You get a sense of how intertwined European and American culture has become, and how much of a one-way relationship it is, when you look at the amount of press coverage the US election receives here. It may seem obvious to my American readers that their election should be covered in full detail all across the world, but it's not. You're not that important. But we care anyway.

On October 18, Norway's online newspapers published 52 articles mentioning John Kerry. On the same day, they published 18 articles mentioning our own prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. Five mentioned Vladimir Putin - four of them only to say that he supports George W. Bush.

The election is everywhere. In newspapers, on TV, in web discussion forums, in conversations. The debates were even broadcast live on Norwegian TV, in the middle of the night, and rerun the next morning.

This is insane. And it goes way beyond anti-Americanism. There is an obvious slant against Bush, of course - Adresseavisen mentioned the Guardian's campaign to spam voters in Clark County under "news", encouraging its readers to participate. But the Norwegian press do not cover American politics just in order to slam American foreign policy, as they do with Israel. They genuinely seem to think this is worthy of in-depth coverage. The slant comes afterwards, it's not the cause of the coverage itself.

Is American politics that important to us? No, it's not. It's just part of the whole strange package of Europe's relationship with the US. The global culture is a factor, language is a factor, and so is America's status as the Other of European intellectuals, and the successful import of left-wing American rhetorics for that purpose. Etc. Big package, many causes, no escape.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand politics in Sweden and Denmark, the EU and Russia, is more important to us than which of two centrist candidates win in the US. Foreign news coverage should reflect that. On the other hand, I'm part of this. I've tried to avoid writing about the election, but I haven't managed to avoid forming an opinion (which is: I'm glad I can't vote), and I do follow the election more than most Norwegians. It's not important, but it's interesting. It's kind of like a soap opera you've watched for years. There's always a new twist to keep you hooked, and even though you know there are many other exciting soap operas out there, you still want to know how this one turns out.

But could we find a compromise? Introduce us to some other soap operas. 50 articles a day about John Kerry could be cut to 40, and 10 more spent on Rocco Buttiglione, the new head of the EU Commission who may or may not be a nut, or it could be spent on various wars somewhere, and even the names of the Central Asian countries would be news to most of us. Anything. Just a little moderation, a little balance of focus.

Well, Bjorn, this particular American is amazed at how much the US election gets covered. Obviously it should get some coverage abroad, because the US is a huge and influential country, but so far as I can tell the coverage seems to verge on the obsessive.

This reflects what I have long maintained: much of the rest of the world uses America as a screen onto which to project whatever they need to project to validate themselves. You have posted about this before and I won't belabor the point, but it does seem to me that Europeans would be much better off evaluating themselves on their own terms instead of by comparison to the US.

The rest of the world, correctly IMO, sees this election as one of the most critical break points in history. They watch on realising its global significance.

Here you have figurehead incumbent who has demonstrated over and over again that he is both dangerous and incompetent. When he was elected George W Bush didn't really know why he became president -- his revelation came on 9/11 though, and from this point on he knew he was on a mission from God to defend the Western Way of Life against the threat of Islam.

His mass appeal lies in the very fact that he is incompetent, stupid, insenstitive, arrogant, crass and believes he is the new messiah. That is the whole point of Rove's strategy -- to appeal to the section of the US electorate that will identify with that type of person. They want someone to back up their prejudices and Bush does that. As such he is a prefect front man for the revolutionary radical right wing movement that has steadily being taking over American politics since the days of Barry Goldwater way back in the mid 60's

This is the poltics of mass deception elevated to an art form and the rest of the world intuitively if not intellectually knows what is at stake here.It is therefore absolutely right to focus attention on this election.

In all probability Bush will be re-elected which will mean that resisting his agendas over the next 4 years could become nothing less than a battle for civilisation itself.

What is vitally important however is to recognise that in many respects precisely the same thing is happening here in Norway. Again the Politics of Deceit in service to the Economics of Greed. In that context the threat from America should not deflect attention from the threat from within.

Bjørn:
I definately agree on it being way too much news of the US election in the web-based newspapers these days, I for one would be happy with less. I havent read the paper-based Norwegian news in a while though, but I would not be surprised if those have a lot less coverage on the election than the Web-based, so in the end they show what they think is really important. I would also like to hear more things about the EU in norwegigan news for as well. I guess it will be if the EU membership is brought forward to the table again.

Stuart:
"This reflects what I have long maintained: much of the rest of the world uses America as a screen onto which to project whatever they need to project to validate themselves"
Nope, US is being discussed because of the things that US does. You see, the things that US does, have implications for all of us, and therefore is discussed because it relates to us as well.

What makes you think we dont evaluate ourselves on our own terms instead of compared to US?
Because we do, we evaluate ourselves all the time in regards to previous governments, neighbouring countries etc.

Scott: The rest of the world, correctly IMO, sees this election as one of the most critical break points in history. They watch on realising its global significance.

There are many things wrong with this. For one, Kerry is not all that different from Bush. He would not have invaded Iraq, but he intends to stick around for a while. He intends to continue the war on terror. He's different - but not on the scale of "one of the most critical break points of history". In retrospect, such breaking points affect the lives of millions. Bush's invasion of Iraq did that, for better or worse is another subject, but I doubt any fighting in the next four year will be done without the solid backing of the American center, which would mean that Kerry would probably make the same decision.

Second, America is not that important. That is, it's economy and culture is, but neither of the candidates will wreck that.

Third, there are more important countries to us than the US. Sweden, Denmark, the EU, Russia - they're all close neighbours, and what happens to them over the next years will affect us more than what happens to the US, (with the exception of a major economic crash, which a president would find it difficult to cause just by himself).

Fourth, however bad you think George W. Bush is, there are worse leaders, doing more damage. Far worse, far more. China is still one giant dictatorship, nobody knows what Putin is up to, only that his track record is disastrous, the Arab world is full of hate, fanaticism and tyranny, Africa is unstable, conflict ridden and poor. And you worry about Bush? A superficial fear, for a superficial world.

Allan: What makes you think we dont evaluate ourselves on our own terms instead of compared to US?

The problem is that other Western countries tend to define themselves against the US, seeing in Americans the qualities they dislike in themselves - or miss, in the case of pro-Americans. The result is a very simplified picture of a complex society, often saying more about non-Americans than it says about Americans. Consider the myth that Americans are dumb and rude. Are they really? Or is stupidity and lack of manners a common human quality, which some people tend to project onto foreigners for nationalistic reasons?

Thanks, Bjorn, you responded to Allan pretty much as I would have.

Bjørn: "Third, there are more important countries to us than the US."
I disagree. My analysis goes directly the opposite way. I believe that the US election influences my "world" more than the Norwegian election does. The reason is that this incredibly rich country (Norway) could be run by a five year old. The only real problem we have is how to handle the massive budget surplus. It's absurd!

If you close your eyes and think hard...what's different now than with the Labour Party government? The average voter in Norway is so well off that people hardly notice political "changes". Governments to the far left (Oh No!) or far right (Please...NO!) would get Norway out of it's pleasant drowsiness. Chuck Hagel has said that after the cold war we all got "kind of dumb, fat, happy rich". In my opinion that's true for both sides of the Atlantic. The US have moved out of this, and is now better described as perhaps angry or aggressive. Norway still fits Hagel's description :-)

Whose in charge of the world's only superpower matters to everyone. We should pay attention. Public interest in foreign politics is not a bad sign in itself. Norwegian democracy and politics are in some respects anaemic.

For one, Kerry is not all that different from Bush.

I have very little time for Kerry but you pointed out in your next sentence where he is radically different and less dangerous than Bush -- he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

What will Bush do in his second term that Kerry wouldn't?

He's different - but not on the scale of "one of the most critical break points of history".

It's not so much what Kerry will do as the consequences for the radical extreme right wing conservatives that is important. It is to be hoped that if Bush loses their bubble will burst. The Republican party will go into a deep crisis and reinvent itself.

If that doesn't happen; they keep control of the Republican party and win back power in 2008 then this election will not have been a break point in history -- that much I will concede.

Second, America is not that important. That is, it's economy and culture is, but neither of the candidates will wreck that.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Bush has run huge trade and budget deficits. A meltdown of the US economy consequent some other major disturbances is a definite possibility.

And you worry about Bush? A superficial fear, for a superficial world.

One that is echoed throughout all stratas of all countries in the world. The same thing was of course said about Hitler right up until he invaded France. (NB even after he invaded Poland he was being written off as a superficial threat.) And that is the trouble when a regime steps right out of the boxes set by the conventional wisdom. There is no conventional wisdom to make sense of what is happening so it is ignored,

Bjørn

Consider the myth that Americans are dumb and rude. Are they really? Or is stupidity and lack of manners a common human quality, which some people tend to project onto foreigners for nationalistic reasons?

Every society has a proportion of such people. What is important is the attitude taken towards them.

In a healthy society they are looked on negatively and seen as being outside of what that society stands for, literaly they are considered anti-social. English football hooligans are outcasts for example as are ill-mannered holiday makers be they German, Norwegian or British (typically the worst offenders). In an unhealthy society however their behaviour is condoned as a result they become empowered and dominant even if their numbers, to start with are relataively small.

This is what has happened in America. Culminating with the Bush administration you have seen over 30 years or so the emergence of a type of politics that deliberately plays to this constituency and encourages them. The result is the kind of gross uncivilised, arrogant attitudes you see in this selection of emails posted on the Guardian site:

Have you not noticed that Americans don't give two shits what Europeans think of us?

Note the proportion of grossly abusive emails. Note also their similarity.

In my experience on the net 9 out 10 in-your-face abusive posters in poltical discussions are Americans. There is a very well defined pattern to their abuse that uses the same tricks over and over again; ad hominem attacks, appeal to ridicule, stating downright lies as self evident facts, poltical stereotyping etc. etc. This simply could not arise of itself. This modern day version of fascism is taught and encouraged by the ruling elite in America. (Note here how Bush never explicitly speaks out against this sort of behaviour eg. Swift Veterans Smear campaign against Kerry).

What is particularly sinister about this as far as the rest of the world is concerned is when people who react negatively to this sort of abuse are labelled as being the equivalent of anti-semitic.

>> In my experience on the net 9 out 10 in-your-face abusive posters in poltical discussions are Americans. There is a very well defined pattern to their abuse that uses the same tricks over and over again; ad hominem attacks, appeal to ridicule, stating downright lies as self evident facts, poltical stereotyping etc. etc. This simply could not arise of itself. This modern day version of fascism is taught and encouraged by the ruling elite in America.

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. Check out http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html

I have been in both the US and Europe, and believe me, americans are far more reasonable and open minded than you presuppose. Europeans get a very biased viewpoint. Viewpoints are far more balanced here, and people are far more independent.

The tendencies towards fascism are actually present in Europe, but I have never seen it here. The key ingredients of fascism are socialism and dictatorship. Both are absent from the american psyche. Fascists need a concept to rally around. It could be patriotism, the environment, anti-semitism, or it could be religion. The rallying ingredient is one that can be substituted for whatever works. Which one is not essential.

Patriotism is good or bad depending on the nature of the country. A patriotic nazi is bad, while a patriotic american is good. To argue otherwise would be difficult since the essence of america is that it's the first democratic republic with human rights protections.

It's bad logic to associate patriotism with fascism.

>>(Note here how Bush never explicitly speaks out against this sort of behaviour eg. Swift Veterans Smear campaign against Kerry).

What's your evidence that it's a smear, ie untrue?

I have been in both the US and Europe, and believe me, americans are far more reasonable and open minded than you presuppose

You obviously didn't read my post throughly enough. I agree that most Americans are curteous and decent people. My concern is that the loutish minority are being encouraged and condoned by an right wing elite driven movement. (freedom fries and cheese eating surrender monkeys etc etc. Look at the make up of the Guardian emails; the majority are prefectly civilised but the number of downright abusive ones sticks out like a sore thumb. Would you ever get George W Bush or any of his people coming out and openly condemning such behaviour?

On their record to date I very much doubt it.

I believe there is a HUGE difference between the two candidates. Bush has proven that he and his advisers are thinking about the long term and are following policies that deal with various realities. Kerry is an empty suit who offers little as a political or military leader.

As a well-traveled American, I know the U.S. and its elections are not the center of the universe. However, we're at an important crossroads in history, and this election will make a difference, both to Americans and to many others. Too bad that Europeans weren't more supportive of American attempts to bring democracy and end terrorism in various Islamic countries. That lack of support will surely have repercussions.

Have been slogging over the past year through William Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic. Am now at the part where Germany has just marched into the Rhineland, and various WWI treaties have been abrogated by Belgians and others. Will keep you all posted on events that may occur. It's like a soap opera, but with real people.

Gunnar

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. Check out http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html

Bawer's attitudes are so jingoistically pro American it is hardly surprising that he would consider The sympathy was a blip; the anti-Americanism is chronic. and if he wore those attitudes on his sleeve that he would attract some negative reactions.

vis:

Living in Europe, I gradually came to appreciate American virtues I’d always taken for granted, or even disdained—among them a lack of self-seriousness, a grasp of irony and self-deprecating humor, a friendly informality with strangers, an unashamed curiosity, an openness to new experience, an innate optimism, a willingness to think for oneself and speak one’s mind and question the accepted way of doing things. (One reason why Euro- peans view Americans as ignorant is that when we don’t know something, we’re more likely to admit it freely and ask questions.) While Americans, I saw, cherished liberty, Europeans tended to take it for granted or dismiss it as a naïve or cynical, and somehow vaguely embarrassing, American fiction. I found myself toting up words that begin with i: individuality, imagination, initiative, inventiveness, independence of mind. Americans, it seemed to me, were more likely to think for themselves and trust their own judgments, and less easily cowed by authorities or bossed around by “experts”; they believed in their own ability to make things better. No wonder so many smart, ambitious young Europeans look for inspiration to the United States, which has a dynamism their own countries lack,

But leaving aside the prejudice Bawers so obviously brings to the situation, once again you fail to address my point:

I have no doubt at all that the number of prejudiced anti-american incidents has increased considerably in Europe over the last 4 years. But is that not exactly what the Bush Cabal want? It then provides a self justifying argument for their drive to unitateralism. These peope are far from stupid -- they (in particular Karl Rove) have expert knowledge in the techniques of mass manipulation and coupled with a moral free "the ends justify the means" mind-set are able to apply them with a ruthlessness and effectiveness hitherto unseen.

Anti-Americanism is one of the best ideological weapons in their armoury. They shamelessly work both it and the threat of terrorism to further an agenda that is transparent to anyone without their eyes tight shut.

Bush has proven that he and his advisers are thinking about the long term and are following policies that deal with various realities. Kerry is an empty suit who offers little as a political or military leader.

You didn't catch any of the live debates then, Totoro?

I've already sent in my absentee ballot, so the election is essentially over for me and I can't wait for it to be over for everybody else. On the other hand, I had to send my ballot to ... Florida, my own home (and perpetually screwed up) state. They'll probably burn it or feed it to the otters in Gator World.

My dream scenario would be a reverse of 2000, a popular victory for Bush and an electoral victory for Kerry. I think that would be a big dose of welcome humility for all involved (including me).

>> But leaving aside the prejudice Bawers so obviously brings to the situation, once again you fail to address my point:

I have no doubt at all that the number of prejudiced anti-american incidents has increased considerably in Europe over the last 4 years. But is that not exactly what the Bush Cabal want? It then provides a self justifying argument for their drive to unitateralism. These peope are far from stupid -- they (in particular Karl Rove) have expert knowledge in the techniques of mass manipulation and coupled with a moral free "the ends justify the means" mind-set are able to apply them with a ruthlessness and effectiveness hitherto unseen.

>> But leaving aside the prejudice Bawers so obviously brings to the situation, once again you fail to address my point:

I have no doubt at all that the number of prejudiced anti-american incidents has increased considerably in Europe over the last 4 years. But is that not exactly what the Bush Cabal want? It then provides a self justifying argument for their drive to unitateralism. These peope are far from stupid -- they (in particular Karl Rove) have expert knowledge in the techniques of mass manipulation and coupled with a moral free "the ends justify the means" mind-set are able to apply them with a ruthlessness and effectiveness hitherto unseen.

I'm sorry, I don't see a point here. I just see a completely unsupported and fringe viewpoint. Even the leftists in America don't believe that Bush is striving for unilateralism as an end in itself.

Why would he?

And it's the left that has a "ends justify the means attitude". To claim that Bush does, you would have to show an immoral means.

Yes, I did see the debates.

Scott, you talk a lot, but you say very little. Invective may make you feel good, but you don't reveal much knowledge about the world, about foreign policy, about Americans, nor about how things work.

Why not do yourself a favor and take a drive through fly-over country. Talk to the people. See what they're like. Get away from your college campus or wherever you're writing from.

By the way, Scott--

What are your views on the Oil-for-Food scandal and the Duelfer report? Do they have any relevance for Americans and for the election, or not? Please advise.

As one who lives 25 miles downwind from the DC, and still doesn't have a good escape plan, I want to honor our congressional heroes:

---------------------------------------
In producing the National Security Scorecard, the Center hopes to assist the American people in understanding the commitment of their elected officials to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength...

High scorers (over 90%) on the Senate side included: George Allen (R-VA), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sue Collins (R-ME), John Cornyn (R-TX), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John Ensign (R-NV), William Frist (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orin Hatch (R-UT), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Craig Thomas (R-WY).

On the House side, perfect scorers were: Dan Burton (R-IN), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Howard Colbe (R-NC), Mac Collins (R-GA), Nathan Deal (R-GA), Tom DeLay (R-TX), Tom Feeney (R-FL), John P. Gingrey (R-GA), Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (R-VA), Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Robin Hayes (R-NC), Henry Hyde (R-IL), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Charlie Norwood (R-GA), Mike Pence (R-IN), Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Ed Royce (R-CA), James F. Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Nick Smith (R-MI), Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).

Interestingly, in the wake of last night's debate on national security and foreign policy matters, among the lowest scorers were Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA) (making incorrect votes on every one of the 4 votes he actually cast) and his running-mate Senator John Edwards (D-NC) (who did not vote on five out of the 18 scored).

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=04-P_09
----------------------------

Gunnar, Totoro

Both of you are steadily retreating away from addressing the reality i am describing directly.

You state your disagreement with it, imply that the opposite is self evidently true, and that anyone who doesn't also see that self evident truth is a fool. There is a more or less constant ad hominem sub text running through everything you write as well as quite a few downright lies presented as self evident truth along with the usual straw men and red herrings.

I'm falling for non of this and I doubt anyone reading our exchanges with an open mind would either.

Scott--

Maybe I'm missing your point. What is the reality that you are describing directly? Please summarize. Thanks.

I couldn't think of a point he was making either, but I looked back and found this. Apparently, this is his thesis:

>>His [Bush's] mass appeal lies in the very fact that he is incompetent, stupid, insenstitive, arrogant, crass and believes he is the new messiah. That is the whole point of Rove's strategy -- to appeal to the section of the US electorate that will identify with that type of person. They want someone to back up their prejudices and Bush does that.

Talk about full of ad-hominem! There is no reasoned argument here, backed up by supporting facts, just flat out invective. He follows the simplistic path of insulting liberals: Anyone who supports conservatives must be stupid.

Having failed in the field of ideas, they whine and insult all those who disagree, ever more shrill every year.

Dont you think a war would be THE most serious thing a leader of a country can do?
If so, dont you think that a war damn better well be properly justified and planned in advance?
Thats why Bush should be held accountable, because he is so far away from the war himself, until it is just $-numbers and voters left in his head. Thats why I think Bush should at the very least be put out of office, or best: face trial, like other crazy leaders.

I honestly did not know there are so many Americans that hate Europe. Its getting quite irritating, even for a pro-american like myself (Yes you read correctly: PRO-American).

Anyways, I agree with Bjørn, I dont think this election is THE break point in history, and am kinda sick of it all already. Now looking forward to the Norwegian one :)

Regarding the myth of stupid and lazy americans, well they are just that, myths (FAT americans on the other hand, is true.. :p). There are damn many good inventions coming out of America every year, and I for one am happy for that. Of course, it IS well known that Americans are better at patenting ideas than other people. The lawn mower for instance was an Australian invention, but the patent is American, because it was an American who stole the idea and patented it.

Gunnar and Totoro

Talk about full of ad-hominem!

You do not understand the meaning of ad-hominem fallacy. It is when you personally attack the person you are arguing with as in: "You are incompetent, stupid, insenstitive, arrogant, crass and believe you are the new messiah." In my post I was stating my opinion of George W Bush, an opinion shared by a very large number of informed and respected individuals.

Here is an example of ad-hominem from Totoro:

Invective may make you feel good, but you don't reveal much knowledge about the world, about foreign policy, about Americans, nor about how things work.

It is also a lie because it does not make me feel good, appeal to ridicule because it is inferring that I am ignorant and a series of disputable statements stated as fact.

I think this should also answer Totoro's Q if not then I repeat my main point thus:

American foreign policy under the Bush administration has been met with a strong negative reaction throughout the world.
For propagandist reasons this has been labelled as anti-Americanism, presented as a European based hate campaign that is now being likened to a modern equivalent of anti-semitism. The threat of Islamic teorrorism has been similarly exaggerated, again for propagandist purposes. George W Bush is a figurehead leader for a an elite of radical revolutionary right wing conservatives in America that have taken over the Republican party. This movement started with Barry Goldwater in the mid 1960's.

Now you may like to try to marginalise this view as a completely unsupported and fringe viewpoint. but that is in fact a downright lie since my view is shared in its essential details by a very large number of informed commentators, statesmen, academics and professionals both within American and throughout the rest of the world.

Of course I well understand why you feel the need to marhall the full armoury of propagandist fallacies to beat down this argument -- the plain unvarnished truth always was the biggest enemy of the Politics of Deceit.

Scott: "American foreign policy under the Bush administration has been met with a strong negative reaction throughout the world."

This is incorrect. The truth is, American foreign policy under every administration since (and including) Lyndon Johnson's has been met by a strong negative reaction throughout Western Europe's governing and intellectual classes. The reaction to our current President is noteworthy not because it's strongly negative, but because it's blatant.

"For propagandist reasons this has been labelled as anti-Americanism, presented as a European based hate campaign that is now being likened to a modern equivalent of anti-semitism."

May I suggest that you read _Without Marx or Jesus_ and _Anti-Americanism_ by Jean Francois Revel -- in that order, if possible? The first was published in 1972, the second this year; but the irrational hate of many Europeans for the USA has not altered from that day to this. (By the way, Revel also documents the resemblance to -- and coexistence with! -- anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. In 1972, not just today.)

"George W Bush is a figurehead leader for a an elite of radical revolutionary right wing conservatives in America that have taken over the Republican party."

