a lot are angry with the way he handled the war, and a lot are scared that every non-apology and evasive answer he gives makes them more vulnerable in the next election. It's unclear what action they could take, especially this close to an election - supporting impeachment won't be one of them - but you can bet there's even more behind-the-scenes back-stabbing than usual going on right now. More correctly known as Albion, the Scepter'd Isle, Jewel of the Sea, Realm of the Goddess Queen Britannia and Home of the Scone, so nyah!
• You know what's worse? Have you ever tried to search for articles on British history in a database? Do you use the keywords "England", "Scotland," "Wales", "Ireland", "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom"? It's so frustrating! Ya'll are all going to be "That wet rainy place" from now on, and all bibliographic databases will be changed to match.
• How do USian monkeys feel about this? Do you mind, or even care? Man, the supercilious tone in this question really pisses me off. Have you seen any of the debate threads here on MonkeyFilter? All kinds of Americans care. Did you miss the news about the millions of people who protested the war in the U.S. in 2003? Or the news about how more people than ever have been galvanized to get personally, physically involved in this election? Or the projections of record voter turnout this year? This question seems to me to be more about establishing some kind of bogus uplifting sense of yourself and less about true concern for what's going on in the United States. If you truly cared that the Bushies are hurting the world, you wouldn't demean those who are working to make change -- you'd support them. We don't need to be lumped in with our government -- we need support and encouragement and all that good stuff. [on preview: well, consider this another vote for what drjimmy and pivo said.]
• Indeed, it *is* good to be right. It is good, for example, to be right when going and killing a bunch of civilians in another country. If you did that when it turned out your reasons for doing so were a pile of horseshit, your much vaunted millitary forces would be rated as a bunch of murders in B52s, with scarecely the guts to risk their own lives while killing thousands. It might not be considered right in what passes as human civilisation to have a hard-on for rape an torture. It would be pretty embarrassing, for example, to claim that stopping torture was a good reason to inavde a country and then start doing it yourself. Yes, it's good to be in the right.
• What HawthornWingo said. But yes, I mind. Not because it hurts my little feelings, but because I'm part of a machine I think is deadly. Speaking as a generalized citizen of the US I think we've gotten what we asked for. As an individual I've been angry, shocked and embarrassed for four years. When I voted Green in 2000 I thought it might not be the worst thing if Bush won--that it might shock us (in a collective sense) into rethinking the two party system, and that it might wake up the increasingly centrist Democratic party as well. I never imagined it would get as insane as it's gotten.
• While I am personally not hugely brokenhearted that Europe (and that's who we're really talking about here) is PO'd at Bush, I don't feel that pissing off Europe purposefully has a lot of value to it. Europe contains America's oldest and best friends in the world, With a long and colorful history of both true comraderie and juvenile squabbling, and there is much that can be done when we all work in concert. That said, while I may be a lowlife, I want my sons to grown up to be proper gentlemen, and to that end I would like to take them abroad someday. I would prefer that the Europe we visit not assign us bullseyes to wear as we exit the plane. But as people have pointed out, Europe seems to dislike Bush but like Americans, by and large, and I am pleased to see that most Europeans make the distinction. By way of example, I have had several friends travel to Europe since 9/11 (including one who has moved semi-permanently to Bremen) and invariably they have said that the Europeans they encounter, even upon learning my acquaintances are American, are friendly, courteous and generally nice. That goes a long way toward deflating, I think, the oft-held assumption here that Europeans hate Americans.
• I thought Blair was Mr. Popular when he was Clinton's lap dog, but public opinion soured when he became Bush's lap dog. ;) Seriously, though, I have a lot more respect for Blair than for Bush. Have you American monkeys ever watched CSPAN when they're airing British Parliament/Prime Minister Question and Answer period? Blair actually has to sit there and take (often snarky) questions from the MPs and give justifications for his policies, all in a public forum. He has to be able to talk about his decisions, defend them, and furthermore know enough about who's asking the question to be able to rebut or even agree intelligently. Now imagine Bush trying to do something like that. Imagine the comedy. I want a Parliament.
• Bush is a Dumbass redneck. He's the worst president ever! I'm a Colombian that lives in the US and I could just brush it off and not care, but I do... I love the USA and I'm as apalled by Bush's behaviour as any Foreigner (as the foreigner I am) and as an American. I'm voting for Kerry.
• I kind of look at bush one would an idiot rich cousin. Yes, I am related to him. Yes, he abuses power. No, I do not like him. No, I can not change the way he thinks. I have some asshole relatives that I wish that I didn't. I don't have the option to convince my family to vote them out of "relative-ness". I do have the option to vote Bush out of office. And I so, so much want him out of office.
• I found people were quite willing to accept me as an individual rather than a personification of Bushies foreign policy.
• I care a lot. Not so much about Europe, but about other places. In 1999, I was fortunate to have the time and money to travel extensively, and spent a couple of months in the Middle East. I had the Canadian flag patch ready to stick on my backpack if necessary, but it never came to that. Everyone I met seemed to love Americans, and would offer to tour me around or take me to lunch to chat about the US. I think they were going out of their way to be friendly because so few Americans travel in the Middle East, and they didn't get many chances to make a good impression. Now I have someone special I want to take to the wonderful places I visited, but I know it wouldn't be as friendly a trip this time. Plus, I get a list of scary travel advisories telling me to stay away. I feel like BushCo has limited my travel options significantly.