Good heavens. The very idea of calling American conservatives "an elite"! Can you name one faction of the GOP that conducts itself with the same aristocratic disdain for the "commoners" that, say, the staff of the New York Times or CBS News has displayed in recent months?

"Now you may like to try to marginalise this view as a completely unsupported and fringe viewpoint. but that is in fact a downright lie since my view is shared in its essential details by a very large number of informed commentators, statesmen, academics and professionals both within American and throughout the rest of the world."

That proves your views are not on the fringe. However, they still don't have any support, if by "support" you mean evidence. All you've really shown is that a large number of people can be highly educated and reach positions of power without discovering the true nature of the world we live in ...

Gunnar:

You do not understand the meaning of ad-hominem fallacy. It is when you personally attack the person you are arguing with as in: "You are incompetent, stupid, insenstitive, arrogant, crass and believe you are the new messiah."

Actually, ad hominem can be used to refer to any personal attack, whether or not is part of an argument. And in that respect, I think your original stament fully qualifies.

Of course I well understand why you feel the need to marhall the full armoury of propagandist fallacies to beat down this argument -- the plain unvarnished truth always was the biggest enemy of the Politics of Deceit.

I would like to comment on this little piece of sophistry at the end of your post before I comment on the rest of your post. You decry the other posters as propagandists while you at the same time set yourself up as the arbiter of truth. You could of course be entirely justified in this, but then again it's one of the more common tools in the seasoned propagandist's toolbox, so let's have a look at the "plain, unvarnished truth" to see which it is, hmm?

American foreign policy under the Bush administration has been met with a strong negative reaction throughout the world. For propagandist reasons this has been labelled as anti-Americanism, presented as a European based hate campaign that is now being likened to a modern equivalent of anti-semitism.

Huh.. Where's the evidence that a huge swath of Americans are involved in some vast propaganda-scheme, where they unjustly label Europeans as anti-american for nefarious reasons? I assume you have it stacked up considering your rigorous standards of truth? Where's the evidence that a large number of Europeans don't actually hate Americans? I can show you evidence pointing the other way...

The threat of Islamic teorrorism has been similarly exaggerated, again for propagandist purposes.

Again, where's the evidence? Is Osama bin-Laden some modern day Emmanuel Goldstein, created by the GOP to incite anger in the masses? You certainly seem to be privy to quite a lot of inside-information about how this administration operates..

Now you may like to try to marginalise this view as a completely unsupported and fringe viewpoint.

Oh dear, you've reverted to strawmen.

Nobody has attacked the entirety of your view as 'a completely unsupported and fringe viewpoint'. Let's reiterate:

You said first:

But is that [anti-americanism] not exactly what the Bush Cabal want? It then provides a self justifying argument for their drive to unitateralism.

Gunnar then calls you on it:

I'm sorry, I don't see a point here. I just see a completely unsupported and fringe viewpoint. Even the leftists in America don't believe that Bush is striving for unilateralism as an end in itself.

It is a really fringe viewpoint to believe that Bush & Co are striving to alienate the world. You could have had an argument if you said that they don't put enough effort into considering the viewpoints of their allies, but suggesting that they actively try to piss them off for some hitherto unexplained benefit, is just absurd. Why would Bush have gone to the UN, when he could have provoked the world a whole lot more by going directly to war?

...my view is shared in its essential details by a very large number of informed commentators, statesmen, academics and professionals both within American and throughout the rest of the world.

Argument by proxy.. That's nice. Would you jump off a cliff if...

Shit, I'm of course replying to Stuart in the post above..

Not only would names of Central Asian countries be news to many of us. Looking at what's going on in Central Asia can give us new perspectives on other issues, including the war on terror, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, Russian politics, the rise of China, the problems with too much "realpolitik" and so on.

What's going on in Abkhasia? Don't ask Norwegian media.

Øyvind

This is incorrect. The truth is, American foreign policy under every administration since (and including) Lyndon Johnson's has been met by a strong negative reaction throughout Western Europe's governing and intellectual classes.

Why is my statement incorrect. I didn't say anything about previous US administrations. My statement referred to the current Bush administratin and how they have reacted to the negative response. I would say, however, that the reactin to Bush has been stronger than perhaps ever before -- and that takes some doing. What is crucial however -- and the point I was making -- is the way in which that reaction is being twised for propagandist purposes. ie. demonising it and comparing it to anti-semitism; I don't recall that stunt having been pulled before.

Actually, ad hominem can be used to refer to any personal attack,

Ad hominem literaly means personal attack -- ad-hominem FALLACY is to dismiss an argument by a personal attack on the person making it. If it was not clear that this is what I was referring to then my apologises for any lack of clarity on my part

Where's the evidence that a huge swath of Americans are involved in some vast propaganda-scheme, where they unjustly label Europeans as anti-american for nefarious reasons?

Classic straw man. At no time did suggest a huge swath of Americans were involved in a vast propaganda scheme.

There are however efforts being made (for whatever reasons) by a number of individuals to demonise the reaction to American foreign poliicy as among other things a modern version of anti-semitism (ref. Recent article by carol gould : An American Abroad) Others like Bawer referred to above plus and Hitchens are all playing a similliar demonising approach.

Bush and co go along with this by taking a demeaning attitude towards Europe generally -- one that is pretty much unique in post war transatlantic relations. Karl Rove is a genius at this and knows very well that you can give a particular viewpoint a great kick simply by ignoring it. Let the Carol Goulds and Bawers and Hitchens of this world do the nasty work -- the admin remains silent and by not speaking out against something pretty dubious support it in a way that is infinitely deniable. Clever stuff, Rove and co don't need a vast propaganda conspiracy to spread their poison.

Is Osama bin-Laden some modern day Emmanuel Goldstein, created by the GOP to incite anger in the masses?

To a large extent the image of Osama bin-Laden is indeed used to generate fear an anger.

Oh dear, you've reverted to strawmen.

Not it was Gunnar who did that:

He wrote:

"Even the leftists in America don't believe that Bush is striving for unilateralism as an end in itself."

At no time did I say that unilaterism was seen as an end itself.

Inserting that phrase and then leaving it out in the next exchange changes my apparant meaning completely ie. Straw man

Argument by proxy..

It is referring the reader to informed opinion and a vast amount of written material available supporting my view.

I would like to comment on this little piece of sophistry at the end of your post before I comment on the rest of your post; vis: the plain unvarnished truth always was the biggest enemy of the Politics of Deceit.

What problem do you have with the statement "the plain unvarnished truth is the biggest enemy of the Politics of Deceit". In what sense is it untrue and in what sense is it propagandist?

(I'm posting this undedited -- an appointment calls)

General comment on US unilateralism to clear up any confusion I a may have caused through lack of clarity on my part:

I do not believe this is so much an overt policy objective of the Bush administration -- they would very much like the rest of the world to fall into line with them. The global reaction to their policies must be huge disappointment. Their response to this antipathy however amounts to a drive to unilateralism by making their own position non-negotiable.

In practice the previous Bush admin and more subtly Clinton took the same attitude summarised in Bush v 1.0's phrase "The American Way of LIfe is Non-negotiable." At another level the same attitude is enshrined in the critique of Moral Relativism.

This has little to do with anti-Americanism, though, Bjørn. I would rather call our obsession with the US by another name: Americaphilia.

We love America. We truly do. Some of us might have a slight dislike for a fellow called Bush, but we still love America. The fact that America is everywhere in our society should prove this.

Øyvind

Michael : Revel seems to me to makes a pretty fundamental methodological error that runs right through his work. On the one hand he describes a rather extreme elitist current within European politics and compares its view of America with a much broader, more typical cross section of people in the USA. The anti-Americanism of a section of the left wing intelligentsia in Europe -- a tiny minority of individuals -- was hardly typical of a dominant mind-set within Europe at the time.

If we want to talk about what was happening in society at that time then I recall very well the spirit of the youth culture of the 60’s and early 70’s. Make love not war. There was a profound solidarity that bound together young people on both sides of the Atlantic. If there was anti-Americanism at the time it was shared by a very large number of Americans. My experience was that the left wing intelligentsia -- along with left wing political parties -- parasitised off that popular movement and tried to exploit it for their own political ends.

We all know that they lost that “struggle” comprehensively as the Make Love not War generation either fell for the lure of materialism or looked to green politics for their answers. In that area once again anti-Americanism is better described as anti-Materialism (or anti Capitalism) that draws little distinction between the excesses of European greed and that of America.

That is certainly where I coming from and I defend neither the European model of Capitalism or the American -- IMO both are fatally flawed and collectively are responsible for a massive amount of human suffering throughout the world during my lifetime and before. My attitude towards the left in politics is pretty much the same. I have never seen them as anything other than opportunists following behind events, desperately trying to shoe-horn reality into their bankrupt ideologies.

Hobbled by a rather grotesque mutation of human morality the left have never been able to compete with the radical right who are pragmatic to the core -- the ends justify the means. The radical right are always coming from the position that elites are elites because they deserve to be there -- their superiority then gives them the right, to among other things, lie to the people in pursuit of higher goals they are simply too stupid to understand. Democracy is was and always will be to them a necessary nuisance required to maintain legitimacy in a politically correct world. Once they have finally defeated morally compromised liberalism they will probably decide to dispense with democracy completely -- who needs the expense and disruption to the business of bringing freedom to the rest of the world?

In your post you say this which is more or less a complete misinterpretation of what I was trying to get across:

Good heavens. The very idea of calling American conservatives “an elite”! Can you name one faction of the GOP that conducts itself with the same aristocratic disdain for the “commoners” that, say, the staff of the New York Times or CBS News has displayed in recent months?

Apart from the fact that I categorically did not say that American conservatives were an elite, in reply I suggest you read this article

And, by the way, I really don’t buy into the idea that you can excuse one person (or groups) crimes by citing those of another. It has never been a valid defence in a court of law and I cannot see why it should be admitted in political debate.

Link to article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7054.htm

Scott: In an unhealthy society however their behaviour is condoned as a result they become empowered and dominant even if their numbers, to start with are relataively small. This is what has happened in America.

That's simplistic, to be polite. I doubt there is a correlation between intelligence and broad political alignment, conveniently placing dumb people on one side, and not so dumb people on the other, creating a big constituency of stupidity for evil politicians to play to. What's striking is not how disproportionately intelligence is distributed along the political axis, but how so many people assume that it is, and that the distribution favors their own political views. It's pretty common for right-wingers to believe that they're smarter and better educated than the left - and they have evidence to back it up, too, evidence as convincing and carefully selected as the letters you refer to in the Guardian.

It's been proven repeatedly that most people think they're better than average, and are bad at evaluating their own abilities. Here's one frightening study on that subject. This obviously translates into politics, the belief that people on the other side aren't just wrong, they're dumber than we are. I don't believe it.

I believe in a more simple explanation: All people, even smart and educated people, are irrational to some degree, and this, in combination with differences in personality and random cultural factors push them towards different political camps. Remember: Ideology is not science. With science we know fairly well what's trustworthy and what isn't, but our science is not yet able to decide on the major political issues. This leaves a knowledge vacuum which non-science at various levels of rationality rushes to fill. That is the area of politics and ideology.

Yes, some political ideas are more rational than others. But a strong dose of humility is in order. The various mainstream branches of American conservatism are all well-thought out and founded in good reasoning - as are most mainstream political movements in the West. They all attract smart and dumb people for various reasons. None of them are obviously wrong - though they're all wrong to some degree, and some more than others.

Scott: (I finally got it right!)
Ad hominem literaly means personal attack -- ad-hominem FALLACY is to dismiss an argument by a personal attack on the person making it.

Well, literally it means "to the man" and was originally used to denote the person whom you were arguing against. It is only in latter times it has taken on the meaning "personal attack".

And I think the original poster was justified when he said "Talk about ad hominem" in response to your villification of Bush. Firstly, you didn't originally say or imply that you were using a narrowed-down definition of ad hominem in your original post. Secondly, the person replying to you, by putting it the way he put it, liberated himself from applying your definition ("Talk about ad hominem".)

Let the Carol Goulds and Bawers and Hitchens of this world do the nasty work -- the admin remains silent and by not speaking out against something pretty dubious support it in a way that is infinitely deniable. Clever stuff, Rove and co don't need a vast propaganda conspiracy to spread their poison.

Ah, so the administration's silence is evidence that they are currently working to instill the impression of European anti-americanism in the American public? Damnably clever, I must say. On the other hand, I think some people on the left have a tendency to slightly overrate the capabilities of Rove. You'd think he'll be sprouting seven snake heads, a devil's tail and wings any day now.

But the really interesting thing, is whether there is some veracity to the claim that a huge amount of Europeans, and much of the rest of the world as well, harbour anti-american (and not just in the political-disagreement-sense) feelings. If there is some truth to this, don't you think journalists as Hitch, Kagan, et al. is right to point out this as a problem? When you've got a festering lump it's far better to stick a hole in it, than to let it continue to fester, is my opinion.

You seem to assume that all the anger towards the US is simply stemming from disagreement with the current administration. As others have pointed out, this is a far too simplistic approach, as these attitudes toward the US have existed for a _long_ time. It is possible that the current administration has amplified the noise, but I think you'll have to look at the source of the noise to find the cause.

On the one hand, you have people on the governmental level of European countries, who, unlike the US, have direct, tangible benefits from creating a political landscape where they more easily can oppose US policy. If you for a second think that nations like France, Germany and Russia opposed the Iraq-war for idealistic reasons, you are deluded. And in the case of Europe you have more than silence as evidence that people in high-ranking positions have worked to change popular opinion. (Remember a certain German justice minister for example?)

Then there's the media.. If you think Hitch, Kagan et al. is mean, you surely haven't read many editorials in European papers lately. They are full of simplifications and stereotyping about both the administration and the American people itself. In Norwegian we actually have a derogatory term "Amerikanske tilstander" (literally means "American conditions") which is used when something has gone haywire.

And the man on the street? I don't know how often I hear conflations like "Goddamn Bush, stupid Americans" and the like. There doesn't seem to be any serious differentiation between the current administration and the American people among many Europeans.

My opinion is that there is something pathological about the relationship to the US with an increasing number of Europeans, and that it needs to be adressed. I can see no harm in Americans being made aware of the current situation. Sure, you'll get your fringe elements who'll come up with stupid things like "freedom fries" and invoke nuking of France, but I think both sides of the Atlantic is benefited by awareness of the problem, and a discussion on what to do with it. As it is now, only one side has anything coming near to a serious discussion of the issues.

At no time did I say that unilaterism was seen as an end itself. Inserting that phrase and then leaving it out in the next exchange changes my apparant meaning completely ie. Straw man

And that is evasion. I wasn't accusing you of claiming that unilateralism was an end itself. I accused you of claiming that the current administration was striving for it. Which you obviously did. But I see now you have modified your position slightly in the next post. (Your assumption that it's only the US's fault that the Atlantic has grown wider is still wrong though.It reveals a lack of understanding of how the decision-making-process in the countries that most vociferously opposed the Iraq war work.

It is referring the reader to informed opinion and a vast amount of written material available supporting my view.

Well, I just thought I was a bit funny for a guy who kept on harping about logical fallacies to be arguing from authority.

What problem do you have with the statement "the plain unvarnished truth is the biggest enemy of the Politics of Deceit". In what sense is it untrue and in what sense is it propagandist?

There's nothing wrong with that statement in and of itself. In fact, I applaud it. However, when you use that statement to set yourself up as the arbiter of truth and the others "propagandists" you are obliged to hold a very high standard of truth; lest it's only so much bullshit, and rank hypocrisy to boot, and yes, propagandistic too: "Look, I'm the one telling the truth, they are lying: Insert vague emotive arguments"

Øyvind:
We love America. We truly do. Some of us might have a slight dislike for a fellow called Bush, but we still love America. The fact that America is everywhere in our society should prove this.

Bah! I need more proof. When I hear people say "I love America, I really, really do, but..." it is usually know it's going to be followed up by a litany, most often directed at the current administration, but usually also muddled with stereotypes and simplifications about Americans in general, landing the speaker safely in the territory of anti-americanism.

When you've heard Petter Nome and Erling Borgen start sentences that way, you start to doubt it in other people as well.. ;)

Scott: Apart from the fact that I categorically did not say that American conservatives were an elite, in reply I suggest you read this article

I just did, and what it reminded me of more than anything is some of the angrier rants coming from conservatives like Ann Coulter - or Rush Limbaugh. There are many conservatives like that, and many that aren't. But this total identification of Republicans with its worst elements is plain dishonest. If you really believe as the author does that "each generation of Republicans appears to get a little more malicious, more dangerous to the common good", then you simply do not know enough Republicans and conservatives, just like conservatives who believe that about Democrats.

Oh, and one more article about irrationality - this one with some interesting theories of where ideological camps come from: Why People are Irrational About Politics, by Michael Huemer.

Bjørn

But this total identification of Republicans with its worst elements is plain dishonest.

Total identification? Most certainly not, and you couldn't have read the article thoroughly to have formed that opinion. On the contrary what it is saying is the the Republican party has been taken over by a certain elite interest group and has evolved from there. This is a position shared by a great many republicans.

Here is a snip that summarises the writers basic position:

If ever there was a "flinty-hearted bastard," it was Barry Goldwater.  In his acceptance speech for the nomination, he brazenly admonished his followers,  "...Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."  Although Goldwater lost in a landslide to Johnson in 1964, he succeeded in putting a new face on the Republican Party.  He achieved his goal of shifting control from the "liberal" Eastern wing to the radical extremists. 

"First let's take over the party," Goldwater told his aides.  "Then we'll go from there."  

  That's exactly what they did.  And, they're still going -- still imploding, still evolving.  The faces change...yet remain the same.  They do not intend for their "forward movement" to be halted and, as the election date looms, they're increasingly desperate.  Frantic. Shrieking. Lying. Totally out of control.

A recent example of a republican speaking out out against this tendency can be found in the following conversation with John Dean former council to President Nixon -- not an unimpeachable source at that time but at least one who was prepared to come clean when the chips were down.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/dean_intro.html

You can of course find many more here's one from yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4561083,00.html

IMO you are making the fundamental error of identifying genuine passionate concern with irrationality. And this one of the things the extreme right have been very clever to exploit.

You cite Anne Coulter: A typical response to one of here racist xenophobic rants might by to express a negative opinion with a certain amount of feeling. Anne Coulter might very well come back with "why are you so angry", "don't be so irrational", "calm down" that sort of thing. One of the reasons why The Anne Coulter's of this world are winning is because the liberal opposition feels guilty about its own passions and beliefs.

Rationality is only one aspect of meaning. Feelngs also count and from your rationalist perspective one might well have denounced those speaking out passionately against Hitler in the the 1930's in the same terms as you are using here. And yet there are some poltical realities that are so extrerme it is impossible to remain indifferent towards them -- indifference works out as support (see Critique of Pure Tolerance -- Herbert Marcuse)

There is a great deal of a difference between irrationality and passionate concern and IMO you are in error to see them as being identical.

And if you think my comparisons with Hitler and Nazi Germany are extreme have a read of this and ask yourself. "Which Leader of a Western Democracy within living memory does this most remind you of?"

When was the last time in World History we had this kind of Polticial Hysteria in the West?

"The ear-splitting applause began before the candidate was in the room, stirred by the thunderous sound of Marine One - the presidential chopper - overhead. Once Bush entered, it was uncontained. He was received as a hero, his every sentence greeted with a rapturous ovation.

His theme was "A Safer America"; his argument, that only he could protect the US. His opponent was weak, proposing a "strategy of retreat". He would "take the fight to the enemy". His opponent "had chosen the easy path of protest and defeatism", he stood firm and resolute: "We will not let up in this fight."

Every statement, delivered and punched home by Bush, brought a new wave of euphoria. "You'll keep us safe!" shouted one man. "Amen!" said another, before finally the room erupted in a chorus: "U-S-A! U- S-A! U-S-A!"

http://tinyurl.com/43uve

And remember that Republican rallies are filled only with adoring followers, any opposing view is bounced out, exactly the same as was done in at Hitler's rallies.

John,

Great posting by the way. I can't keep up because you folks wake up so darn early. :) I think I found the "well respected" people who Scott is referring to, who support his view:

>>According to the magazine, Soros has nothing but contempt for Bush, who he considers "an ignorant fool."

More than that, he sees Bush as the face man for a secret cabal. "Bush was just chosen as a figurehead, an acceptable face for a sinister group," Soros told The New Yorker, adding, "Cheney is the Capo."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/19/131508.shtml

Bjørn: Actually, Limbaugh is very positive and upbeat. He is definitely not angry. I would doubt that there is any chance to listen to his show in Norway. Thanks for great postings.

bug report: sometimes, when I click preview, a portion of my post is lost.

When it comes to Petter Nome I actually believe him when he says it. Have you seen the programs the guy has been making from the States?

You should keep in mind, Bjoern, that there are more commies in the States than there are people who are even slightly leftist in Norway. We who are red, but still not Republican, have every reason to love the US.

And to despise their politics, of course. But that's not the same. The reason the US elections gets too much coverage in Norwegian media isn't that we dislike America so much, it's that America feels so important to all of us - regardless of politics. And Norwegian anti-Americanism used to be a concervative thing, anyway.

Oeyvind

According to the magazine, Soros has nothing but contempt for Bush, who he considers "an ignorant fool."

A lot of well respected people hold that view. In fact its part of his appeal to a great many people. Many of his supporters think the same thing.

"Even a C grade student can get to be President" -- hell, even the man himself thinks so.

Bush is an ignorant fool and more or less the face man for a not in the least bit secret cabal. Karl Rove has done a wonderful job -- he could probably get Kermit the Frog elected. And thats not the unlikely scenario it might first seem. With the right strategy and enough money it could be done.

And to post a link to newsmax while at the same time accusing someone else of being biased and inferring from that you are not is not credible.

That last post was me. BugReport: Post button should enable only after entering name. Might be difficult in a web app.

>> "First let's take over the party," Goldwater told his aides. "Then we'll go from there."

Perhaps, you're confused about how a free democracy works? Goldwater's statement is not nefarious. It's what he is supposed to. You see, they took over the party with the powers of persuasion. There is no use of force. The political parties have combat within the realm of ideas and persuasion. At any one time, there are numerous factions vying for dominance within their parties.

>> One of the reasons why The Anne Coulter's of this world are winning is because the liberal opposition feels guilty about its own passions and beliefs.

You are right that liberals in the US can no longer identify themselves as such. It leads to political defeat. Originally, "Liberal" was a good label, but folks calling themselves "liberal" were always trying to institute socialism, and this gave "liberal" a bad name. However, it's not just about passion. Folks like limbaugh and coulter are convincing people with intellectual arguments. People can judge over time, and when they turn out to be correct, their credibility goes up.

>> And if you think my comparisons with Hitler and Nazi Germany are extreme have a read of this and ask yourself. "Which Leader of a Western Democracy within living memory does this most remind you of?"

This comparison is ludicrous, because you seem to miss the crucial, essential characteristic of Hitler/Nazis/Fascism: the use of FORCE

Is this your logic:

premise: Hitler was politically popular
premise: Hitler was an evil fascist
premise: Bush is politically popular
conclusion: Bush is an evil fascist

And you talk about logic?

>> A lot of well respected people hold that view. In fact its part of his appeal to a great many people. Many of his supporters think the same thing.

Argument by persona again? What's your evidence for this?

I can tell you for sure that his supporters do not consider him an ignorant fool. He is not the greatest public speaker, but by most accounts, he is quite intelligent. Folks like Dick Morris (a political genius), consider him a chess player, and kerry a checkers player who is doing everything wrong.

>> Bush is an ignorant fool and more or less the face man for a not in the least bit secret cabal. Karl Rove has done a wonderful job -- he could probably get Kermit the Frog elected.

What's your evidence for this? What specifically has Karl Rove done to fool everyone?

>> And to post a link to newsmax while at the same time accusing someone else of being biased and inferring from that you are not is not credible.

Argument by persona again? Actually, the source is the New Yorker magazine. Soros views are also quite well known. Since he is the only major figure spouting the crazy ideas that you are presenting here, I think there is a connection. He is so over the top, that it's actually helping Bush.

John,

in response to your villification of Bush.

I repeat ad-hominem involves a personal attack on the person making the argument. It does not involve making negative remarks about a third party who is being discussed during the argument.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. "

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

I think some people on the left have a tendency to slightly overrate the capabilities of Rove.

Karl Rove is considered a genius when people of a right wing pursuasion are discussing him -- as soon they start discussing him in the company of anyone of a liberal pursuasion he becomes just another regular guy doing his job. This is one of the marks of his genius.

You seem to assume that all the anger towards the US is simply stemming from disagreement with the current administration.

Why don't you try reading my words rather than inferring what you wish I had said.

Further up the page I wrote this:

I didn't say anything about previous US administrations. My statement referred to the current Bush administratin and how they have reacted to the negative response. I would say, however, that the reactin to Bush has been stronger than perhaps ever before -- and that takes some doing.

I hold by that statement. I do not recall any US president or administration being the subject of such criticism. It is unprecedented during my half century on this planet.

And the man on the street? I don't know how often I hear conflations like "Goddamn Bush, stupid Americans" and the like.

The problem is they voted for him and tend to be held collectively responsible. On the other hand how often do you also hear people tempering their opinions by pointing out that most Americans are perfectly OK reasonable people?

Sure, you'll get your fringe elements who'll come up with stupid things like "freedom fries" and invoke nuking of France,

That fringe element is a very vocal one. Small number making a lot noise -- deliberately trying to piss Europeans off and make enemies. They are also without exception enthusiastic and loyal supporters of the Bush administration. If this was a matter of concern to the Bush people they would disown them. But they don't -- in fact they do the opposite. Karl Rove (again) is on record as saying that mobilising radical conservatives is a key campaign strategy. I think he mentioned a figure of 4m who don't vote.

Well, I just thought I was a bit funny for a guy who kept on harping about logical fallacies to be arguing from authority.

Again you fail to see my point. Which is that a surprisingly large number of respected people hold this view. That doesn't in itself prove anything but it should at least arouse suspicions and challenge the myth that my view is somehow a fringe one.

There's nothing wrong with that statement in and of itself. In fact, I applaud it. However, when you use that statement to set yourself up as the arbiter of truth and the others "propagandists" you are obliged to hold a very high standard of truth; lest it's only so much bullshit, and rank hypocrisy to boot, and yes, propagandistic too: "Look, I'm the one telling the truth, they are lying: Insert vague emotive arguments"

Response your ad-hominem:

The unvarnished truth: People in the Bush adminstration are proven liars. The truth behind those lies is their greatest enemy.

The people who have a problem here are not those who don't like it but the ones who remain indifferent to it.

The difference between propaganda and strongly held opinion is that propaganda is always agenda driven. There is an ulterior (usually) hidden motive. An opinion simply exists it does not of itself imply any action. Hypocrisy is the abscence of moral honesty.

>> deliberately trying to piss Europeans off and make enemies.

There you go again. Now, why would anyone be "deliberately" trying to make enemies?

>> The unvarnished truth: People in the Bush adminstration are proven liars. The truth behind those lies is their greatest enemy.

This is a varnished falsehood. When has anyone in this administration been proven a liar?

Bjørn:

That's simplistic, to be polite. I doubt there is a correlation between intelligence and broad political alignment, conveniently placing dumb people on one side, and not so dumb people on the other, creating a big constituency of stupidity for evil politicians to play to.

Margaret Thatcher may have been the first to get on to this in the 80's. She correctly identified that so called "working class tories" were the key to electoral success.

With the help of Rupert Murdoch's news internation corporation she targetted this group using Murdoch's Sun newspaper.

The editorial staff on the Sun (certainly at the time) were amongs the brightest journalists around -- The Sun paid them top money but their mission was to write to an audience of a very limited vocabulary. I can't remember the number of words but it was indicative of below average intelligence.

That model has unfortunately set a trend in western democracies and is being used cynically and very effectively in the US.

It may not have been true before but now intelligence has become a very important factor in political allignment.

All people, even smart and educated people, are irrational to some degree, and this, in combination with differences in personality and random cultural factors push them towards different political camps.

You are IMO naively assuming that poltical debates are framed within a neutral framework. A kind of poltical market place where each poltical platform has a stand and that they just stand there letting the voter browse through what they have for sale. They are not. They are framed within a propagandist framework by people who are very familiar with the techniques of mass manipulation. That changes everything because -- and this is crucial -- the nature of peoples' irrationality itself become under the control of the poltician.

>> You are IMO naively assuming that poltical debates are framed within a neutral framework. A kind of poltical market place where each poltical platform has a stand and that they just stand there letting the voter browse through what they have for sale. They are not. They are framed within a propagandist framework by people who are very familiar with the techniques of mass manipulation.

My goodness, where do you get this stuff? I don't think you have yet answered any direct question in a substantive way.

Where are you located? You are amazingly elitist, with an extremely low view of the american people. I guess, psychologically, it's the only way for your subconscious to explain why so many people disagree with you.

I challenge you to identify a technique of mass manipulation?

There you go again. Now, why would anyone be "deliberately" trying to make enemies?

In order to generate fear and through it patriotic fervour and support for authoritiy and the status quo.

Why do you think Bush ran so many hoax terrorist alerts during the summer, just for personal amusement?

The war on terrorism is to a large extent a propagandist exercise.

When has anyone in this administration been proven a liar?

Where would you like to start? On second thoughts I'm not wasting my time on this.

Type "Bush lies" into Google and spend 20 minutes reading the links from the top down. That should give you a starter.

If you want one off the top of my head, How about Cheney claiming never to have met Edwards? That is a barefaced lie and before the debate was over there was a pic of the two at the same poltical event.

Should you want to really understand what this is about try this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Me: There you go again. Now, why would anyone be "deliberately" trying to make enemies?

You: In order to generate fear and through it patriotic fervour and support for authoritiy and the status quo.

How would making foreigners mad at the US be generating fear in the US public? There seems to be no logical connection.

>> Why do you think Bush ran so many hoax terrorist alerts during the summer, just for personal amusement?

You must be joking! Democrats such as Zell Miller wouldn't agree. Ed Koch, former mayor of NYC doesn't agree. I went to see the hole in the pentagon. It was no hoax. I went to ground zero, the buildings were truly missing. Mohammad Atta flew airplanes from a local airport about 15 minutes from my house. Mideastern people have been found photographing the understructure of the bay bridge, 5 minutes from my house. This puts you way, way out in left wing kook land.

>> The war on terrorism is to a large extent a propagandist exercise.

I challenge you to support this completely wild accusation.

>> How about Cheney claiming never to have met Edwards?

That's the best you got? This was probably a mistake. Either that, or a perfect setup for "oh yea, I guess he wasn't very memorable". His point was that Edwards hardly showed up in the senate. This is verifiably true.

There is something that I suspect the bush administration is somewhat manipulative about: They minimize the threat, so that people keep flying airplanes, and keep living their lives. For example, flight 587 was clearly a shoe bomber, yet they claimed it wasn't terrorism.

It now seems likely that the terrorists have WMD. A senator decided to evacuate his staff and family from DC, after an intelligence briefing. A navy friend of mine sent his family away.

A little russian girl was so thirsty, she jumped over the fence and ran to a drinking fountain. The terrorists riddled her with bullets. I wish it were a hoax, but no one in their right mind would believe that at this point, given that numerous terrorist incidents have already happened.

This puts you way, way out in left wing kook land.

During the summer Bush and co announced an orange security alert on a couple of major financial institutions in New York. The "intelligence" on which these alerts was based was found out to be 3 years old.
There was quite a stink about it and since then to my knowledge there haven't been any more major alerts. New Yorkers were ignoring them anyway as they pretty much saw them as phony so I guess that would make most of NY way out in left wing kook land.

How would making foreigners mad at the US be generating fear in the US public? There seems to be no logical connection.

Are you seriously saying this? What is the terror threat if it isn't "foreigners mad at the US"?

It all goes to increase the "us against the rest of the world" mentality which converts into more votes for Bush.

You have to realise that all that matters here is power and that depends in part on votes and at least a certain level of public support. Think of it as two parallel lines which are pretty much independent of one another -- one is the public interest the other is the regime's interest. The aim of the game is to redefine the public interest so that it is congruent with the regime's interest.

The idea that polticians generally are really listening to the people and trying to figure out what is best for them is desperately naive. They nearly always represent on or other elite interest he who can define what is in the publics interest is controls the game. Fear of attack from outside is one of the most potent weapons there is as security takes priority over nearly everything else.

Bjørn,

So Bush and Kerry are centrists? Maybe by European standards. ;) But you should remember that all politicians have to pose as centrists if they hope to be elected president. Kerry's record in the senate seems more Left than Center to me.

Unfortunately the comments by Scott are typical of the Democratic Party these days. The Michael Moore wing of the party has taken over. They're bordering on hysterical paranoia. Don't be surprised if we re-elect Bush. I don’t want these people anywhere near the White House.

More along these lines here.

>> The "intelligence" on which these alerts was based was found out to be 3 years old.
There was quite a stink about it

There was minor media stink, which quickly blew over. The reality was that new yorkers took it very seriously. And with good reason: The plan for 9/11 was made as early as 5 years prior, so no one bought that spin. Dennis Miller, the quintessential New Yorker and a democrat supporting bush summed it up: "I don't care if they found a plan written with mastedon dung in a neanderthal cave, if it involves blowing up the building that I work in, I want to know about it"

Scott:
I repeat ad-hominem involves a personal attack on the person making the argument.

Well, that's certainly the most common usage of the term, but it's not exclusively used in that sense.

"The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way."

www.dictionary.com

Karl Rove is considered a genius when people of a right wing pursuasion are discussing him -- as soon they start discussing him in the company of anyone of a liberal pursuasion he becomes just another regular guy doing his job. This is one of the marks of his genius.Why don't you try reading my words rather than inferring what you wish I had said.

Eh?

How is that supposed to be a mark of his genious? I don't get it..

About who said what, I said you seem to assume that the Bush-administration is responsible for the ill-feelings towards the US. That's certainly what I got from your initial screed against the Bush-administration. Your theory that Rove is purpously luring Americans to think that the Europeans are maniacally anti-american, lends itself in that direction too. (From which it follows that you believe that Europeans are really just angry at the current administration. That's how I interpreted it at least.)

The problem is they voted for him and tend to be held collectively responsible. On the other hand how often do you also hear people tempering their opinions by pointing out that most Americans are perfectly OK reasonable people?

It's not "Stupid 25-30% of the Americans, voting that monkey into office" I keep hearing. It's Americans in general, from your average soccer-mom to your liberal New-Jerseyite, or whatever. It's all Americans they're talking about.

As for the tempering you're talking about, 9 out of 10 times that's just used as an excuse for venturing into assholery about how they think this and that sucks about America.

Empty disclaimers.

That fringe element is a very vocal one. Small number making a lot noise -- deliberately trying to piss Europeans off and make enemies. They are also without exception enthusiastic and loyal supporters of the Bush administration. If this was a matter of concern to the Bush people they would disown them.

Again, you are implying that the fault for the negative feelings across the Atlantic is somehow the result of a nefarious scheme by the Bush administration. If not that, you at least seem to have little understanding that the actions of certain European governments and media establishments may have pissed of a lot of Americans. It's all Bush's fault right?

Again you fail to see my point. Which is that a surprisingly large number of respected people hold this view. That doesn't in itself prove anything but it should at least arouse suspicions and challenge the myth that my view is somehow a fringe one.

You should have enough confidence in your own opinion to not have to get into a mud-fight over which people support your arguments.

...my view is shared in its essential details by a very large number of informed commentators, statesmen, academics and professionals both within American and throughout the rest of the world.

It's not only that you claim that your view is not fringe, you also emphasize that your opinion is shared by informed commentators, statesmen, academics and professionals ... It's an obvious appeal to authority. That you felt pressed to do it by having your views called "fringe" doesn't really matter. That's how most appeals to authority come about anyway.

The unvarnished truth: People in the Bush adminstration are proven liars. The truth behind those lies is their greatest enemy.

Well, thank you. That's exactly what I was talking about. Vague, emotive statements preceded by a statement claiming that the author holds the absolute truth. Intentional irony?

I'm not saying that the Bush administration is free from lies and spin, far from it, but I will certainly say that you have done a piss poor job showing it. Try to document your claims if you're going to talk about the "unvarnished truth."

Me: How would making foreigners mad at the US be generating fear in the US public? There seems to be no logical connection.

You: >>Are you seriously saying this? What is the terror threat if it isn't "foreigners mad at the US"?

You actually believe that Americans equate "terrorist threat" with "foreigners mad at the US"? Gosh, your grasping for anything to bring coherence to your unsupportable statements.

>>It all goes to increase the "us against the rest of the world" mentality which converts into more votes for Bush.

Hardly. Since everyone knows that folks around the rest of the world are mad at bush, not the american people, the american people would not feel any fear about it. Only an evil terrorist would attack innocent people because they are mad at bush. Such a person is a terrorist, not a foreign citizen. One may legitimately be concerned about the view point of "foreigners", but not terrorists.

Scott correctly identifies a problem inherent in democratic forms of government.

Margaret Thatcher may have been the first to get on to this in the 80's. She correctly identified that so called "working class tories" were the key to electoral success.

With the help of Rupert Murdoch's news internation corporation she targetted this group using Murdoch's Sun newspaper.

The editorial staff on the Sun (certainly at the time) were amongs the brightest journalists around -- The Sun paid them top money but their mission was to write to an audience of a very limited vocabulary. I can't remember the number of words but it was indicative of below average intelligence.

The problem of below-avergage-intelligence voters voting the wrong way is a serious one. I advocate passing a reading comprehension test as a prerequisite to voting. Or you could weight votes according to reading levels. Say, the vote of someone with a 12th grade reading ability would be worth 4 votes from people with 3rd grade reading levels.

In this way, the intelligent people could act as a sort of "vanguard", if you will, voting in the best interests of everyone else, because less intelligent working class people often don't know what's in their own best interest.

And of course, there's always sterilization.

>> The Michael Moore wing of the party has taken over. They're bordering on hysterical paranoia. Don't be surprised if we re-elect Bush. I don’t want these people anywhere near the White House.

That's right, the Moore wing of the party is driving people to bush. It's a gift. They are so over the top, is it too good to be true? Of course, Hillary will run in 2008. It would be inconvenient for her if Kerry/Edwards were still around. Support for this speculation: Moore actually said, "Yea, Kerry is a bad candidate". How is that helping?

Brian,

And of course, there's always sterilization.

Interesting how criticising the deliberate propagandist manipulation of millions of people for the furtherance of greed and poltical power is turned around into a call to totalitarianism.

Classic bait and switch argument, with generous helpings of (rather crass and offensive) appeal to ridicule

The notion that it might actually be reasonable to be honest with all people regardless of their intelligence somehow doesn't seem to be an option.

Why is that? Does the Poltics of Deceit really have such a defining grip on your reality?

Hardly. Since everyone knows that folks around the rest of the world are mad at bush, not the american people, the american people would not feel any fear about it

That is in total contradiction to what most of the people on here seem to be saying.

Kind of blows a hole in the myth of anti-Americanism does it not.

But of course your people are working on it.

>> In this way, the intelligent people could act as a sort of "vanguard", if you will, voting in the best interests of everyone else, because less intelligent working class people often don't know what's in their own best interest.

Cool idea. Southerners tried that in the US in the late 1800s, but it was declared unconstitutional. Darn that silly bill of rights. Why don't we just dispense with democracy altogether, that way, we'll save the expense of sterilization or complicated IQ tests. Especially since, some really smart people might squeak by, but still support bush.

>> That is in total contradiction to what most of the people on here seem to be saying.

Kind of blows a hole in the myth of anti-Americanism does it not.

People may be talking about anti-americanism (which is not a myth), but only you are claiming that the Bush admin is deliberately causing anti-americanism to increase US votes.

A position so ludicrous, that I can't believe I'm arguing against it. If this was their strategy, it would rank as the most stupid in the whole world, since Americans couldn't care less what europeans think (just as europeans wouldn't care what americans thought)

(Last post was me)

Besides, if european anti-americanism was helping bush, and hurting Kerry, Kerry would not be bringing it up all the time, and bush would be.

Kinda like a futbal coach to his players, "do you know what the other team is saying about you, their saying you can't win, are we going to prove them wrong??"

This could never work, since the voters are not players in that sense. If bush said that, the voters would blame bush, if they cared what the foreigners thought, which they don't.

And Kerry wouldn't be hurting himself all the time. No, the truth is that Kerry CARES what european intellectuals think.

>> Spanish authorities say they've foiled another terrorist attack in Madrid. They say a group of Islamic radicals planned to blow up a Madrid's National Court building, which houses the country's top anti-terrorism investigators

Hey Scott, the spanish are in on this conspiracy as well. What a hoax! Bush is probably pressuring them to make it look realistic.

Hey Scott from a secret location, a democratic senator falls for the hoax:

>> 12 October 2004--"I would not bring my two sons to the Capitol between now and the election." ...Senator Mark Dayton

WASHINGTON – On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Mark Dayton said he has closed his Washington office because a top-secret intelligence report made him fear for his staff's safety

sucker born every minute, I guess. I mean, he should have realized that a briefing on information that is NOT being released to the public is intended to generate votes for Bush by increasing fear. That's why their NOT releasing it to the public, so the people will know all about it, and be so very, very afraid.

FWIW, I am an American and will be voting Republican although I am not a Republican. For Scott's benefit I'll pitch my thoughts...

The Republican party today is strongly in favor of individual rights, freedom, reward for hard work, honesty, and civility. They have demonstrated this not through rhetoric but through policy and action.

The action in Iraq and Afghanistan is (and will continue to be) expensive but it was the right thing to do. It is directly resulting in a net reduction in "bad things happening to people" around the world. It is also directly resulting in fewer attacks on the US.

Lower taxes and business-friendly policies in general have kept the economy on an even keel despite shocks from the internet bubble, 9-11 attacks, hurricanes, et al.

I am unhappy with some of Bush's policies though. I am strongly against the prescription drug handout and against drug re-importation. I could more broadly say that I am unhappy with the scale of his domestic spending. However historically the Democrats have been even worse, so he is the lesser of two evils on that front.

I am happy to consider the opinions of others on whether there are better ways to handle things. However any advice should be backed up with success examples or I just discard it. So far we've tried the various socialist fads to poor effect economically and we've tried the "realist" foreign policies to poor effect internationally...so don't bother suggesting those. We observed the various flavors of communism too, so those are out.

Bush's administration has never lied to me, so those arguments don't carry any weight. Maybe a large number of non-Americans failed to pay attention but I was well aware of the costs and risks involved in the Afghanistan and Iraq decisions. I think they made it pretty damn clear and that the decision was made with eyes wide open. I don't hold it against Bush that significant WMD were not found. All of the trusted intel agencies, British, French, German, Russian, and our own got it wrong. Until we can predict the future though we'll continue to have to make decisions based on the best available info. Bush is hardly a perfect guy, but I don't expect perfection.

I think it was *possible* to do a better job in the aftermath but I don't know that we would have done a better job even with more preparation. It's just too hard a thing to predict. Aside from which, the war has gone far better than anyone (including we) expected, fastest in history, and that caught a lot of agencies by surprise.

It would be nice to get a little more assistance but I don't think we are expecting any. It comes as no surprise that most of the rest of the world wants to do nothing more than criticize; after all it is much easier to criticize an athlete's performance than to BE an athlete. The former requires only words. The latter requires blood, sweat, and tears.

Therein lies the problem as far as I can see. Europe in particular (since this is a Euro site) has no interest in expending effort to resolve ANY world problem. Without expending effort all that is left is talk. So continue talking, cheer or boo, but don't expect the team on the field to ask for your advice on calling the plays...especially if you are cheering for our opponents.

IMHO, YMMV

>> Therein lies the problem as far as I can see. Europe in particular (since this is a Euro site) has no interest in expending effort to resolve ANY world problem. Without expending effort all that is left is talk. So continue talking, cheer or boo, but don't expect the team on the field to ask for your advice on calling the plays...especially if you are cheering for our opponents.

Well put! Your whole post was good. Gosh, and I was just starting to wonder if Americans were stupid, and here you come shattering my new found illusions.

Some of you eager debaters might find these of interest:

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson022704.html
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071004.htm
http://victorhanson.com/articles/tartakovsky091504.htm
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101604.html

Enjoy the read!

jd

Bjorn, I do believe you've attracted a troll, in the shape and name of Scott.

A small point in response to Scott and maybe others, much earlier, re: "freedom fries"

So many writers seem to have taken this term seriously that it's probably time to explain to those who didn't catch the joke that it was a joke.

Count this as my small contribution to improving international communication.

Scott,

You said: "Why do you think Bush ran so many hoax terrorist alerts during the summer, just for personal amusement?"

Do you not believe that terrorism is a threat? I asked you much earlier what you thought about the Duelfer report. Do you think that the entire WMD-Saddam connection is just a fable?

Don't you ever wonder about what's inside those shipping containers, or if a ship could be crashed into a dock? Etc. etc.

Gunnar,

I probably shouldn't have written to Scott without reading further along this thread.

Anyway, you said: "There is something that I suspect the bush administration is somewhat manipulative about: They minimize the threat, so that people keep flying airplanes, and keep living their lives. For example, flight 587 was clearly a shoe bomber, yet they claimed it wasn't terrorism."

This--and many other examples--reveal the problem. After 9/11 the Bush Administration probably made the decision to minimize the threat and the sacrifices need for the War on Terror. I was annoyed when Bush told everyone to "go shopping." This was before I became a Bush supporter. Later I realized that the minimalist approach is the best strategy, though it may, in fact, cost him the election. Many people have forgotten 9/11 and the threat it poses. (BTW, see Europundits today for a terrific essay on the nature of this threat.)

There's no way that terrorism can be eliminated in a short time, and it's probably better for conducting the war if people aren't constantly made afraid. The Bush Administration can't clearly spell out its goals since they involve other nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

jonathan, U.S.,

Great post. You sum up a lot of important points in a few paragraphs. Congratulations for a job well done.

Bjoern,

I like your blog and I read it often.

I have never commented on it though, but this post prompted me to do so.

I want to start off by saying that I don't disagree with your premise that European coverage of the US election is excessive. I think you're right.

However, I think you are WAAAAAY OFF with the assertion that the US election this year is a race with little difference between the candidates, ie. a "a race between 2 centrists", as you put. To be frank, only a European could say such a thing.

I have voted in and followed every presidential election since 1968.
Never, and I mean NEVER, have I seen such a clear and obvious distinction between the two candidates for US President.

Taxes, Social Security, Environment, Regulation, Gun Control, Faith, Social Policy, etc, etc.

The list goes on and on, and on virtually EVERY issue, Kerry and Bush are polar opposites.

In the war on the terror, the difference is even bigger. To say that Kerry (A man who has publically proclamied that 9/11 did not change him), would not differ from Bush is pure BS.

>> Later I realized that the minimalist approach is the best strategy, though it may, in fact, cost him the election.

Yes, I understand that they are walking a tight rope. If the american people knew everything they were doing, and how dangerous it really is, and that it could be really, really bad, the economy would tank, and the terrorists would win. Gosh, one sniper with a rifle affected the DC/Baltimore economy.

Still, I just hate deception. It reminds me of the clinton years. However, there is one side-effect. Clinton covered up several big terrorist events. This frustrated the terrorists, so they planned a big one, that no one could deny. I was listening to the radio, completely shocked, while the announcer was saying, gosh they really should have some more training for these pilots. If it wasn't for the 2nd tower...

However, Clinton didn't start a war against them. So, silence, combined with a super aggressive anti-terrorist operation is clearly the right approach.

It won't cost him the election. The news is looking really good. Kerry is struggling to defend his home turf, while Bush is in democrat territory. Maryland is in play! I'm also somewhat optimistic about california, given that Arnold's popularity is really high. News that CA school info was found on a terrorist did not escape notice. Now, you can call me crazy, but NY is even a remote possibility, given that 9/11 changed that city forever. When Ed Koch supports the president, something big has changed. New Jersey is in play.

Even if Kerry started to surge, Clinton would do something. The logic of the politics on the democratic side is that Kerry is the sacrificial lamb this time around. We'll see in a little bit.

The question is: Will Mrs Ketchup dump him, when he fails to get her into the whitehouse...

Scott: Total identification? Most certainly not, and you couldn't have read the article thoroughly to have formed that opinion.

I'm referring to the way the author identifies Rush Limbaugh as the soul of the modern Republican party. Do I really need to prove this? Let's extend your quote with two paragraphs:

"First let's take over the party," Goldwater told his aides. "Then we'll go from there."

That's exactly what they did. And, they're still going -- still imploding, still evolving. The faces change...yet remain the same. They do not intend for their "forward movement" to be halted and, as the election date looms, they're increasingly desperate. Frantic. Shrieking. Lying. Totally out of control.

And that's just Rush Limbaugh. The self-proclaimed Most Dangerous Man in America.

If Limbaugh -- Rush...El Rushbo...Rusty -- is not the "face" of the Republican Party, he is its heart and soul -- and its mouth. He's the coward who crouches behind the "golden microphone" at the Exellence in Broadcasting (EIB) AM Radio Network and spews hate and filth 15 hours a week, wallowing ecstatically in his own vomit. He's the guy -- married three times, divorced three times -- who brags that he's a shining example for the "yoots" of America.

Note the phrase "he is its heart and soul" in the last paragraph.

If that isn't a total identification of the Republican party with its worst elements, I don't know what it is. It's an old tactic, a variant of the straw man attack. It's in the nature of large ideologies that they attract a certain amount of jerks and fanatics. Some of them become influential, and make good straw men for political opponents who'd rather not deal with the saner elements of the ideology. My point isn't primarily that Rush Limbaugh is a jerk and fanatic, but that he isn't the heart and soul of the Republican party. There are any number of sane and rational thinkers and pundits supportive of the Republicans. I find myself agreeing with them less than I used to, but I have no wish to deny their existence.

IMO you are making the fundamental error of identifying genuine passionate concern with irrationality. And this one of the things the extreme right have been very clever to exploit.

I'm not sure what you base that on, as I only made general observations about people being irrational and this being a factor in party politics. "Passionate concern" is not irrational. Pretending that the ideological world fits easily onto a black-white axis between stupidity and intelligence, evil and morality, is irrational, and is a byproduct of various well-known cognitive deficiencies in the human brain. I'm not saying that you're irrational. I'm saying we all are. And knowledge about our own rational weaknesses is important if we are to be able to compensate for them, or try.

One of the reasons why The Ann Coulter's of this world are winning is because the liberal opposition feels guilty about its own passions and beliefs.

A meaningless statement. How many liberals literally feel guilty about their beliefs? How have you measured this? Where can I read the articles in which they reveal this guilt?

Rationality is only one aspect of meaning. Feelngs also count and from your rationalist perspective one might well have denounced those speaking out passionately against Hitler in the the 1930's in the same terms as you are using here.

There's no need to Hitlerfy this debate. In any case, this whole argument is irrelevant - I'm not referring to feelings or passion, but to irrational beliefs. I clearly don't see them as equivalent, or I wouldn't write about these things as if I cared, would I?

Øyvind: When it comes to Petter Nome I actually believe him when he says it. Have you seen the programs the guy has been making from the States?

In the ones I've seen he seemed mostly interested in confirming Norwegian stereotypes of America. Ku Klux Klan, Elvis worshippers, etc. This is part of our problem - we fail to deal with the US on its own terms.

Scott: It may not have been true before but now intelligence has become a very important factor in political allignment.

That is not my experience, nor is it supported by research I'm aware of. I'm sure you can find differences, but not enough to make intelligence an "important factor in political allignment". I grew tired with that line of reasoning long ago, precisely because it is so difficult to separate one's own inflated self-esteem from genuine superiority. I'm not likely to succeed, so why even try? All that matters is whether I'm right or wrong, and though difficult it's easier to observe reality than to observe yourself.

You are IMO naively assuming that poltical debates are framed within a neutral framework.

I don't see how you read that from what I write. You are quick to assume that I hold views I don't actually hold, based on short statements I've made implying no such thing. In this case I don't even see the relationship between the theory you attack here and what I originally wrote. Reply to what I say, not what you wish I had said.

Jonathan: Bush's administration has never lied to me, so those arguments don't carry any weight.

They may not have lied, but they have attempted to deceive you. This is well documented in All the President's Spin.

RSN: Bjorn, I do believe you've attracted a troll, in the shape and name of Scott.

If you really believe so, let me know by mail, not here, as this is a personal attack. I don't agree, however. From what I see in the referrer logs, Scott is an active debater in the Guardian's web forum, (though with a different nick, zicoth).

Bjørn:

You can hardly deny that both the Ku Klux Klan and Elvis worshipers are real phenomenons.

Furthermore, people as "special" as the two mentioned groups makes interesting stories, and the programs Nome made about the States were the kind of journalism more concerned with telling entertaining and interesting (and true) stories than the kind of journalism concerned with listing hundreds of objective facts in as short time as possible.

Would an American documentary maker telling us about the same groups also be "mostly interesting in confirming Norwegian (or European) stereotypes" or are you applying double standards here?

Øyvind

>> My point isn't primarily that Rush Limbaugh is a jerk and fanatic, but that he isn't the heart and soul of the Republican party.

Bjorn, how can you say this? Have you ever listened to Rush's show? It would seem unlikely that you are able to catch his show from Norway. You seem to be accepting the premises of the Rush haters. They hate him because he is convincing people with intellectual arguments, and because he is effective. With your rational outlook on life, there is no doubt in my mind that you would like his show, and mostly agree.

>> They may not have lied, but they have attempted to deceive you. This is well documented in All the President's Spin.

Bjorn, I think you're falling for a scam (apparently objective, but actuall skewed) here. There is very little substance there. I think it's from factcheck.org. The piece itself is deceptive. For example, this is totally false:

>> George W. Bush, they claim, is the first president to apply principles from public relations to the White House on this scale.

I don't even remember the first claim they make about how GWB justified his tax cut. I don't see it in his web site.

I wear of this partisan bickering, let us discuss something more worthy ....

"Introduce us to some other soap operas."

I'd suggest that some Polish and Korean soap operas be shown on Norwegian TV (it would do a lot to open up norwegian perceptions about the rest of the world). Translators for the first should be easy, harder for the second, but I think it would be well worth the time and effort.

Some reccommended titles available on request.

Øyvind: You can hardly deny that both the Ku Klux Klan and Elvis worshipers are real phenomenons.

Yeah, just not representative of American culture. I'm not saying it's wrong to make documentaries about the Ku Klux Klan, just that there is a popular stereotype in Norway that these fringes are a larger part of American culture than they really are. Petter Nome confirmed those stereotypes with his documentary series from the US. It's like one of those travel programs that seem more interested in ancient customs practiced only for the benefit of tourist cameras than the actual culture of a modern country. Look how quaint these foreigners are!

Gunnar: Bjorn, how can you say this? Have you ever listened to Rush's show?

You're right, I base my views on Rush Limbaugh on his critics, (including the Democratic partisan but mostly trustworthy Al Franken). Let's put it this way: None of the things I've heard attributed to him mark him as a person who's carefully "convincing people with intellectual arguments" based on his "rational outlook" on life. My impression is of a partisan demagogue who's rhetoric is on the level of Ann Coulter. I'm open for examples showing otherwise.

Bjorn, I think you're falling for a scam (apparently objective, but actuall skewed) here.

The Spinsanity folks may be wrong, but scammers? You don't even present any counterarguments. There was a long discussion on the tax cut thing in the original post. I don't care about American tax cuts, but it is a good example of clearly deceptive rhetoric. Notably this phrase which Bush used repeatedly during his campaign: "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." You can twist that statement in many ways, but I hope you and I agree that there is one obvious interpretation of it which almost anyone listening will take with them, that, well, the vast majority of the money spent on tax cuts will go to the bottom end. This is clearly, obviously, wrong. Is it honest to make such a promise?

As for whether Bush is better at PR than previous presidents, again, if you disagree, which president was better at it? And how much better? If you believe that Bush is completely honest, Clinton is the obvious answer - as is also pointed out in the book. I can't confirm that Bush actually is more dishonest than Clinton, but the book makes a solid case that he is dishonest.

Bjørn

My point isn't primarily that Rush Limbaugh is a jerk and fanatic, but that he isn't the heart and soul of the Republican party.

My interpretation of the article is that a specific group of radical right wingers have taken over the Republican Party. In that sense they have become the heart and soul of the party but there are also other less radical elements within the party who have been marginalised. It would have been more precise if the author had said "Rush Limbaugh represents the dominant values of the Republican Party today".

We can argue over the sloppy semantics of the writer till the sun goes down and in the process lose sight of the intended meaning of the author, which is far more interesting IMO.

A meaningless statement. How many liberals literally feel guilty about their beliefs? How have you measured this? Where can I read the articles in which they reveal this guilt?

It is meaningless within a methodology that denies the existance of inner subjectivity which is what I believe you do. A lot of liberals feel guilty about their beliefs -- how else could the right have turned the word liberal into negative slogan? If liberals hadn't had that problem they would have vigourously defended the territory.

Before asking questins like "Where can I read the articles in which they reveal this guilt?" It's allways further asking Google first. Try hitting it with "liberal guilt"

From the second link on the list: Christopher Lasch's 1978 book, "The Culture of Narcissism," was rumored to be Jimmy Carter's favorite book and the inspiration for his infamous "malaise" speech. We have seen the enemy, the liberal president advised in that speech, and he is us. No self-respecting conservative would be burdened by such self-doubt.

Me: You are IMO naively assuming that poltical debates are framed within a neutral framework.
Your reply: I don't see how you read that from what I write

IMO you don't appear to recognise the importance of the way in which what you call irrationality is itself manipulated through the use of propaganda. I read part of the way through the articles you posted links to (unfortunately I can't find them now as I had a crash that wiped some stuff yesterday) and a first spin through left me wondering what the author's view on political power was. How it might impinge on the issue? Doing a quick search through the text showed that author hadn't used the word at all, not once.

That in itself proves nothing but I was left with the impression of a reified rather sterile discussion of an important issue that was so because it failed to root the process whereby irrationality arises namely a specific social and poltical framework. As far as I could see the author was very accurately describing what irrationality and rationality are, how they inter-relate but at the same time oblivious to the systems that give rise to the patterns in which they arise.

If you really believe so, let me know by mail, not here, as this is a personal attack.

If you believe that my intentions on your blog are insincere or intended to cause harm then let me know immediately and I assure you you will not hear from me again. That may happen anyway as when one starts getting accused of being a troll for expressing ones opinions its a pretty clear sign of a personally hostile environment, one that I don't really want to spend time in.

Bjørn,

BTW, it was very interesting to raise some of issues discussed here on GUT as -- to a very large extent -- they were being ignored there. Anti-Americanism was one another was left wing support for the Iraqi resistance.

Scott: We can argue over the sloppy semantics of the writer till the sun goes down and in the process lose sight of the intended meaning of the author, which is far more interesting IMO.

Those weren't sloppy semantics. Every word in that article was intended to convey the image of a Republican party controlled by all kinds of evil ideas, and Rush Limbaugh was clearly pointed out as its heart and soul. The rhetoric was of the angry, Ann Coulter'ish kind that reminds me of rhetorical flame-throwers. The overall point, I agree, was that the Republican party has changed since the 60's. Others have made the same point. James Mann wrote an interesting book called the Rise of the Vulcans, which looks at the background of Bush's foreign policy officials, while outlining precisely this development, from the realism of Kissinger to the idealism of Bush.

Mann is an historian, however, and is more interested in explaining what these people believe and have believed than in judging them. Those, I believe, should be separate tasks - a historian of recent events should not at the same time be an ideologue. Too many people cross that line, which is why our knowledge of modern political history is so unstable. What actually happened depends so much on who's doing the writing.

It is meaningless within a methodology that denies the existance of inner subjectivity which is what I believe you do.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I'm reminded of the time I was attacked for being a follower of Edvard Said, based on a very faulty and superficial assumption.

I know of the term "liberal guilt", but usually as a slur against the liberal worldview by conservatives, (ie. liberal ideas are motivated by the shame of being well-off), not in the sense you use it here, as shame of being a liberal. You asked me to search on Google, and the topmost result (and apparently all the others) confirm this: "Liberals feel guilty for having undeserved advantages. They expiate this guilt not by disposing of their wealth, as one might expect, but by insisting that everyone else's advantages are equally undeserved."

I read part of the way through the articles you posted links to (unfortunately I can't find them now as I had a crash that wiped some stuff yesterday) and a first spin through left me wondering what the author's view on political power was.

The links are still on this page. The first was a scientific study about self-evaluation. It contains no thoughts on political power because that is not the subject that is studied. And because it is science, not just punditry, it's the most important of the two to understand, for anyone who values their own abilities highly, (and don't we all?)

The second was a more philosophical examination of the origin of ideological camps. It's not science, but it contains a lot of good thinking which applies to most ideologies throughout the history of democracy. Now, your views seem to concern primarily the US and UK. Michael Huemer's views apply to democracies in general. So again it's not a weakness that he doesn't mention the specific problems you're thinking of.

My point is that these lines of thought gives us insights that are valuable when we talk about intelligence and irrationality in politics. I didn't dig them up specifically for you, but they're relevant to what we're discussing.

That may happen anyway as when one starts getting accused of being a troll for expressing ones opinions its a pretty clear sign of a personally hostile environment, one that I don't really want to spend time in.

Yes, and that's why I won't allow troll accusations in public. If the accused troll doesn't cause a flame war, the meta-troll debate usually will, and a much larger one. I definitely do not want you to stop writing here. The few people I've asked to leave are the ones who after repeated reminders still won't follow the posting rules, (bottom of page). Takes an amazing lack of social intelligence to achieve that.

>> You're right, I base my views on Rush Limbaugh on his critics, (including the Democratic partisan but mostly trustworthy Al Franken). Let's put it this way: None of the things I've heard attributed to him mark him as a person who's carefully "convincing people with intellectual arguments" based on his "rational outlook" on life. My impression is of a partisan demagogue

I figured as much. Your first mistake was considering Al Franken to be trustworthy. He is a complete partisan hack, and very shrill. He is a very marginal character that is not taken seriously. The title of his book ("Rush is a big fat idiot" or something) shows that the nature of his argument is ad-hominem. I'm just telling you that you're impression of him is completely wrong. For one, he is hardly a partisan, since he has been very critical of bush at different times.

He is certainly not a demagogue, since he always addresses issues from the root cause perspective with a focus on observable reality.

Scott:
If you believe that my intentions on your blog are insincere or intended to cause harm then let me know immediately and I assure you you will not hear from me again. That may happen anyway as when one starts getting accused of being a troll for expressing ones opinions its a pretty clear sign of a personally hostile environment, one that I don't really want to spend time in.

Hey, don't bother about that asshole. I may disagree with you on a lot of things, but I certainly don't think you're a troll. Some people just can't believe other people are holding views that differ from theirs, and therefore they must naturally assume that those people can't be sincere. Thus, he took you for a troll.

Read the first rule for posting below...

(Oh, and sorry Bjørn, for breaking the second rule.)

>> The Spinsanity folks may be wrong, but scammers? You don't even present any counterarguments. There was a long discussion on the tax cut thing in the original post. I don't care about American tax cuts, but it is a good example of clearly deceptive rhetoric. Notably this phrase which Bush used repeatedly during his campaign: "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."

Yea, that's it Spinsanity, not factcheck. But this is really, really stretching things. A quote from a heated debate from the republican primary IS NOT "used repeatedly during his campaign". I doubt there is another reference. Spinsanity folks probably parsed through a lot of text to find one little thing to claim "deception". First of all, this is from before he became president, so it's a deceptive trick to compare what was passed into law to something he said before he became president, especially since it's actually congress who passes laws.

It's not even clear what he exactly meant here.
I would take it to mean the lower spectrum of tax payers, which is certainly true. This is the logical conclusion. A car dealership advertises a $1000 cash back. Would it be logical for a person to come in and ask for the $1000, without purchasing a car? Only a fool would assume that the dealership is being deceptive if it does not give money back to people who haven't purchased a car, which is the democratic position. That's demogoguery.

But the scam part is the issue of "objectivity" versus "neutrality". Objectivity is comparing things to reality, and treating judgements with the same standard. When one does this, the democrats come out really badly. If you applied the objective standard equally to Kerry and Bush, Bush comes out as honest. Of course, everyone presents information in a favorable light, that's normal. The spinsanity piece is really deceptive, since it says:

>>he has subtly and systematically attempted to deceive the nation about most of his major policy proposals. .. Remarkably, he has done so while generally avoiding obviously false statements.

It's totally false and contradictory. It's like saying "he is an even bigger murderer, although he has cleverly avoided killing anyone". Just like with Scott, they assert "subtly and systematically attempted to deceive the nation" without any support. An objective view would find that when comparing a person who does not make false statements to someone who is definitely makes false statements, the second is a liar, and the first is not.

The bigger issue is with "objectivity" versus "neutrality". Spinsanity, like the US main stream media, deliberately confuse these two with devastating effect. They claim to be "objective", but they demonstrate that by being "neutral". For example, if one side says that the gravity causes objects to fall to earth, and the other says that gravity causes objects to rise into space, they imply that the truth must be somewhere in between: objects hover, neither falling nor rising.

I read on that guardian discussion board and someone stated a very good argument on why right wing americans tend to fire up on the 'european anti-americanism' :

I agree with zicoth that the myth that "they all hate us" seems to be an important component of right-wing American ideology. This false article of faith is a classic example of what is known in psychology as "projection," defined as attributing to others feelings which you possess yourself. Thus a desire to kill someone is transformed into a belief that this person wants to kill you. Right wing Americans believe in "American exceptionalism," a creed which posits that America and Americans (at least "real Americans" like them) are inherently superior, perhaps even God's chosen nation and people. This belief often manifests itself in the form of extreme xenophobia, which through the process of "projection" expresses itself in the belief that "they" hate us because we are free and "they" are jealous and resentful of our superiority. For these people Western Europeans are the most threatening non-Americans because for the right-wing American they embody all that is hated and feared, particularly "socialism," "atheism," cultural liberalism, and internationalism. The fact that Europeans enjoy a high standard of living makes them even more threatening to the right-wing American, who wants to believe that all non-Americans live in mud huts."

Anonymous (Gunnar?): Your first mistake was considering Al Franken to be trustworthy.

Not when it comes to his own side. He has a complete inability to notice any wrongdoings made by any Democrat. His attacks on right-wingers in Lies and the Limbaugh book has struck me as fair, however. The insults in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot are satirical and intended, according to Franken, to make a point about the poor tone in political debate in the US. Seems to me that Franken insults Limbaugh as much because he enjoys it, but his take-down of statements made by Limbaugh is pretty damning independently of that.

Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them is mostly insult-free. It's simplistic, and I disagree with many of Franken's views, but he seems to be doing an honest job of criticizing a number of dishonest or fanatic conservatives. Ann Coulter, for instance.

But if you have examples of Al Franken being untrustworthy (either wrong or dishonest), I'm interested to hear about it.

I'm just telling you that you're impression of him is completely wrong. For one, he is hardly a partisan, since he has been very critical of bush at different times.

That's no defense against being partisan. The conservative movement is big, and includes many lines of thought that are incompatible with each other. Many partisans criticize their own side for having strayed from the core of their ideology, etc. The question is: When there is a liberal position and a conservative position on a subject, does Limbaugh ever choose the liberal one? Has he ever sided with a Democratic candidate in an election for President, Congress or whatever? Does he ever criticize the conservative ideology?

Again: Give me examples of Limbaugh's intellectual integrity. I won't take you on your word.

>> I agree with zicoth that the myth that "they all hate us" seems to be an important component of right-wing American ideology.

you agree, but it's still false. I'm very familiar with the conservative movement in america. I have never felt, read any reference to, or found any indication that the above is true.

Yes, that was me.

>> His attacks on right-wingers in Lies and the Limbaugh book has struck me as fair

That's the problem. You seem to suffer from false "neutrality" logic and "dispassionate" logic. With the first, you figure that the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes offered. The fact that you can come to a conclusion like "struck me as fair" without ever having heard Rush's radio program indicates your disconnect from reality. No offense intended, just pointing out that to be "objective" is to compare what's said against reality. Since that's difficult to do from Norway, the rational position is to come to no conclusion on that subject.

>> honest job of criticizing a number of dishonest or fanatic conservatives. Ann Coulter

Here, it's the "dispassionate" fallacy. I think this is typical of norwegians maybe. The premise is that there is a linear spectrum, and on either side, there are emotional "fanatics", which are obviously wrong or dishonest. The "dispassionate" ones are responsible, honest, trustworthy. This ignores the reality that there is nothing inherently true about it. You can have false ideas expressed with passion or no passion. You can have true ideas expressed with passion or not. I've been reading Coulter for quite a while, and I can't think of anything dishonest. She is passionate, and very sarcastic, and she has a knack for stating truth that everyone else is afraid to say.

> The question is: When there is a liberal position and a conservative position on a subject, does Limbaugh ever choose the liberal one? Has he ever sided with a Democratic candidate in an election for President, Congress or whatever? Does he ever criticize the conservative ideology?

Why would he do that, since that would be falling prey to false logic: neutrality between two extremes is the truth. He would support a conservative, regardless of party. There are conservative democrats, and liberal republicans. If democrat Zell Miller were running against republican Lincoln Chaffee, he would support the more conservative candidate, Miller.

*Again: Give me examples of Limbaugh's intellectual integrity. I won't take you on your word.*

Rush has always been an eloquent promoter of tax cuts and market economics. I remember him giving a fine expose of this speech

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html

by President Kennedy at the New York Economic Club in 1962 (years after the event, of course). Rush’s analysis of the speech, which was to say that Kennedy’s economic objectives were very similar to the economic objectives of the Reagan administration and their tax cut policy, was fully defensible. At the time, it infuriated Democrats, who thought Rush was using a liberal icon to advance conservative economic policies, but his analysis was wholly justified.

Gunnar: A quote from a heated debate from the republican primary IS NOT "used repeatedly during his campaign". I doubt there is another reference. Spinsanity folks probably parsed through a lot of text to find one little thing to claim "deception".

To call Al Franken an untrustworthy partisan I can understand - he is, after all, a partisan, who we both disagree with on many issues. But to claim that Spinsanity cherry picks quotes like that tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

Spinsanity didn't dig up that quote, I did because I'd heard it before and because it was a good example of what we were discussing. It might or might not be discussed in the book, I don't remember, but the chapters on Bush's tax rhetorics are well researched and contain numerous examples of dishonest rhetorics. There are examples from the 2000 campaign, and examples from after Bush was elected. Trust me: This book is not a cheap partisan shot. The integrity of the authors has been well established over years of non-partisan blogging, and they have done a thorough job documenting their claims

Now, you can either continue to assume that they are partisans - for who else would call Bush dishonest? - or you can take my word far enough to at least open the book, and then judge for yourself. In fact, I'll give you a challenge. Read the book, take note of all the examples of dishonest, incorrect or superficial accusations you can find, write an article about it, and I'll publish it in this blog.

It's not even clear what he exactly meant here.

I'm sorry, but it is perfectly clear: The vast majority of the money being spent on tax cuts will go to the bottom end. Semantically, I don't see any other likely intended message.

A car dealership advertises a $1000 cash back. Would it be logical for a person to come in and ask for the $1000, without purchasing a car?

No it wouldn't. Are you arguing that what Bush said wasn't logical? If so, I agree. If you're arguing that Bush couldn't possibly have meant to imply that because it's not logical .. come on. That's circular reasoning. You're assuming that Bush is honest, and thus must have misspoken or intended a different meaning. Clearly, if you assume that, you'll arrive at the conclusion that he's honest. And of course this isn't the only example - only the clearest. It is possible to mangle the words in a single sentence once, (or possibly several times, but I've only found one source of that particular quote). One tactic he used repeatedly was to say "tax" when he meant "income tax". This allowed him to imply (in detail) that low-income workers who don't pay income taxes would benefit from income tax cuts.

Objectivity is comparing things to reality, and treating judgements with the same standard. When one does this, the democrats come out really badly.

And Spinsanity would agree with you. They've pointed out democratic dishonesty repeatedly in their blog. Your point seems to be that since they call Bush dishonest, they can't possibly be objective, since you already know that an objective comparison would lead to another result. More circular reasoning. If there are flaws in their criticism, point them out, don't just conclude that there must be since they've reached the wrong result.

It's totally false and contradictory. It's like saying "he is an even bigger murderer, although he has cleverly avoided killing anyone".

Bad metaphor. You surely can't mean that it is impossible to imply a falsehood without explicitly stating it. Most of the case against Michael Moore rests on his use of that tactic. He'll tell you two things that are true, then leave out a third fact which would put the whole thing in a different light.

They claim to be "objective", but they demonstrate that by being "neutral". For example, if one side says that the gravity causes objects to fall to earth, and the other says that gravity causes objects to rise into space, they imply that the truth must be somewhere in between: objects hover, neither falling nor rising.

What do you base that on? This is absolutely ridiculous. Spinsanity state explicitly the exact opposite. As for the media - that's the whole point of the book, that they do this. How can it be an attack on the book that you agree with its message?

>> *Again: Give me examples of Limbaugh's intellectual integrity. I won't take you on your word.*

Rush has always been an eloquent promoter of tax cuts and market economics. I remember him giving a fine expose of this speech

Your example is a good one. The reason I didn't respond to that request was that it's an obvious logic fallacy. To prove that someone is honest, one would have to present every statement ever made. A request like that says more about the requestor than it adds to the debate. However, we can't expect Bjorn to prove he is a liar, since he doesn't have access to his radio program. I listen to it over the internet, but I have a subscription. Not sure if it's available on the free side.

The fact that anyone takes Franken's view seriously is so totally amazing, since he is very discredited here. Franken getting into shouting and shoving matches on tv sets with people who disagree with him hasn't helped. He's just a bad comic desperately trying to get people to take him seriously.

Gunnar: With the first, you figure that the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes offered.

Um. I recall you as having read this blog for a while. Perhaps you don't remember that I wrote an entry containing exactly these views a year ago, but I've repeated them many times since. I agree with all of this. So how come you suddenly think this is news to me? You're beginning to remind of Scott, who also keeps attributing strange views to me, for no reason I can understand.

The fact that you can come to a conclusion like "struck me as fair" without ever having heard Rush's radio program indicates your disconnect from reality.

Most of Franken's criticism against Limbaugh consists of quotes from his show. I'm not basing my impression on Franken's account of what Rush have said, but on Franken's selection of Rush's words. For instance:

With the exception of the military, I defy you to name one government program that has worked and alleviated the problem it was created to solve. Hhhmmmmmmm? I'm waiting ... Time's up.

..

Feminism was established so that unattractive, ugly women could have easy access to the mainstream of society.

..

Liberals love misery. It makes them feel necessary.

..

Businesses, according to liberals, are the root of all evil.

..

You are morally superior to those liberal compassion fascists. ... You have a real job, they just beg for a living.

..

The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig and her nipples. The poor feed off the largesse of this government and give nothing back. ... We need to stop giving them coupons where they can go buy all kinds of junk. We just don't have the money. They're taking out, they put nothing in. And I'm sick and tired of playing the one phony game I've had to play and that is this so-called compassion for the poor. I don't have compassion for the poor.

These quotes range from dumb to hyperbolic and just weird. I do not deny the possibility that Limbaugh is perfectly reasonable most of the time, and that Al Franken was selective. But these actual quotes do not give me that impression. Now, I know that I'm no expert on Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure I've even mentioned him in this blog until it came up in the debate with Scott. But I hope you can tell from the quotes above why I have a bad impression of him.

The premise is that there is a linear spectrum, and on either side, there are emotional "fanatics", which are obviously wrong or dishonest. The "dispassionate" ones are responsible, honest, trustworthy.

Huh? Will you stop putting words in my mouth? You read all of this from my assertion that Al Franken strikes me as trustworthy in his criticism of Ann Coulter and other conservatives?

I've been reading Coulter for quite a while, and I can't think of anything dishonest. She is passionate, and very sarcastic, and she has a knack for stating truth that everyone else is afraid to say.

Like her statement about invading Arab countries and converting their leaders to Christianity. You read her regularly. Did she ever apologize for that statement, or give a good explanation for it?

Of course, the best source for criticism of Ann Coulter is again Spinsanity.

Why would he do that, since that would be falling prey to false logic: neutrality between two extremes is the truth.

I did not say that he should pick the middle ground. I said that, to escape the charge of partisanism, Rush Limbaught ought, once in a while, to pick views that are usually held by liberals. By definition, a partisan is a person who sticks to his ideological group, in this case conservatism, no matter what. You say he's not a partisan. Therefore, I challenge you to find views held by Rush Limbaugh that are usually held by liberals. Not neutral views, but the views of the other side.

There's certainly nothing logically self-contradicting in combining views from different camps. Ideologies group ideas together that are logically independent. Partisans are those who believe that because an idea is identified with their own camp, even for random historical or cultural reasons, it must be logically inseparable from all their other beliefs.

An example of a non-partisan is Christopher Hitchens, a left-winger and critic of US foreign policy who have strongly supported Bush's foreign policy. For us non-leftists, it is not difficult to see how being on the left does not logically exclude supporting the war on terror, but to many left-wing partisans this is incomprehensible, even immoral. (You're helping the other side!) It's the same with right-wing partisans. You've given me no reason to think that Rush Limbaugh isn't one of them.

John

OK, and *respect*

Bjørn,

My point is that these lines of thought gives us insights that are valuable when we talk about intelligence and irrationality in politics. I didn't dig them up specifically for you, but they're relevant to what we're discussing

I agree that there are very many useful insights there.

I was referring specifically to the article by Michael Huemer which you linked in a post to me. There was another article linked from the first that I was reading as well -- hence why I used the plural.

A perspective I find very useful Ken Wilbers.

A lot of people are put off by his mystic, "new age", appearance but IMO there is a lot of very serious and valuable thought in there. He has a very neat (again IMO) colour coded system for looking at the development of ideologies or world views.

Here's a video that is quite informative:

http://www.integralnaked.org/live/view_integralpolitics.aspx

Another interesting source -- not my cup of tea -- that I'm sure you will have come across before but that I'll mention just in case you haven't and for the benefit of others is

http://www.reason.com/

I'll try to get back to your post later when I give it my due attention.

Bjorn: concerning Limbaugh, I've heard his show a fair amount (though not much in recent years) and if anything those quotes are on the mild side.

The worst was his (mercifully) short-lived tv show, which consisted of him quotes similar in tone to those which regularly elicited standing ovations from the worshipful audience, it looked uncannily like footage from a people's congress though I'm sure the resemblance was accidental (and the irony would have been lost on him).

The opinion I formed of him pretty early on was of a bully who could dish it out but not take it, I never really had cause to change that estimation.

Spinsanity didn't dig up that quote, I did because I'd heard it before and because it was a good example of what we were discussing.

Then, your example is misleading.

Trust me: This book is not a cheap partisan shot. The integrity of the authors has been well established over years of non-partisan blogging, and they have done a thorough job documenting their claims

argument by persona. I read through their web site a while back, and concluded that they are guilty of “neutrality”, which as I’ve explained is bad logic, and not the same as “objectivity”. I have had direct experience with the candidates for an extended period of time. Like all politicians, Bush spins, but when compared to Clinton/Kerry, it can’t be considered “dishonesty”. If I was comparing Bush to Jesus, then Bush could be called a liar, but that’s not the situation. He is certainly not guilty of lying or misleading the American people.

Now, you can either continue to assume that they are partisans - for who else would call Bush dishonest? - or you can take my word far enough to at least open the book, and then judge for yourself.

You are putting words in my mouth, since I never assumed that apriori. I only judged a specific claim. I certainly don’t use that logic (that only partisans would call Bush dishonest). I don’t need to read spinsanity to judge bush. I’ve been judging him directly for years.

I'm sorry, but it is perfectly clear: The vast majority of the money being spent on tax cuts will go to the bottom end. Semantically, I don't see any other likely intended message.

First of all, money is not “spent” on tax cuts. The straight forward face-value meaning is the most likely.

No it wouldn't. Are you arguing that what Bush said wasn't logical? If so, I agree. If you're arguing that Bush couldn't possibly have meant to imply that because it's not logical .. come on. That's circular reasoning. You're assuming that Bush is honest, and thus must have misspoken or intended a different meaning.

Ahh, are you deliberately switching the words “logical” with “honest”? And, you’re switching “Bush” with “the statement”. When trying to make “sense” of words, you have to use common “sense”. It’s just like saying “$1000 cash back for everyone”. And the guy comes in and demands $1000. Well, you said “everyone”. Yea, but it also says “back”. It would be illogical to take that phrase, and expect $1000. It has nothing to do with the honesty or logic of the author of the words. It’s between the reader and the words. Only an illogical person, projecting his own liberal bias can read the words "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." And assume that he is referring to people who don’t pay taxes. It’s a literal impossibility. And that’s why most people don’t hear anything misleading there, since they don’t start with the same socialist premises.

And of course this isn't the only example - only the clearest. It is possible to mangle the words in a single sentence once, (or possibly several times, but I've only found one source of that particular quote).

If that’s the clearest, then it’s really weak support for the claim that Bush is generally dishonest.

One tactic he used repeatedly was to say "tax" when he meant "income tax". This allowed him to imply (in detail) that low-income workers who don't pay income taxes would benefit from income tax cuts.

Also, very weak and obscure. But people who
don’t pay income taxes do in fact benefit greatly from tax cuts on those who do.

And Spinsanity would agree with you. They've pointed out democratic dishonesty repeatedly in their blog. Your point seems to be that since they call Bush dishonest, they can't possibly be objective, since you already know that an objective comparison would lead to another result. More circular reasoning. If there are flaws in their criticism, point them out, don't just conclude that there must be since they've reached the wrong result.

I’m not an outsider without direct information about the subject, so I don’t need to read what other people say about something to figure out the truth. If someone says that the Sun is smaller than the earth, or that my wife is a man, I can say right away that they are wrong. The fact that they have pointed out other things that are true does not make this statement true. It’s just not credible that Bush is a liar. He spins (paints things in a favorable light), but that’s about it. Clinton/Gore/Kerry tell outright lies, over and over.

Bad metaphor. You surely can't mean that it is impossible to imply a falsehood without explicitly stating it. Most of the case against Michael Moore rests on his use of that tactic. He'll tell you two things that are true, then leave out a third fact which would put the whole thing in a different light.

I’m just not aware of Bush doing that in any significant way. Moore, OTOH, does it continuously. To compare Bush to Moore is simply ludicrous and non-objective.

What do you base that on? This is absolutely ridiculous. Spinsanity state explicitly the exact opposite. As for the media - that's the whole point of the book, that they do this. How can it be an attack on the book that you agree with its message?

I was actually speaking generally of the mainstream media, and more specifically, about what you said, however, if you want to deal with SpinSanity. They “state the opposite”, but that doesn’t make it accurate of “objective”. I could have a web site called “onlythetruth.com”, but it wouldn’t make it so. For example, the content of their main page today is very biased. Just because some people knew about Mary Cheney, it does not mean she wasn’t “outed”. I have gay friends who, although it’s known to family and friends, and never explicitly hide the fact, nevertheless, also never broadcast the fact. Btw, Kondracke is not a “conservative” commentator, but they imply that he is or that only “conservative” commentators complained. The reaction to this comment was widespread, and went across the spectrum. Why? Because it was on overtly political act. Kerry could have answered the question without mentioning anyone, or by mentioning someone who he knew, like congressman Barney Frank. There was no reason whatsoever to bring the children of candidates into the debate in this way. There were gasps among democrats, and focus groups registered a very negative reaction. Many people made up their minds right there. Intellectual policy discussion is one thing, but show that you are dishonorable, and that’s it. If SpinSanity was “objective”, they would cover the reality of the situation (an overtly political act, bringing a non-public family member into a very public forum), rather than criticizing what commentators are saying about it.

Bjørn:

Back to the rest of your post:
. Those weren’t sloppy semantics. Every word in that article was intended to convey the image of a Republican party controlled by all kinds of evil ideas, and Rush Limbaugh was clearly pointed out as its heart and soul.

And to a certain extent at least that is true. Goldwater most definitely set out to take over the party, he explicitly said so. His ideas and those of that movement are not so much conservative as primitive and regressive. Back to the most fundamentalist roots of the party.

Goldwater through to Bush seems to represent the fundamentalist wing of the GOP which can be contrasted with the more Enlightenment informed “progressive” reason based wing that embraces meritocracy and the freedom of the market place and so on. (see Wilber) What happened with 9/11 was that the fundamentalists -- who were already in power of course -- got a tremendous boost. Perhaps something even more than they bargained for and were as a result catapulted into the unilateralist, fundamentalist position we now see. One of the greatest dangers with this is that the methods used by these people are incredibly authoritarian. With their mind set they don’t have a problem with deceit. The believe that the elite are ordained to be the elite and have the right to further what they see as their agenda regardless of whether the public agree with it or not.

IMO people are absolutely right to freak out about this and express their concern emotionally.

“Liberals feel guilty for having undeserved advantages.

Including their feeling of superiority vis a vis conservatives?

It is meaningless within a methodology that denies the existence of inner subjectivity which is what I believe you do.
- - - - I have no idea what you mean by this

What I am referring to is attempting to reduce politics down to a rational process and thereby denying that the purely subjective dimension of feelings and emotions has meaning and truth in its own right. An example might be the experience of sharing time with a family that has had its whole life turned inside out by having half its members killed and its house bombed by an F16 against an objective assessment of that event as collateral damage in the war on terror. The rational collides totally with the feeling here and creates a dilemma you can’t really solve within a paradigm that concerns itself only with what is rational and what is irrational, objective values and so on. Somehow the whole truth has to embrace both but you aren’t going to get there by trying to reduce one into the other.

>> If I was comparing Bush to Jesus, then Bush could be called a liar, but that’s not the situation. He is certainly not guilty of lying or misleading the American people.

"There are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq" --George Bush, May 1st, 2003
Said during "Mission Accomplished" speech on USS Lincoln

A year later, Mr. Bush observed with no irony to Al Arabiya TV:

"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and
trying to destabilize their country, and we will help them rid
Iraq of these killers."

These quotes range from dumb to hyperbolic and just weird. I do not deny the possibility that Limbaugh is perfectly reasonable most of the time, and that Al Franken was selective.

I remember all of those, except the last one. Quote #2 was meant as a joke. In the last quote, he sounds like he worked himself up because the socialists are pushing programs that punish the achievers in society just because they are achievers. The idea that the most productive members of society don’t “give back” is offensive. Nothing against the poor, but they don’t give back. They may seem strange to you, but I agree with these statements.

Huh? Will you stop putting words in my mouth? You read all of this from my assertion that Al Franken strikes me as trustworthy in his criticism of Ann Coulter and other conservatives?

I don’t think I put words in your mouth, but if I did, I apologize. You and I both are inferring arguments from the other’s words. 2nd sentence: Yes

Like her statement about invading Arab countries and converting their leaders to Christianity. You read her regularly. Did she ever apologize for that statement, or give a good explanation for it?

You may disagree with it, but how is it “dishonest”? As for angry, I’ll give you that, but given the proximity to 9/11, and that her friend was killed, it’s quite understandable. The approach is valid: We had to completely dominate Japan, and convert the people to an ideology that doesn’t involve worshipping the emperor and total war. It worked. Stated rather bluntly, but her solution is the only proper response to a state that will not change. We cannot tolerate a terrorist state in perpetual Jihad against us. And I understand the non-religious viewpoint in Norway, but the US hasn’t made that mistake. (As an aside, the US is so much bigger, and we have a lot more variety of viewpoints. All of Norway would fit into several Chicago suburbs.)

Many Europeans think of Christianity as something bad, but most people in the US think of Christianity as good, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. St Olav would agree with Ann Coulter. St Olav was good for Norway, and I agree with St Olav. So, why should she apologize? She did explain in a follow up column that any ideology that doesn’t involve murdering infidels will do.

I did not say that he should pick the middle ground. I said that, to escape the charge of partisanism, Rush Limbaught ought, once in a while, to pick views that are usually held by liberals. By definition, a partisan is a person who sticks to his ideological group, in this case conservatism, no matter what. You say he's not a partisan. Therefore, I challenge you to find views held by Rush Limbaugh that are usually held by liberals. Not neutral views, but the views of the other side.

Why? Perhaps you misunderstand. Rush isn’t a journalist. He doesn’t claim to be a neutral commentator. He claims to be an evangelist for conservative ideas. It’s your idea that to be credible, one has to be viewed as “non-partisan”. A partisan is not “stick to his ideological group”. It’s sticking with a certain party, right or wrong. That’s always how the term is used in the US. There is a BIG difference. With your definition, a principled and consistent thinker is a partisan. That’s wrong.

Partisanship is bad because it’s associated with the desire for power. And this is considered dishonorable in the US. There are examples on both sides of the aisle of members supporting their party, even when it was against their principles, and hurt the country. Non-partisans on the right are people like Rush, who isn’t afraid to criticize the Republican Party when it’s wrong. Non-partisans on the left are folks like the progressives, who criticized Clinton for abuse of power.

There's certainly nothing logically self-contradicting in combining views from different camps. Ideologies group ideas together that are logically independent. Partisans are those who believe that because an idea is identified with their own camp, even for random historical or cultural reasons, it must be logically inseparable from all their other beliefs.

At least in the US, it’s not true that ideologies group ideas together that are logically independent. They usually form a whole picture, based on certain core principles. Now, political PARTIES may combine ideas that are independent of each other, but not ideologies.

You've given me no reason to think that Rush Limbaugh isn't one of them.

And I’m not trying to. What we’re actually talking about:

Bjørn: angrier rants coming from conservatives like Ann Coulter - or Rush Limbaugh. There are many conservatives like that, and many that aren't. But this total identification of Republicans with its worst elements is plain dishonest

Gunnar: Actually, Limbaugh is very positive and upbeat. He is definitely not angry. I would doubt that there is any chance to listen to his show in Norway. Thanks for great postings.

To summarize: your opinion about Rush and Coulter are incorrect. These two are not the “worst elements” of the Republican Party.

Maureen Dowd, big time liberal, gives up on Kerry:

"[Kerry] just seems to say what will be politically viable. ... I think that's at the core of what bothers people about him. And that's what he did with Iraq."

"I think [his vote against the first Gulf War] is really sort of sinking him. Because he can't make the case against this war, then. Bush and Cheney can just chortle at him."

"I think that it was wrong and stupid to drag [Mary Cheney] into it. ... It just seemed smarmy to me."

"There are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq" --George Bush, May 1st, 2003

This is certainly TRUE!

"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country, and we will help them rid Iraq of these killers."

Also true. "Country" obviously refers to the new Iraqi democracy. The US liberated Iraq from a Nazi madman.

Check out the UK socialists lamenting the rise of american conservative ideas:

http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200410250018

My favorite quote:

>> There is a certain brutal logic, within a country that has always liked capitalism, religion and patriotism, in positioning yourself as the more capitalistic, more religious and patriotic party

More precise: american conservatism is about more capitalism, more religion, more freedom and more patriotism. All good.

Here is an even better view: http://www.whatiam.net

I only scan this site periodically, so I apologize for any delay or absentee-ism in following up. I will pitch in one more time though...

I think you guys are spending too much time in the weeds and missing the decision points.

E.g. Bjorn's response to me when I stated that Bush has not lied to me. The response, essentially a "Well sure but he's been misleading you" makes the assumption that I am either foolish or easily led. Neither is true (although I lay no claim to genius). I am well aware that politicians are fundamentally Marketers. They sell ideas rather than goods but, like every marketer, put the best spin they can think of on their product. Just as I naturally pick through a car ad to separate the truth from the "BUY NOW!!!" rhetoric, I also can pick through a political message.

So yes, I am aware that Bush presents his ideas in the best light (as does Kerry).

Thanks for the news flash.

Bush's policy boils down to "lower taxes". Kerry's boils down to "raise taxes". It's that simple.

The details can be argued for weeks of course. Sure, Bush's tax cuts on an absolute basis return more money to guys clearing $200K+ annually but return on a percentage basis more to people in my bracket. Sure, Kerry's proposals to raise taxes include a couple of cuts pitched to his flavor of the month needy group. Bush's cuts don't extend to actually giving money to those who pay no taxes and Kerry's may (I forget the details of his current proposal). I don't begrudge the rich guy getting his taxes cut just because the absolute dollars are higher than mine. I do despise the idea of giving my money to some lazy knucklehead who already pays no tax. Net-net, Kerry wants more money for the government. Net-net Bush wants less money for the government.

BTW; FactCheck and Spinsanity are both decent sources but neither are *completely* objective. I am not sure that it is possible to be purely objective; that would require inhuman detachment from events.

Also, Limbaugh and Franken are entertainers, like John Stewart (Daily News) not political operatives. Both are pretty hyperbolic on a range of issues.

Another thought.

This thread has run pretty far afield of the original topic. To bring us back to it...

I agree with the opening position that Europe is far more focused on American events than America is focused on European events. I propose that the reasons are the large disparity in economic success (favoring America) and projectable military power (favoring America). Europe and America were once much more evenly matched which raises some obvious questions:

Why are there such large disparities today?

What is it about the American system that has resulted in growth far in excess of Europe's?

Why has Europe let its military power decline so dramatically?

Another aspect of the relative interest in U.S. politics compared to European politics is simply size. I doubt most Europeans give a thought to most of our states, even though they're similar in size and population to European countries.

For example, how many Europeans care about Illinois politics? How many people in Illinois care about Illinois politics? Answer: not many. Illinois is just one of those states that people in general don't think much about. The same could be said for Ohio, Iowa, Idaho, etc.

Except for occasional scandals, there's really not much to say about Illinois politics. Most state politics is just not that interesting.

You get my drift.

Jonathan . . .

Re summing up the differences between Bush and Kerry, once again you've written a great summary.
You said: "I think you guys are spending too much time in the weeds and missing the decision points." Excellent comment.

In the last debate W said he'd never said he wasn't worried about OBL.

He's on tape earlier saying just that thing.

He lied. This should have been his Monica moment but strategic faux rage over poor Mary Cheney (who hasn't said anything publicly IINM, I wonder why?) drove it out of the news.

It was masterful strategy but I was disappointed, I was looking forward to W-ites mangling the American language in all sorts of creative ways to try to make people think that 'not worried about' and 'not concerned about' mean totally different things ...

Gunnar,

Also, Limbaugh and Franken are entertainers, like John Stewart (Daily News) not political operatives. Both are pretty hyperbolic on a range of issues.

Both Cheney and Bush have regular contact with Limbaugh. He is considered "an unpaid official advisor"

In his own words:

I made an official announcement to open the program today. I have become, and have been for a while, an official, unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, and we decided to go public with this because there's no problem with it whatsoever.

http://tinyurl.com/43anc

If these was untrue the Bush, Cheney people would have denied it officially.

Correction:

Last post should have been addressed to Jonathan

>> If these was untrue the Bush, Cheney people would have denied it officially.

Why would they? It's a free country.

The fact that you think there is something wrong with folks freely associating with each other indicates a fascist premise.

Scott,

OK, so he's an unpaid adviser. Again, you are missing the point. How does that make him less of an entertainer? Kerry has plenty of Hollywood heros that advise his campaign as well.

Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a news source, as he freely admits. I *already* do not consider him as anything more than an opinion source. He's allowed to have an opinion, and to express it to anyone he prefers to; including the president. What reaction are you looking for from me?

Scott,

Let me expand that just slightly, I see where you may have misread me. When I said they are not political operatives I meant in the "makes policy" sense and in the "should pay attention to what this guy says" sense.

Limbaugh has a voice of course, but both the Democratic party and Republican party have a lot of "voices" arguing their pet positions. That's expected, it's a marketplace of ideas after all, but some voices steer policy and others do not.

If Limbaugh was an official spokeperson or member of the cabinet, etc then then I would be much more focused on what he has to say. As it is he's just another guy with a mic and an opinion...like Pat Buchanan for example.

I don't pay a lot of attention to Begala and Carville either (although Carville is fun to watch, I keep waiting for his head to explode) :) Those guys are even semi-official spokepeople, but again, what they say does not translate into actual policy.

Figuring out what the parties are likely to do is an educated guess based on what the parties are saying through their many voices and balancing that against their past actions.

The current Republican party has been pretty good at ostracizing their nut job element so I feel comfortable discarding e.g. Buchanan's anti-semitic babble and Limbaugh's more extreme positions.

The Democratic party (recently) has NOT been good at ostracizing their nut job element so I AM currently paying attention to what they say...for whatever reason Kerry seems to consider them serious enough to pander to at any rate. That worries me.

I chose the wrong word when I said political operative but I'm not sure what the right word is exactly.

Michael, I will follow similar thinking in responding to your note.

Both quotes (out of context) were said. But do you think that anyone who has heard Bush speak beleives somehow that he is not serious about the war on terror? He has a pretty clear position on the issue, he just has a hard time speaking it. Everyone knows he is a poor public speaker. Most people are. However that in no way equates to the Monica situation with Bill. Hopefully you actually discern that and are just being argumentative. It is a difference of kind.

OBL is only *kind of* a threat. *Kind of* because really personally he is not a threat, his organization is, right? That's obvious I think. I would like to see him caught but it is not really critical to the anti-terror effort (I suspect he's buried in a cave somewhere but who knows).

That's the point though. I don't think Bush *is* worried about OBL in a "send the army thataway" level. Nor would I want him to be; it would be a wierd personal vendetta at that point. Bush *is* clearly worried about OBL's organization and the continuing effort in Afghanistan and the Afghan-Pakistani-border-as-a-haven-for-terrorists way though. Those are the points Kerry has been trying to conflate, that "OBL is not important" equates to "not trying to bring down al-Qaeda".

I think the important thing to notice is that Bush has still maintained the focus on shutting down Afghanistan as a terror haven. His actions are correct even though he has a difficult time explaining himself. That is a nagging worry point about Kerry in fact. In the back of my mind I think that if Kerry's administration was the one to catch OBL that they would trot him out, announce that the war is over, and shut down the anti-terror effort.

Bush is painful to watch on TV; I keep wondering what he is going to say next :) You can see the frustration on his face when he blows a great oratical (word?) opportunity...a common occurrence for him. I have a natural distaste for the "slick salesman" speaking style though so it is not all bad.

I actually liked Bill Clinton personally, not that I met him. He seemed, and I believe is, a smart guy but has not lost touch with everyday citizens. He's a great speaker as well and can really deliver a point. The Monica situation was really no-ones business but his...except that he got caught and reacted badly. One of the like-it-or-not realities of being president is that you are NO LONGER Joe-private-citizen. There IS a certain expectation that you will respect the office which you hold. That extends to the basics of courtesy, dressing and grooming professionally, showing up on time (where possible), respect for American tradition, and faithfulness to your family. If he had been unmarried no-one would have cared. If he had not been caught no-one would have cared (yes I know that is circular). Once caught though it becomes a dishonor to the office and he should have recognized it as such. An acceptable reaction would have been an apology "Sorry, I wasn't thinking, I did not intend to demean the office of the president, won't happen again". That he did not recognize it as such was insulting. That he then tried so hard to cover it implied either poor judgement, inability to handle pressure, or disrespect for the American people.

Any apology would have turned the whole thing into a one-week story and left his presidency untouched. We accept honest fallibility. He instead chose to follow an unbecoming path.

Do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that both Kerry and Edwards made innocent comments and that it is the Cheney family reaction that was inappropriate. I am not that naive and neither are you. Any parent whose child is attacked would be expected to react as Lynn C did. It was a poor call on the part of Kerry's campaign and should not be repeated. Politics is open season but that was just foolish.

>> This thread has run pretty far afield of the original topic. To bring us back to it...

I agree with the opening position that Europe is far more focused on American events than America is focused on European events. I propose that the reasons are the large disparity in economic success (favoring America) and projectable military power (favoring America). Europe and America were once much more evenly matched which raises some obvious questions:

Why are there such large disparities today?

Good point. Don't want to over-generalize, but the europeans seem to be frustrated at their lack of economic progress, lack of strategic importance, and their lack of cultural influence. During the cold war, europe was and felt important. Not anymore. Why does France have a seat on the security council again?

While the US elitists controlled the american media, the US at least paid homage to the alleged superiority of Europe. But the last 3 decades have brought about big changes. Americans have always been conservative in how they lived their lives. Now, with a more open and free debate, socialist power is waning in the US.

I also think that there is moral decline. The great Christian stronghold has given up the fight. My father was a Lutheran minister, and when my parents were growing up, Norway had a strong faith. Now, like 3% go to church. Couples consider relationships "experimental", even with 1 or 2 kids. Of course, the same thing is happening in the US, but to a lesser extent (except in Hollywood).

As for cultural decline, it's hard to explain. I love american culture, but I'm disappointed that Norwegian culture seems to be disappearing. But perhaps, I'm being sentimental and selfish. I tell myself, "What, are folks supposed to maintain unpopular norwegian restaurants, just in case I come visit?". Still, I suspect that something precious is being lost.

"Michael...do you think that anyone who has heard Bush speak beleives somehow that he is not serious about the war on terror?"

I think that anyone who listens to Bush speak and takes it at face value instead of looking at what Bush policy actually _does_ is missing a lot of important information.

"However that in no way equates to the Monica situation with Bill."

No, it's much worse. Clinton lied about consentual extramarital oral sex (you know, what gentlemen are supposed to do). Bush lied about US foreign policy that has an effect on millions of peoples' lives. Not in the same league at all.

"I think the important thing to notice is that Bush has still maintained the focus on shutting
down Afghanistan as a terror haven."

Shutting down Kabul at any rate. And a lot of credit goes to the allies he was so cavalier about in regards to Iraq.

I look at it this way, he invaded a country with no idea of what to do next (perhaps spurned on by fantasies of flowers and a quick hand off to Chalabi and 20 dollar oil).
He burned a lot of foreign policy bridges and he threw away a major foreign policy trump card (military force) bogging down the military in an essentially no-win situation and showing the world very clearly the limits of conventional US military force. He removed perhaps the most secular Arab leader going in a 'war' against a fundamentalist religious ideology (huh?) and made the US more unpopular than ever in most of the world. All this reduces danger to the US how?

"Do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that both Kerry and Edwards made innocent comments and that it is the Cheney family reaction that was inappropriate."

Despite everybody being offended on her behalf, I find it puzzling that Ms. Cheney hasn't seen fit to comment publicly on the case. Don't you?

I'm not sure what Kerry was thinking, I think maybe he was playing to his base, showing he had an understanding of an issue that W dismissed with a pathetic "I dunnno". I don't think he was trying to gross out the Religious Rightwing as some people do, if anything he wanted to point out that it takes chutzpah to favor a pro-bigotry constitutional ammendment that would so directly hurt a friend's daughter. Even if W's support of the FMA was only for show because he knew it wouldn't pass, it's still despicable, far worse than what Kerry or Edwards said.

Given the amount of coverage about the US election one would think that Europeans would have a better understanding of our politcal system than they do.

Jonathan,

What bothers me most about all of this and about Limbaugh is the tactics used.

A perfect example is the way in which criticism of American foreign policy is being caricatured as some kind of new anti- semitism. What these people will not accept is that the criticism is may be perfectely valid and does necessarily imply any implicit "anti- Americanism". This argument is used simply to head of the criticism and prevent a rational debate about the issues by reducing the discussion to the lowest level possible. ie. insults and name calling. The trouble is it is very effective in deflecting attention from embarrasing criticism -- we end up talking about the origins of anti-Americanism instead of American foreign policy. Bait and Switch I think it is called.

This sort of thing is bully boy aggression at its very worse.

Another example from the other day: I was accused of being in favour of compulsory sterilisation of unintelligent people because I had criticised the propagandist manipulation of the working classes by Rupert Murdoch's media! Again that headed off any discussion of the role of Rupert Murdoch's News International Corporation.

Another all too common technique is The Big Lie. I just read on another forum a response to the uncomfortable truth of McCarthyism in the US which was to baldly state conformism has never been an a problem in the US. In other words the precise opposite of the truth is presented as if it were self evident fact. When the lie is challenged the response is to appeal to ridicule to defend the position. ie. You must be a fool to argue against the self evident truth that the US is a bastion of individual freedom and could never ever be associated with such conformism. The idea is too stupid (whacko) to discuss and McCarthyism along with a good deal else disappears in a puff of smoke.

And I don't think there is any moral equivalence here. These kind of tactics are used to a much greater degree by the right especially in America. I often have arguments with left wingers on a whole range of issues but they do not tend to resort to these tactics. Some do admittedly but they are very much in a minority. On the other hand it is almost the exception to meet a right winger who does not use these means to block off meaning from developing in a discussion.

The argument (correctly IMO) is often used that you cannot compare morally those who deliberately target a civilian populaton for political gain with those who "play fair" and only target those actively engaged in violence. By the same token you cannot compare morally those who deliberately use aggressive, pre-meditated deceit to win poltical arguments with those who simply presend biased or partisan opionions. The former are trying to prevent any meaning or understanding from emerging the latter are only trying to win you over to a biased point of view. The former are engaging in initimidation the latter in pursuasion.

OBL is only *kind of* a threat. *Kind of* because really personally he is not a threat, his organization is, right? That's obvious I think. I would like to see him caught but it is not really critical to the anti-terror effort

Well put. OBL is kind like a figure head. Killing or capturing one man is meaningless in the war on Terror, since Al-Qaeda is not even an organization, let alone a top down hierarchy. It's a loose association of like minded individuals who use religion as a hook to get their homicide bombers. All the cells have autonomy, and already have their orders.

pro-bigotry constitutional ammendment that would so directly hurt a friend's daughter

It's not pro-bigotry. Marriage is not a civil rights issue (even Dean said that). It's a mechanism by which society can increase the odds of productive, well adjusted citizens.

If I assert that I'm against polygamy, does that mean I'm bigoted against old fashioned mormans and islamics?

If there was homosexual marriage, what logic would there be against allowing polygamy(hetero), polygamy(homo), polygamy(bisexual), unigamy, human-animal marriage, brother-sister, etc.

Last post was me.

pro-bigotry constitutional ammendment that would so directly hurt a friend's daughter

"It's not pro-bigotry. Marriage is not a civil rights issue (even Dean said that). It's a mechanism by which society can increase the odds of productive, well adjusted citizens."

I think it is a civil rights issue (were anti-miscegnegation laws not a civil rights issue?) Or it is by the government and other institutions giving goodies to married folks that non-married couples are denied.
Believe it or not, I'm not all that radical, I think the Civil Unions thing is a fine transitional thing till people see the sky doesn't fall (and since so many freak out at the word 'marriage for those not like themselves).

And do you think that being against marriage equality will increase the odds of productive, well adjusted citizens? On what grounds?

"If I assert that I'm against polygamy, does that mean I'm bigoted against old fashioned mormans and islamics?"

Well I have no theoretical bias against polygamy if that's what all concerned want, just a practical bias against polygamy in certain situations (such as a way of getting around immigration laws, which I could see happening in some countries if allowed).

"If there was homosexual marriage, what logic would there be against allowing polygamy(hetero), polygamy(homo), polygamy(bisexual), unigamy, human-animal marriage, brother-sister, etc."

unigamy????
human-animal marriage can be ruled out on consentual grounds, no non-human can give consent.
Even if sibling marriage were possible, I can't much imagine anyone really wanting to do that. Those raised together do not want to marry each other (also found in old Israeli kibbutzim where non-siblings raised together had no adult sexual interest in each other).

With polygamy, I think it comes down to letting the market of ideas decide, having two people married is often difficult enough, adding more to the equation is going to just be more bother than it's worth 99.99 % of the time (unless the spouses don't share living space, in which case it's probably a lot more feasible). In any case, I perceive no use for the FMA whatsoever.

>> Well I have no theoretical bias against polygamy if that's what all concerned want, just a practical bias against polygamy

The same with me and homosexual marriage. The only proper purpose of marriage is to raise children, and many studies have shown that this is best done in a traditional family setting.

Yea, 3% are homosexual, but 1% of people are asexual (with no sexual attractions whatsoever). If it's a civil rights issue, then why should these people be denied the wonderful benefits of being married. They were born that way, they are just being who they are. And you certainly can't deny polygamists their civil rights. You'll have the old fashioned ones, one husband with multiple wives, and the new type, with multiple husbands and wives, both homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual. Otherwise, you'd be denying bisexuals their civil rights.

As for animals, consent isn't required for marriage, since animals are property. It's a civil rights issue, right? Folks have left their inheritance to their cat.

And don't forget work-aholics. They are practically married to their jobs anyways, why not make it official?

A whole village can get married. After all, it takes a village...

I think European governments use Anti-Americanism to pull the EU together. I think the US does the reverse t0 pull the US together. It is a shame on both sides. The world does better when both sides of the Atlantic work together. I don't think that we will see this happen anytime soon.

I think European governments use Anti-Americanism to pull the EU together.

Sounds possible, but I'm sure it's deeper than that.

I think the US does the reverse t0 pull the US together

Absolutely not. The US doesn't need to be pulled together in that way. Most americans don't know about euro-anti-americanism (don't really care), and if they are confronted with it, are shocked. The rich are more aware of it, because they travel. Americans are independent and self-confident enough not to let what other people think about them affect their self esteem.

The american attitude was stated by Bush: We would prefer that people like us, but we're sure not going to ask anyone for permission to defend ourselves.

This may be the near the end of the US in the UN. Except for the korean war, which was organized by the norwegian Trygve Lie, it has never really done much.

The US should pull out of the UN, and form the United Free Nations (UFN). To enter, you have meet an objective standard for freedom and human rights. The United Nations for terrorists and dictators will need to relocate. I would suggest Paris.

Gunnar, try to find some arguments against marriage equality that are grounded in reality and not your imagination.

I will say if the only purpose of marriage is to raise kids then childless or sterile people should absolutely not be allowed to marry (and producing children should be a prerequisite).

Gunnar, try to find some arguments against marriage equality that are grounded in reality and not your imagination.

Can't think of anything wrong with my logic, so ad-hominem, eh? Ok, you lose.

I will say if the only purpose of marriage is to raise kids then childless or sterile people should absolutely not be allowed to marry (and producing children should be a prerequisite).

Theoretically, I would agree, but no one can know that beforehand. That's why marriages without children can be annulled. However, a childless marriage between one man and one woman does not undermine the meaning of the word marriage.

Norway and Sweden implemented gay marriage, and this caused the destruction of marriage and thus the family. Massive Bigotry against children.

A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

And in case anyone doubts it, there are numerous studies that show that out-of-wedlock children have all sorts of problems.

There are numerous reasons for the economic defeat of Europe, but this one is significant. Strong families lead to, among other good things, a strong economy, more achievement, and more confidence.

So, do whatever you want europeans, but face the consequences. Don't expect americans to stop dreaming and achieving great things, just so you don't feel bad, and just so you won't call them names when they visit.

Well I have no theoretical bias against polygamy if that's what all concerned want

Ahh HAA! I almost missed this one.

So, you believe in democracy after all? If so, you won't mind a vote on gay marriage, right?

ROFL

You guys are killing me. I can't work and type on this blog, especially since you keep introducing new issues. :)

...but I'll gve it a shot.

Michael,

I think I already explained that I do not take any politician's speech at face value. I am not sure on what you base your contention that Bush's administration has acted counter to what they have publically advised. Examples would be good but please don't bury me in sophistry; meaningful divergence would be good discussion though. I read a lot but not everything.

I don't think you understood my point about Monica vs. out of context comment. Bill lied actively, repeatedly, and for the sole purpose of covering up an activity that he knew was wrong. He didn't "fib", stretch the truth, elaborate on a point, etc. He intended to deceive and worked hard at it.

Bush elaborated on a point in exactly the same way that I have in coffee shop conversation. The following is example only:
a) "We are going after OBL; that's why we have troops overseas"
b) "You are going after OBL? Why are troops in Kabul, OBL is in the North East".
a) "Because al Qaeda/the Taliban is the real target and they are spread throughout the country/world"
b) "YOU LIAR, you said we were going after OBL"
a) "Listen nitwit, OBL is a figurehead of some importance but he is not a trigger-puller or the sole source of the problem so we are working to bring down the entire organization."
b) "LIAR LIAR you said OBL"
a) "Double espresso please."

Bill lied actively, repeatedly, and for the sole purpose of covering up an activity that he knew was wrong.

I don't believe you can compare Clinton's actions with Bush's.

Clinton's deliberate deception should have been enough to have him impeached -- even if retrospectively and his name forever discredited.

Bush on the other took his country to war for the wrong reasons and mislead his country and the world in order to garner support.

That IMO is both grounds for impeachment and a very long jail sentence.

As Noam Chomsky pointed out some months ago every post war US president including Carter would be hanged according to the standards of justice used under the Nuremberg Trials.

Michael, follow on re all of the war items you threw in.

I do not know where you were going with the "shut down Kabul" comment so I'll ignore it for now.

We are grateful for the assistance of our allies in Afghanistan and Bush has been far from cavalier about it. Kerry on the other hand, has insulted virtually all of the members of the coalition over the last few months. If concern for the allies emotional state is a concern of yours then you are directing your anger towards the wrong man.

Bush burned few bridges but he has been bold enough to point out the bridges that had already fallen into the river years ago...to carry your metaphor one step too far. The rest of your war paragraph is a stunningly misinformed hash of conspiracy theory directly contradicted by sad reality. We can revisit that in great detail later but it's not relevant to this discussion.

Ms. Cheney was not expected to respond. She was the object of the attack, not the subject (aside from which it's hardly insulting to call a lesbian a lesbian). Lynn Cheney did respond to Kerry's unstatesmanlike conduct. Kerry has relearned that using an opponents child as a political weapon is a losing strategy.

I do not support the "marriage amendment", I think it was a bad idea myself, but if Kerry wanted to use that to his benefit then he chose a poor way to do so.

More later; dinner and drinks now.

Jonathan, U.S.--

I admire your attempts to bring logic and common sense to the table. Please keep trying.

Gunnar :
"There are numerous reasons for the economic defeat of Europe, but this one is significant. Strong families lead to, among other good things, a strong economy, more achievement, and more confidence.

So, do whatever you want europeans, but face the consequences. Don't expect americans to stop dreaming and achieving great things, just so you don't feel bad, and just so you won't call them names when they visit."

This is the second time you mention the apperant "economic defeat" of Europe. Since economics is such a broad field, it would be hepful if you could provide some numbers. As far as I know, several European countries rank above the US on key economic indicators (GDP per capita, poverty indexes etc).

As for the moral decline, divorce is rarer and less readily available in Europe, the percentage of births to unmarried mothers is lower in europe and the abortion rate is lower.This is for Europe as a whole.(Acording to European and US statistics)

And, I don't know where to put this one, economy or moral, but the US has a higher degree of corruption than do several of the European countries, at least the western ones.(According to Transparency International, 2002)

And on a final note, to obey by rule 3 : The election do get far too much coverage over here.

Chister

You're right, "economic defeat" is way too overstated. My impression came from reading many articles about europe's high unemployment, and other problems, for example,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2983802.stm

As I add up the different euro countries, The actual GDP of the US and Europe are both about 10.5 trillion, although Europe has more people.

Here is an interesting statistic for economic importance defined as GDP x PerCapita Income

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/eco_eco_imp&int=300

1. United States 197.9
2. Japan 57.1
3. Germany 26.0
4. United Kingdom 22.2
5. Italy 20.4
6. France 20.2

>> As for the moral decline, divorce is rarer and less readily available in Europe, the percentage of births to unmarried mothers is lower in europe and the abortion rate is lower.This is for Europe as a whole.(Acording to European and US statistics)

The article I linked to showed that at least for scandinavian countries, divorce statistics are now meaningless, since people aren't getting married.

For out-of-wedlock births and abortion, which "statistics" are you referring to? And "lower" than what? It's not clear. Abortion in the US is a horrible moral stain.

Even if correct, I would wonder whether eastern Europe is making western europe look good. Just a speculation.

However, I would like nothing better than to be wrong about this, and the economic stats, since I love Europe.

The corruption index is actually a measure of perceptions, but still, I agree with the countries rated higher than the US. As the web site explains, the ranking is less important, while the score is more meaningful.

Gunnar: Norway and Sweden implemented gay marriage, and this caused the destruction of marriage and thus the family. Massive Bigotry against children.

This is not true. I wrote about Stanley Kurtz's abuse of statistics earlier. He has fundamentally misunderstood Norwegian society, he confuses causation and correlation, etc.

Be against gay marriage in your own country, by all means. But don't drag phony statistics from my country into it.

A general comment on anti-Americanism:

Anti-Americanism might mean different things to different people but having said that we can still say a number of things:

First that criticising American foreign policy is not anti-Americanism. It is critical of the actions and agenda of an elite leadership within American society but it is not a prejudiced view of American society as a whole that condemns all Americans.

Second alleged anti-Americanism is an attempt to reduce criticism of American foreign policy to just that; a prejudiced an bigoted view of American society as a whole.

Third this effectively deflects attention from the substance of the criticism itself.

Fourth that the American people are having the facts surrounding the actions of their leaders suppressed and distorted such that they are not in a position to form rational opinions about them. The anti-Americanism myth is an example of that.

This whole debate hinges around whether so called anti-Americanism is a conclusion based on observed facts and events or a prejudice that has been formed independently of those facts and events. The fact that anti-Americanism is used as an argument in response to drawing attention to those facts and events strongly suggests that it is being used to distract attention from them. ie. That it is a propagandist ploy.

Interesting article by highly respected British journalist Max Hastings on concerns in the UK about the US presidential election. Don't be fooled into thinking what is happening is about anti-Americanism and hatred. If the word hate is going to be used at all it is directed at one person George W Bush (and his team presumably).

But really this is about a massive global concern that Georgw W Bush is a real threat to world stability and peace. That view did not arise out of prejudice or misrepresentation of the facts but out of the facts and the events themselves.

Uncomfortable though it may be, ordinary Americans should have the courage to recognise it and take responsible actions to correct the situation.

We want to see the back of Bush

Most Britons see George W. Bush as brash, ignorant and recklessly simplistic, says Max Hastings; but they should not believe that all will be well if John F. Kerry replaces him 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7118.htm

Reading through some of the posts above a pretty high degree of American prejudice towards Europe seems to be evident: the use of highly emotive judgmental language, the distortion of facts, the biased presentation of issues and so on.

Could "anti-Americanism" be more a red herring in the service of American prejudice than anything else?

"On one hand politics in Sweden and Denmark, the EU and Russia, is more important to us than which of two centrist candidates win in the US. Foreign news coverage should reflect that."

Maybe in Norway John Kerry is a centrist but he is far from being a centrist in the US. I have learned through observing this campaign that what John Kerry says in terms of centrism is simply political maneuvering. He is a cold calculating wealthy socialist closer to the Soros mold in ideology than American populism.

He has fundamentally misunderstood Norwegian society, he confuses causation and correlation, etc.

Actually, I don't think he did. However, I did, so it's my mistake. He points out that gay marriage further separates the idea of marriage and children, which is indisputable. So, you're right, it's not the main cause, but it certainly helps to some extent.

I'm sure the numbers are correct: Less marriage, more children out of marriage.

This is a huge problem. It can't be argued that gay marriage doesn't make the problem worse. It can be argued that it's not the only cause.

Opposition to homosexuality is a religious issue. It should be framed in religious terms, not with pseudo-scientific sociology.

This isn't true. I've provided arguments in this thread from a non-religious point of view why marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman. I have no problem with civil unions, with most of the benefits normally associated with marriage, short of adoption.

But really this is about a massive global concern that Georgw W Bush is a real threat to world stability and peace

Stop telling us what smart people think, and try presenting any evidence or reasoning to support the proposition that fighting a war on terrorism will threaten world peace and stability.

Since Terrorism and the states that sponsor terrorism are the major destabilizing force in the world, how can removing it or lessening it destabilize things further?

Gunnar,

try presenting any evidence or reasoning to support the proposition that fighting a war on terrorism will threaten world peace and stability.

Stop erecting strawmen and instead ask sensible questions if you want a response.

Since you refuse to present any evidence or reasoning to support the proposition that fighting a war on terrorism will threaten world peace and stability, I'm forced to conclude:

1) you are pro-terror

or

2) you are anti-democracy

Gunnar,

That kind of intimidation went out with McCarthy.

And by the way how can you claim that America is the great champion of freedom and democracy when you yourself resort to this kind of subterfuge. Isn't it an example of exactly what you claim to be fighting against?

What makes this election especially tiresome is the sense of dèja-vu.

The media paint Bush exactly like they painted Ronald Reagan: "He hates the poor, he's so dumb, the world hates him, he's a reckless cowboy who will start World War III, he's a tool of the Evil Rich..." and so on.

So I take it as a principle: when the media cries like a Greek chorus, "Worst - President - Ever!"... then said President must be doing something right. If the media started to praise him, I'd get very suspicious...

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

A.R.Yngve,

If the media are so useless and untrustworthy (which they are of course) why do you let them determine your opinion?

Why not forget about the mass media completely and look at known facts, actual events and a wide range of informed opinion voiced in the fringe media, especially on the net?

So I take it as a principle: when the media cries like a Greek chorus, "Worst - President - Ever!"... then said President must be doing something right. If the media started to praise him, I'd get very suspicious...

Right on!

If this was a democratic president doing exactly the same thing, they would be praising him as the best president since George Washington. I mean, Clinton didn't even bother with the UN for Kosovo.

If this was a democratic president doing exactly the same thing, they would be praising him as the best president since George Washington.

Who would "they" be Gunnar.

Lets be frank here, I don't think you could find a single poster on this thread that would fall into that category

So its yet another straw man, Gunnar.

The big problem with such fallacies is that every time you use them it erodes away at whatever credibility might be attached to any serious point you might want to make.

Really they only work (in a limited way) for those who don't have any serious point to make and want to deflect attention away from the issues.

"They" is the US main stream media.

Lets be frank here, I don't think you could find a single poster on this thread that would fall into that category

Except for you. It's not even hypothetical, since what has Bush done in foreign policy, that Clinton hasn't. And don't give me anything related to arrogance, be specific with actions. You have a knack for not addressing any substantive argument. You just attack the poster.

If you want to prove otherwise, try responding to:

present any evidence or reasoning to support the proposition that fighting a war on terrorism will threaten world peace and stability

Scott: [Bush's] mass appeal lies in the very fact that he is incompetent, stupid, insenstitive, arrogant, crass and believes he is the new messiah. That is the whole point of Rove's strategy -- to appeal to the section of the US electorate that will identify with that type of person. They want someone to back up their prejudices and Bush does that.

Anti-Americanism has deeper roots and a longer history than mere Bush hatred. I think at its base it is a fear and hatred of the rabble. It covers the "low" culture of the masses- American culture- and what is seen as its base commercial aspirations- American corporations. Both of these reject and undermine older heirarchies. As does the American military- the masses with weapons of mass destruction.

American rationalism, though it is informed by certain articles of faith, nevertheless is a rejection of romanticism. This romanticism, taking one form or another and reinventing itself after everly loss, continuously battles against rationalism.

We see it in EU notions of soft power defeating hard power, in the idea of a global Islamic caliphate challenging Western decadence, in the fight against WalMart in favor of mom and pop shops, in the Aryan volk fighting against a nation of shopkeepers, in the anti-globalists' fight to "protect" indigenous cultures, and in the dicatorship of the proletariat as represented by the Bolsheviks.

I'm not saying that all of these fights are of the same scale or of the same degree. But all of them represent romantic notions of utopia railing against the gritty here-and-now of the masses, best represented by America.

America is crass, commercial, and unsophisticated. Elites, both naturally occuring and newly invented, are often undermined by it. This is the essence of anti-Americanism. Essentially, the American Revolution rolls on. That there's a backlash isn't surprising.

Bjørn: I'm sure the numbers are correct: Less marriage, more children out of marriage.

Bjørn: Opposition to homosexuality [marriage] is a religious issue. It should be framed in religious terms, not with pseudo-scientific sociology.

What is now needed in countries with very low birthrates is to help families and individuals choose the numbers of their children by presenting them with the realistic economic consequences of those choices. In turn, those will be set by tax incentives and pension policies determined democratically and in the long-term interests of society. ... Unless it can face up to and reverse its neglect of parenting, Europe's economic future is grim, regardless of savings levels or pension systems.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/22/news/edbow.html

Bjørn, this is a profound, compelling and non-religious argument for supporting marriage. At this rate, Italy will lose half of it's population in 50 years. GDP will be cut in half. Russia has gone as far as offering a free house for couples who decide to pro-create. I couldn't help but notice on my last visit to Norway that many places seem empty. Maryland has 5 million people, more than Norway.

It's a huge problem. It simply cannot be argued that gay marriage doesn't make the problem worse. To survive, society needs to strongly encourage marriage between one man and one woman, and strongly encourage children.

The last post was me.

America is crass, commercial, and unsophisticated. Elites

Should say: America is perceived as crass, commercial, and unsophisticated by Elites

according to a recent Swedish study, children who are raised in households with only one parent are more likely to suffer health problems, such as mental illness and suicide risk, than children raised by two parents.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3390

Still think this is a religious issue?

That there's a backlash isn't surprising.

Are you serious, when you say that?

You started your post with:

Anti-Americanism has deeper roots and a longer history than mere Bush hatred.

How can you square your first sentence with your last. Are they not totally contradictory?

Bjorn, I havn't been here in awhile (to your blog), but you are way off-the-mark in many way that you didn't seem to be back a couple of years (or even one year). You should just know that your impressions of Americans and American politics and this current election are not sharp. I could go through a list, but... I'll just leave it at that.

By the way: the devil won't win this round. Bush will win re-election. (And the swiftboat vets are very welcome and refreshing truthtellers taking on a very slimy, dishonest fellow...)

I think that the more irrational and hard the American foreign policy gets, then more people like me (who used to defend America in all regards) (and perhaps Bjørn) will start to see that there is something wrong. Unless US foreign policy makers starts to think before they act, they will just face more and more resistance from the world.

"I think that the more irrational and hard the American foreign policy gets, then more people like me (who used to defend America in all regards) (and perhaps Bjørn) will start to see that there is something wrong. Unless US foreign policy makers starts to think before they act, they will just face more and more resistance from the world" - Allan - Melbourne.

I think that the more terrorist attacks we see, the more people they kill, the more dirty means they apply - the more will American politics make perfect sense to most except jihadists and hard core left wingers.

Lest anyone should be under the illusion that the antipathy towards Bush and the fear that he represents a very real threat to democracy and world peace is a minority or extreme left wing view, here is a little snip from an article I received by email today:

"SANTA BARBARA, CA -- October 25 -- Walter Cronkite, selected by the American people in the mid 1990s as the most trusted man in America, has called the upcoming presidential election the "most important since the Civil War." Cronkite, who was in Santa Barbara on October 23rd to receive the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's 2004 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, stated that the November presidential election provides an opportunity to reverse the Bush administration's dangerous
doctrine of preemptive war, a doctrine that he believes is setting the wrong example for countries throughout the world."

As I said in an earlier post: The rest of the world, correctly IMO, sees this election as one of the most critical break points in history. They watch on realising its global significance.

This is the second time you mention the apperant "economic defeat" of Europe. Since economics is such a broad field, it would be hepful if you could provide some numbers.

Answer:

In 1973, per-capita income for the United States was about 26 percent higher than that of Germany. After three decades of slower growth in Germany, the gap had widened to 37 percent. The numbers for France are similar.

Per-capita income of Germany and France is about the same as that of our least-wealthy state, Mississippi. A recent study by Edward Prescott of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis - and this year's co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics - concludes that Europe's higher taxes account for almost all the difference in labor force participation rates between Europe and the United States. As taxes have risen over the past three decades, European workers have responded by working less.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p25s01-cogn.html

New poster. Interesting site, Bjorn.

Allan wrote:

"I think that the more irrational and hard the American foreign policy gets, then more people like me (who used to defend America in all regards) (and perhaps Bjørn) will start to see that there is something wrong. Unless US foreign policy makers starts to think before they act, they will just face more and more resistance from the world."

The most notable aspects of Bush's foreign policy have been the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. You're welcome, of course, to your opinion that either or both of these wars were misconcieved but it seems worth pointing out that Iraqis and Afghans themsleves do not concur with your assessment - at least to judge from poll results. And I would have to think that their collective judgement is going to count for more than foreigners' when history renders a verdict many years hence.

"The most notable aspects of Bush's foreign policy have been the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. You're welcome, of course, to your opinion that either or both of these wars were misconcieved but it seems worth pointing out that Iraqis and Afghans themsleves do not concur with your assessment - at least to judge from poll results. And I would have to think that their collective judgement is going to count for more than foreigners' when history renders a verdict many years hence."

Well, Iraq is not doing to well, and actually most of the fighting against the coalition forces in Iraq is done by Iraqees themselves, and not foreign insurgents as we have heard earlier.
Therefore, there seems to be a strong resistance to the invasion. Therefore I cannot agree with your conclusion that most Iraqees 'does not concur' with my assessment.
UN and NATO played a large part in Afghanistan, as such it has more credibility than the Iraq invasion. Things also seem to go slightly better there than Iraq.

T.Hansen:
"I think that the more terrorist attacks we see, the more people they kill, the more dirty means they apply - the more will American politics make perfect sense to most except jihadists and hard core left wingers"

Its clear tendencies that most people, except in the US, resist the invasion of Iraq. It does not matter whether you are left-winger or not. I can only take the example of myself, because I am certainly not a left-winger. I rather believe in more capitalistic economic system. Does that make me a jihadist then? Can I be, when I'm not a muslim and dont support terrorism?

Agreed, parts of Iraq are a mess. But even a partial mess can be considered an improvement over the orderly nationwide gulag where 5,000 Iraqis a month were dying of privation (UN figure) and an undisclosed number were languishing or expiring in Saddam's jails.

Here are some of the findings of the latest poll conducted in Iraq (as reported in WaPo):

"In positive news for the administration, the poll found that 85 percent of Iraqis want to vote in the January election. Despite the current strife, about two-thirds of Iraqis do not believe civil war is imminent, the poll found. Asked if their households had been hurt by violence, injuries, death or monetary loss over the past year, only 22 percent of those questioned said yes -- a figure that surprised pollsters and U.S. officials."

Religious Leaders Ahead in Iraq Poll:
U.S.-Supported Government Losing Ground
By Robin Wright
Washington Post
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52674-2004Oct21?language=printer

There is certainly strong resistance from some (mostly Sunni) quarters. But estimates are that they only number around 25,000. Even if we were to assume that the actual number is many times that, it's still only a tiny fraction of Iraq's 26 million inhabitants.

You are right to point out that government-aligned Iraqis are doing much of the fighting and, unfortunately, dying in Iraq today. Polls also show that, whatever their feelings about the coalition forces, the vast majority of Iraqis oppose the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi security forces and civilians.

You say:

"Therefore I cannot agree with your conclusion that most Iraqees 'does not concur' with my assessment."

Iraqis themselves have been polled on variations of this question many times. Here's the latest of which I am aware:

"Over 51% of Iraqis polled felt that their country is headed in 'the right direction,' up slightly from IRI's May/June poll. More telling, the number who feel that things are heading in 'the wrong direction' has dropped from 39% to 31% over the same time period."

http://www.iri.org/09-07-04-IraqPoll.asp

I'd be happy to produce other poll results conducted by various polling firms dating back to shortly after the invasion if you still have doubts.

"UN and NATO played a large part in Afghanistan"

The UN and NATO have played significant roles in Afghanistan but don't kid yourself about who has done the heavy lifting and spending. Karzai and NATO have been begging the EU to commit more troops and equipment for over a year but to no avail. Even with it's hands full in Iraq the US has more than twice the troops as the rest of the NATO countries combined in country and they're stationed out in the dangerous parts of the country while the European peacekeepers are largely clustered Kabul.

Allan - I know full well you don´t have to be a left winger to be against this war - Pat Buchanan and Arnaud de Borchgrave can hardly be descriped as either left wing or thrilled with fundamentalist Islam.

Osama´s global fanclub by latter is recomméndable reading btw.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/6/21831.shtml

Like I said in an other post I was against this war myself.

But if something which resembles a democracy can be established in Iraq - I think most Iraqis will think in the end it has all been worth it - after all their prospect before the invasion was to to be perpetual under the foot of the "Hussein dynasty" Uday ready to take over after is father.

When the US had liberated Iraq the large majority was happy to get rid of Saddam - there has always been a default anti US attitude in middle east atleast for decades - Wahhabism and Khomenei did their hate monging job pretty good adding the various jihad groups.
If US leave Iraq to let it sail in it´s trouble US will be hated for that. If they stay US will hated for it.
People in Iraq is tired of the insurgents for good reasons they kill up to 1000 people each month there. Harass the locals where they are in control.
Some see the US presence as the majot source of course it plays it´s part. But my bet is if coalition left in that powervaccum it would be clear that it´s not the presence of the US that is the problem. It´s those that don´t want Iraq to become a democracy that is.
As Todd mentioned The iraqis still think it´s heading in the right direction. I doubt they wanna swap the current situation with one under Hussein.

My only worry is that there won´t eventually be a democracy or it will only be nominal due to a armed black clad "moral majority" of fundamentalist muslims harassing ordinary Iraqis in the streets, universities etc.

Todd:
"Karzai and NATO have been begging the EU to commit more troops and equipment for over a year but to no avail. Even with it's hands full in Iraq the US has more than twice the troops as the rest of the NATO countries combined in country and they're stationed out in the dangerous parts of the country while the European peacekeepers are largely clustered Kabul"
Its not all about fighting.. We're not trying to kill all afghanis. Its about legitimacy. I think that there are less Afghanis fightin, because the attack was legitimate. That also explains why things are more quiet in Afghanistan.

"only 22 percent of those questioned said yes -- a figure that surprised pollsters and U.S. officials"
_only_ 22 percent. Thats quite alot in my mind. Its actually over 5million people, if that's according to 26 million Iraqees. 5 million people is more than the whole population of Norway.

Besides, I doubt that there are that many people who are sad that old Saddam is gone, I never claimed that. What my claim is: You cannot just do something because it sounds right in the moment. In my mind, the way you do it is equally, if not more important. I think the whole issue of Iraq could have been handled differently, and better from the beginning, sparing both life's of coalition soldiers and Iraqee civilians.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

"You are right to point out that government-aligned Iraqis are doing much of the fighting and, unfortunately, dying in Iraq today. Polls also show that, whatever their feelings about the coalition forces, the vast majority of Iraqis oppose the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi security forces and civilians"
Nope, what I pointed out was that most of the fighting, NOT on the allies side, but rather against the allies, are not by insurgents, but by Iraqees. This was actually surprising for me when I found out, because I thought that most of the resistance for the invasion was by people from neighbouring countries, and not Iraqees themselves.

"But if something which resembles a democracy can be established in Iraq - I think most Iraqis will think in the end it has all been worth it - after all their prospect before the invasion was to to be perpetual under the foot of the "Hussein dynasty" Uday ready to take over after is father"

I agree, and in my mind US should definately NOT leave Iraq as it is now. However, you know they say that it is easy to look back upon things and say that they should have been done differently. Only in this case, there were soo many that said _before_ the invasion that it should be done differently. If these advices had been considered, then perhaps things might look much better in Iraq already today.

"People in Iraq is tired of the insurgents for good reasons they kill up to 1000 people each month there. Harass the locals where they are in control"
The problem is that its not insurgents doing most of the fighting against the coalition troops, its the Iraqees themselves. What we have now is almost a civil war where Iraqees blow eachother up. One part doing it because they are being told by US, the other is because US is there at all.
I think Bush is right in trying to bring UN and NATO into Iraq now, however, it is a little late dont you think? This is things a president of the mightiest nation on earth should consider before action. At least thats what I think..

The fact that the majority of insurgents are Iraqi says nothing about what the majority of Iraqis think about the present situation. It's a non sequitir.

On the UN and NATO conferring legitimacy on US actions, it's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone thinks they do, then they do. If not, then not. Neither of those bodies is anything like impartial; there's nothing inherently legitimacy-conferring about them.

I think Afghanistan was seen as more legitimate not because of the UN or NATO, but because the US had a case for counterattack, which was much stronger than the rationale for Iraq. It was schoolyard ethics, if you will, not any pronouncement of legitimacy from an outside body.

As I Said I orginally opposed this war. Because it would obviously make us more enemies than we already have. And it would cost a lot of dead people both during war and in the long run. And I had no doubt a lot would fight us till the day we left and democracy would be a tough road, not impossible but very hard. And etc. etc. the usual stuff no WMD, No al-queda connection except Zarqawi - which is just one in many - a vicious guy no doubt though. But to be honest I think you can find more of his kind in Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan than in Iraq under Saddam.

I figured we should try a solution which with the solid and undoubted real threat of military action on the one side we should on the other side provide the offer to Saddam that against some concessions as permanent control by weapon inspectors, admittance of human rights inspectors to check upon his handling of human right issues and fining him and the elite for any found transgression, limit of military spending as 2 % GNP etc. Against those concessions we should then have lifted the sanctions cause maybe a problem with the Iraqi crisis was that lifting the sanctions was never a signal we did send to Bagdad as being possible option.

However in truth this would have been nothing but a nice little entente cordiale of diplomatic idealism in a certainly far from ideal world and would though limiting the powerspace of Saddam only postpone the real problem which was Mr. Hussein himself. Not to Forget that Saddam hussein probably would not be willing to play along with this forever and forever but a perpetual moving 300000 + troops back and forth to the region to get him back in line now and then would probably have been needed.

It´s fine to criticise the war against Iraq but in the end what should we have done instead. Look the other way ? Let him develop WMD and huge military capacity, killing his people as fitted his plans, oppressing most brutally all in his way ? let him keep supporting hamas and other terrorists and suicide bombers families ?.

Again we don´t live in a ideal world.

"The problem is that its not insurgents doing most of the fighting against the coalition troops, its the Iraqees themselves. What we have now is almost a civil war where Iraqees blow eachother up. One part doing it because they are being told by US, the other is because US is there at all."

The majority of the insurgents are Iraqis and yes some of them are probably just patriots that want to defend their country vs invasion as patriots of any country would.
The problem of this war is that´s in the twilightzone between justified and not justified. If Saddam was murdering 180000 kurds right now or had just invaded Kuwait the support would have been much higher.
But After there 1991 there was only a cease fire technically war never ended. And this war was much more about a liberation than a occupation - of course this depends on the eye of the beholder - but hand on the heart again Saddam was a problem without an ideal solution.

Which brings us to the current problem a basically no win situation, except one that is a win - win for all parts involved, democracy In Iraq.

Now as most insurgents are Iraqis and some of them are patriots is probably a fact that is now supposed to make us feel unwanted and wasting an effort and doing something wrong as goes the left wing press - the antiwar propaganda.

But Bush accused of lying and imcompetance probably nailed the problem and situation more than all when he said during first debate and I quote free from memory and incomplete notes "The enemy understands what is at stake ( In Iraq ) The ideologi of hatred stands on the verge of a gigantic defeat...They will do anything to keep Iraq from becoming a democracy"
Before Anyone start to feel sick about the blown up rhetoric, and feel confident that Bush was actually wired and told what to say by Rove. Then take a look at what´s going on in iraq and who the insurgents are.

The three most dangerous groups of insurgents in iraq are these:

1: The ex-baathists and local Wahhabists which in this cause have found together and likely have their ranks filled with patriots + foreign fighters associated primarily with the Muslim Brotherhood and baath in Syria.

2: Islamic radical local groups shia and sunni which have their ranks filled again with foreign muhajedins many trained in various camps all over the world + probably a good deal of them being veterans from other conflicts.

3: Zarqawi and other al-queda like groups and muhajedins trained in al-queda camps and the like to become experts in acts of terror and guerilla warfare they probably mostly work alone and relatively decentralized.

The biggest problem of these three groups is not only that they are against democracy at large. it´s the fact that they are well organized, works very strategially, well planned and one-pointed and they are well-trained and either could eventually succeed in subverting any democracy in Iraq

So if there ever is gonna to be democracy and relatively peace in Iraq these groups need to be defeated or atleast forced down in the ratholes to keep a lower profile from there, as well as in general become marginalized.

The foreign fighters numbers 6000-8000 thousand in various estimates noone can know for sure of-course.

The total insurgency number probably anything from 30000-50000.

Right now US troops are working on Fallujah but more of this will come especially after the election.
There are frequent reports from Fallujah about only civilian dying and there are no foreign fighters there, no insurgents and certainly no Zarqawi. Besides the fact that civilians naturally die when insurgents hide among civilians and Zarqawi may already have found another place to hide, this I have no doubt is completely propaganda close to what Comical Ali presented just believed by more and not laughed at as his was. The US have no interest in killing Iraqi civilians, they are attacking this town because there is a substantial number of insurgents there. The US troops may be receiving inaccurate information on some few targets and hitting wrong targets now and then but they are not blind and are not attacking blindly anything that moves.

Now the fight against these groups is not going to be so easy as the fight against the Sadr militsia. The Sadr militsia wasn´t well trained - well coordinated, well lead, and acted extremely inefficient it was not even good at propaganda + undisciplined, acting like bandits in Najaf. It was though fully capable of harassing the civilian population and in the long run a threat to democracy.

This is gonna be more dirty but it has to be done - the fight against the big three of anti -democracy in iraq.

>I think Afghanistan was seen as more legitimate not because of the UN or NATO, but because the US had a case for counterattack, which was much stronger than the rationale for Iraq.

Right, that was the perception. The Clinton administration reinforced the pattern set by many parties, especially Israel: When you're hit, just hit back. It's kind of a simplistic "form over substance" approach to life. The Clinton administration also managed to change to traditional thinking about terrorism: that it's only dangerous when sponsored by states. The momentum of the US govt, started by the Clinton admin was to support the myth that Osama was the center of the terrorist world, and that he was so personally wealthy, that he was funding this world wide terror network, all by himself.

And if Gore had been in office, he would have taken care of the taliban, and declared victory. But Gore wasn't president. Bush, following the path of conservative idealism, felt compelled to look a little further. As he did, he opened up Pandora's box. He probably wishes he had taken the easier road.

What did he find? Osama, emerged from the Sudan flat broke. Fighters were abandoning him for lack of money. Suddenly, after significant contacts with Iraq, he emerges in Afghanistan with more money than you can shake a stick at. The taliban is not his sponsor, he is their sponsor. The source: Iraq's huge oil-for-food scam. Then, the information about Salmon Pak, where Iraqi agents trained foreign terrorists to take over airplanes. And that's when they realized that the original thinking was correct: terrorists are only dangerous when they have the power of a state behind them. When they found out that Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent, they connected the dots: Iraq was complicit in the september 11 attacks.

So if all this is true, why didn't they just say that? Probably because the money and weapons had already been transferred. So, although Iraq had to be stopped from causing further mayhem, the evil genie was out of the bottle.

The situation may be even more complicated. There is a report that Russian special forces went in and removed explosives, and perhaps WMD, prior to the war. Perhaps a) there is cooporation between Putin and Bush, or b) the cold war is still going on or c) the US really doesn't know what Russia, the master chess player, is up to.

Allan:

"It's not all about fighting.. We're not trying to kill all afghanis."

Strawman. Obviously, it's not "all about fighting" and your suggestion that the Americans seek to kill all Afghans is both inane and offensive. Troops and equipment are needed to establish security throughout the country - a prerequisite for holding elections; boosting economic activity; and dispensing humanitarian aid.

"Its about legitimacy."

It's about legitimacy *and* power. Legitimacy alone won't get you anywhere in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I think that there are less Afghanis fightin, because the attack was legitimate."

I don't doubt it.

"That also explains why things are more quiet in Afghanistan."

I think that's but a partial explanation.

"only_ 22 percent. Thats quite alot in my mind."

Yes, it's a significant minority. Many of them are no doubt Sunnis and former Bathists who benefitted from Saddam's munificence. They are upset that they've lost their position in Iraq's pecking order and the perquisites that attended to it.

Still, I think it's highly significant that the vast majority of Iraqis claim not to have been adversely affected by the tumult of the invasion and its aftermath, don't you? That's certainly not the impression one gets from the press' fixation on the latest beheading or suicide bombing.

"Besides, I doubt that there are that many people who are sad that old Saddam is gone, I never claimed that."

Again, if the polls are to be believed, there are hardly any who lament Saddam's passing; most think regime change has been worth the difficulties of the war and occupation; and most are optimistic about the future.

I don't recall having suggested that you had said otherwise. Rather, I have used the poll results to dispute your contention that the war has been a mistake.

"What my claim is: You cannot just do something because it sounds right in the moment. In my mind, the way you do it is equally, if not more important.

"I think the whole issue of Iraq could have been handled differently"

In fact it was - for twelve years. All the while large numbers of Iraqis, predominantly children, were dying of privation; Saddam was getting rich on smuggling and kickbacks from the UN's oil-for-food program; and the UN's inspectors had been ejected from the country with no prospect for getting back in.

"and better from the beginning, sparing both life's of coalition soldiers and Iraqee civilians."

Yes, perhaps if the French and Russians had been serious about backing up UNSC resolution 1441 with a credible threat of force, Saddam might have been moved to cooperate fully with the UNMOVIC inspectors. But that still would have left the Iraqis to the depredations of the Hussein family. We wouldn't now be talking about eatablishing a government in Iraq that operated with the consent of the governed. And once Saddam received his clean bill of health from Blix the sanctions would have likely have been removed and he would have been free to reconstitute his illicit weapons programs.

"The path to hell is paved with good intentions."

Right, like believing that there was a peaceful, diplomatic approach that would have verifiably defanged Iraq and brought an end to the depredations of Saddam's regime.

"Nope, what I pointed out was that most of the fighting, NOT on the allies side, but rather against the allies, are not by insurgents, but by Iraqees."

I haven't disputed that most of the insurgents are Iraqis. I'm not using the word "insurgent" as a synonym for "foreign jihadi".

Certainly, though, the consensus of both the coalition forces and Iraqis is be that it is foreign jihadis who are behind most of the beheadings and bombings of civilian targets. Their have been a number of reports in the press of late indicating that native Iraqi insurgents are opposed to many of the methods and hyper-religiousity of the foreign insurgents.

Jeebuz ... I'm a little late to the party :-)

Just to get back to basics. A journalist my self, working for a major regional danish paper, all I can say is this: The US election hasn't got nearly the attention it deserves in my own paper.

Perhaps this isn't the most important election in the US ever, but honestly and to put it quite frankly, from a danish viewpoint: Screw norwegian and swedish politics for the moment being and divert all energy to the US election.

Why?

The US dollar is in a free fall. Chances are it'll continue falling if Bush is reelected; Bush 43's fiscal policy, running a structural deficit in the vicinity of 500 billion dollars a year isn't exactly inspiring confidence in the market. A free falling dollar is certainly NO GOOD for anyone.

Someone said that traditionally the Dems are the spenders and the Repubs are the savers - traditionally, but for Heavens sake, look at the facts. Bush is spending like there is no tomorrow - and someone's going to have to pay the bill. Yeah yeah yeah, I know shrillbog.blogspot.com (a hint to the site's popularity might be the fact that the typo shrillblog.blogpsot.com produces an entirely different result :-) ) isn't your favorite non-partisan source-to-end-all-sources, but go take a look. It's not like the fiscal conservatives in the US and abroad all endorse Bush.

Regarding the WoT. In Iraq a president Kerry would be tied with both hands behind his back. I can't see there is a lot he can do that will differ a whole lot from Bush's options. Except maybe the traditional hawk-vs-dove thing: Conventional wisdom has is that a "dove" has a better shot at doing "hawkish" things than an actual hawk has - simply because no one can accuse the dove of doing it for pure political gain, but will be seen as doing it because it simply has to be done (the opposite of course being true - but at this point I can't se a lot of dovish things waiting to be done in Iraq. Either we quit all along and pack up and go home in a near future (not likely, much less to be hoped for) or enough troops are committed to actually get the job done, pronto!)

As for the rest of the WoT: I agree with Kerry (perhaps Bush does too, he did say so once) when arguing that the WoT basically can't be won as in "the enemy capitulates and we can all go home and contimue our lives, as in WW i + II".

The "boiling it down to a nuisance" strategy should be seen in the same light - terrirism will never go away, lest we see the light of the day when no man has to envy his neighbour. And I doubt that's going to happen.

Besides - some one ( was that my fellow citizen Hansen?) said this:

"Well put. OBL is kind like a figure head. Killing or capturing one man is meaningless in the war on Terror, since Al-Qaeda is not even an organization, let alone a top down hierarchy. It's a loose association of like minded individuals who use religion as a hook to get their homicide bombers. All the cells have autonomy, and already have their orders."

And this exactly proves Kerry's point: It doesn't make sense to wage wars against nation states in an attempt to fight the WoT.

I don't know if Bush and his administration is poised to invade Iran, Syria and North Korea. There is some evidence pointing at a wish to continue the drive into Iran and Syria (but of course that evidence might be simple bravado on behalf of some administration officials) - but what the hell would be the point? Hansen (if he was the guy) has it right: Al Qaeda might be present in these states, but taking out the state (and thus (with the experience from Iraq in recent memory) creating a failed state) sure as hell doesn't make a lot of sense (in my world ...) since Al Qaeda (probably) doesn't revolve around bin Laden anymore, much less some Middle East dictator.

My take is that Kerry will be the better man fighting the WoT, but I won't claim to hold the truth in this matter. What I do know is that saying that the difference between Kerry and Bush really isn't that big and why the hell should we care (my exageration ...) is plain bullshit.

There is a difference, and we should care. And as far as danish politics goes: Nothing going down in the danish parliament at the moment can compete with the US presidential election.

Which isn't the same as saying that the guys covering this election should be biased in doing so. But they should be covering it - big time.

Anyone being able to read danish might want to check out - their correspondent in the US is doing an outstanding job.

Regards.

(This posting is definite - I won't engage in an argument for a variety of reasons, one being I don't have the time to check this (exellent BTW blog) around the clock. If you think I'm wrong feel free to think so; I'm happy to provoke your thoughts and make you formulate a defence. If you really, really wan't to make a point, please e-mail me.)

Brian:
"The fact that the majority of insurgents are Iraqi says nothing about what the majority of Iraqis think about the present situation. It's a non sequitir"
Of course it does. When there is so much fighting being done, by the Iraqis themselves.. that shows what they mean.

"On the UN and NATO conferring legitimacy on US actions, it's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone thinks they do, then they do. If not, then not. Neither of those bodies is anything like impartial; there's nothing inherently legitimacy-conferring about them"
I did not understand this sentence.

"I think Afghanistan was seen as more legitimate not because of the UN or NATO, but because the US had a case for counterattack, which was much stronger than the rationale for Iraq. It was schoolyard ethics, if you will, not any pronouncement of legitimacy from an outside body"
YES.. and that why UN and NATO helped out in the first place, making the attack on Afghanistan more legitimate.

The deficit may be largest in US history and this has been probably the strongest weapon in Mr Kerry´s hands.

However.

The economy wasn´t startling when Bush took over.

The tax cuts are long term pay back. and economy is improving

He increased some spendings on social issues - but US could afford that.

The biggest posts sum up in increased military spendings. 30-40 %

Homeland security packet.

Invasion of Iraq.

These 3 latter are of-course big spendings and without anything but a bit of indirect positive influence returned on the economy.

WOT ( Aghanistan, )

The Iraq war, not entirely unjustified, is another silver bullet in mr Kerry´s gun. because it proved very costly among other.

A lot of people probably won´t agree with me in this but in a long term view all this spendings are actually for the good of the world.

The military spendings are not so much to conquer the world as to keep a near checkmate on nations like China, North Korea. and ofc any potential enemy of the US - we should appreciate this since ultimately it´s also about keeping the free world free. And Europe should do exactly the same though that might not please these guys completely:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

There is more to the Chirac vs Bush story than meets the eye. However we don´t live in Utopia and if the US and Europe ever get militarily weak a lot of nations around the world will see their chance to do as they please.

The threat of terror is real you can say that only few thousand people die every year due to it but that is not the issue - the issue is when a nuke or biological/chemical weapons are gonna be used by terrorists to kill ten thousands if not a 6 digit number of civilians. so striking at anywhere where they can have labs and even training camps is important.
The wars undertaken has not only been about killing terrorists, striking at facilities but also about showing what happens to nations that harbor terrorists and training facilities. That the US was determined to respond in kind.

But that being said it´s true that the war on terror cannot won as defeating "Berlin" or "Baghdad". I don´t remember writing exact the above - but I do know I have many times written something similar ( where is it from ? )
Capturing Osama Bin laden would virtually mean nothing but in symbolic sense. he is but a symbol and the capture would be a symbolic victory.
Al-queda in actual sense is just as much a concept as it is a terror organization. it´s a brand in international terror. Itself it is made up of autonomous cells, and terror cells form all the time claiming to be al-queda though they never had any contact with the original al-queda.
The manuals for these terror cells have long since been written, and the good news is they need more cells since 75 % of known al-queda has been caught or killed.
The small difference lie in whether these terrorists have received training to be more efficient in what they do or not in training camps.
The big difference lie in what they have at their disposal - a nuke or just some nitro - or how much fantasy and intelligence they have to hit hard - and if they are truely willing to do so ?

Now this is getting to extensive, I am not gonna write a book about all this, so I stick with short comments from now:

All serious talks of attacking North Korea mysteriously stopped with a think tank estimate that 1 million would die in the first day alone due to the immense NK firepower in range of Seoul - now that was before they went nuclear.
Bush may scare many but he is not that crazy.

After Aghanistan and Iraq the point has mostly been made it´s more about keeping the pressure now - as for Iran some anynomous sources close to government said some while ago that if Bush win he will work for sanctions and regime change CIA wise.

US economy being weakened not in favor of anybody well try ask Chirac about that one - I think he would love nothing more than a chance for the Euro to get the status and position $ have.
Maybe for more or less exact same reason Bush will take it more easy on the spending next term.

The economy of the world is gonna be under pressure alone from the fact that we are 1-2 years from oil demand to soar above supply not in the hands of even the US president really.

Btw where is Mr. Kerry´s clear and effective plan to change the course of the economy in any way it´s unlikely to take place under Bush as well ?

I think Kerry got one of his strongest point in that the money spend on the war in Iraq had acheived more if put into the CIA - securing WMD arsenals in Russia etc. But it´s easy to say that now.

But in the end I think Bush has learned from his mistakes ( though he won´t admit em public ) and Kerry is more likely to make his being new - So to me Bush is the better choice.

If we in the USA have learned anything from this election period, it's that neither party has a monopoly on distortion and propaganda. Our problem is to discern what the candidates actually stand for. Whatever one might think of Bush, the problem of understanding what Kerry is about is far more difficult. He's all over the place -- take your pick of the many views he's offered and hope your selection comes up a winner. Anyway... Beyond the candidates there is our established media to consider. We've seen clear examples of media distorting stories to the detriment of one candidate or the other and most of all to the detriment of the public and the world at large. Do what you can, by studying what is happening here, to avoid the same thing happening to you.

In 1969 I believed that I was then living through the most shameful period of American history.
I now see that I was wrong.

America is awash in fear. The soulless christian right is in ascendency. Prepare yourselves for a new fascism.

Please forgive the alogorical snese of this email...

It always amazes (this American). At this moment, we are in the midwest with summer tempartures of over 103 degrees and anticipating yet another tpical winter of sub zero (farenheit) tempartures while we suck down our cold beer.

While your discussion thread is long ago dead. My friends and I find it amazing how concerned you all are about something that in hindsight is not in any way influenced (relatively) by your opinions, Yet you seem to keep you inordinatley pre-occupied it all.

All said, what I would like to communicate is this..please remember our succint history. "We the people..." do no exist because of you, we did not start that way, we have not been that way,we are to date not influenced that way. Sometimes it is inspite of you or your ancestors' worst wishes. Currently we (Americans) have other global concerns. As any rider of bicycle would observe, we do not dwell upon the people on the sidewalk. We are concerned with the traffic ahead.

We (Americans subject to such paranoa) are only concerned if the traffic behind is approaching... but America as a matter of history, it is extremely unlikely that is the case as we have the tendancey always to be not just ahead, but to be accelarating away from all others in the past rather than slowing for them.

In short,take this concept with you if you are a person whom contemplates such thoughts; 1) America always winds up on the side of angels.. (see Luigi Barzzini or God). 2) The USA is 280 mil + people going in all diametrically appossed directions (until you piss them off...), 3) Europe continues to be 300+ mil people diameteracilly appose , regardless of being pissed off or otherwise,,,

Here's the clue for you as my former DI said "Do something, even if it's wrong,but do something to prove you're alive!".

So far Europe is giving of the vitals signs of a corpse despite the EU thing. The USA on the other hand is behaving quite alive for the last 230 years thank you..

MC

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1470

PapaScott: Enough with the US election, October 19, 2004 06:42 PM

Bjørn Stærk: Enough with the US election "You get a sense of how intertwined European and American culture has become, and how much of a one-way relationship it is, when you look at the amount of press coverage the US...