German Media's "America Experts" Can't Get Basic Historic Facts Straight / "Amerika-Experten" der deutschen Medien bekommen die historischen Fakten nicht hin

(Deutsche Übersetzung siehe unten)

(By Ray D.)

It seems that the German media's so-called America "experts" could either use a refresher course in remedial US history or are simply rewriting the history books as they go along. Recently (Nov. 29, 2003), several members of the German media (FAZ, tagesschau, N24) were so desperate to downplay the success of President Bush's stunning Thanksgiving Day visit to US troops in Iraq that they printed the following "historic" comparison:

"Still observers point to the fact that a short visit in Iraq will not change everything with one blow. The American troops in Iraq have to reckon with continued resistance and the expected rise in popularity for Bush could also be over very quickly. They point to former US President Lyndon B. Johnson who visited the troops on a spectacular trip to Vietnam but then clearly lost the 1968 election to his opponent Richard Nixon."

A mistake of this magnitude might lead some to reach the conclusion that most of the "America experts" in the German media were too busy throwing rocks at police and getting high back in 1968 to pay close attention to the US Presidential election.

Just to clear things up a bit, Lyndon B. Johnson didn't even run for the Presidency in 1968 after announcing he would not seek re-election at the beginning of the year. Not only that, but the 1968 election between Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat Hubert Humphrey turned out to be a hotly contended race which Nixon won by the thinnest of margins and was by no means "clearly lost" by the Democrats.

German journalists frequently and gleefully report on the "ignorance" of the average American, always with a hint of condescending superiority of course. It seems, though, that they aren't quite the brilliant know-it-alls they fancy themselves to be either...

(Von Ray D.)

Die sogenannten "Amerika-Experten" der deutschen Medien benötigen entweder einen Auffrischungskurs in US-Geschichte oder sie versuchen einfach, die Geschichtsbücher neu zu schreiben. Kürzlich (29.11.03) waren mehrere deutsche Medien (FAZ, tagesschau, N24) so verzweifelt, den Erfolg des Thanksgiving-Besuches von Präsident Bush bei US-Soldaten im Irak herunterzuspielen, daß sie folgenden "historischen" Vergleich druckten:

"Doch Beobachter verwiesen auch darauf, dass ein kurzer Besuch im Irak nicht mit einem Schlag alles ändern werde. Die amerikanischen Truppen im Irak müssten weiter mit Widerstand rechnen, und auch der erwartete Popularitätsanstieg für Bush könne schnell wieder vorüber sein. Sie verwiesen dabei auf den früheren US-Präsidenten Lyndon B. Johnson, der bei einer spektakulären Reise die Truppen im Vietnam besuchte, dann bei der Wahl 1968 jedoch klar seinem Herausforderer Richard Nixon unterlag."

Ein Fehler dieser Größenordnung könnte zu der Schlußfolgerung verleiten, daß die meisten der "Amerika-Experten" in den deutschen Medien 1968 zu sehr mit dem Werfen von Steinen auf die Polizei oder mit dem Konsum von Rauschgift beschäftigt waren, statt sich auf die US-Wahlen zu konzentrieren. Nur um die Dinge richtig zu stellen:

Lyndon B. Johnson trat nicht noch einmal als Präsidentschaftskandidat 1968 an, nachdem er schon Anfang des Jahres mitgeteilt hatte, daß er nicht mehr kandidieren würde. Aber nicht nur das: die Wahl von 1968 war ein heiß umkämpftes Rennen, das Nixon mit der geringsmöglichen Mehrheit gewann - diese Wahl war also keineswegs "klar" verloren.

Deutsche Journalisten berichten oft und mit Begeisterung von der "Ignoranz" des Durchschnitt-Amerikaners, immer mit einem Hinweis auf die eigene Überlegenheit. Offensichtlich sind sie doch nicht solche Besserwisser, wie sie selbst glauben...

Comments

[Jeder wie er will]

Eine der groessten Ironien ist es, dass das deutsche Presserecht bei allen Veroeffentlichungen einen "V.i.S.d.P." verlangt, sogar deutsche Internetseiten haben alle ein Impressum.

Aber FAZ/Tagesschau/N24 koennen die groesste Scheisse drucken, ohne dass jemand persoenlich Verantwortung uebernimmt. Google zufolge ist der Artikel vermutlich von Gregor Mayer, dpa.
Tagesspiegel hat den Schluss weggekuerzt. Rheinzeitung hat den letzten Paragraph so geaendert:
Doch Beobachter verwiesen auch darauf, dass ein kurzer Besuch im Irak nicht mit einem Schlag alles ändern werde. (...) Sie verwiesen dabei auf den früheren US-Präsidenten Lyndon B. Johnson, der bei einer spektakulären Reise die Truppen in Vietnam besuchte, später jedoch wegen des Krieges immer mehr die Unterstützung seiner Partei verlor und schließlich auf eine Kandidatur verzichtete. Zu seinem Nachfolger wurde Richard Nixon gewählt.

[Kim du Toit]

David,

Yours is an excellent point. Yes, the Press got it wrong.

Just wait until November 2004 to see HOW wrong they got it.

Regards,

[Mamamontezz]

It seems that they will do anything to defend their already shakey position. Sadly, this is not unlike a huge number of media outlets in the US.

[Xrlq]

The statement was dumb, of course, but it does have a kernel of truth. Johnson didn't withdraw his candidacy because he wanted an early retirement; he did so because he knew he had no chance of re-election. Had he run, Nixon would have clobbered him by a McGovern/Mondale margin.

The Rheinzeitung's revised statement, as quoted by "Jeder wie er will" above, pretty well gets the story right. Here's an English translation:

"Still observers point to the fact that a short visit in Iraq will not change everything with one blow (...) They point to former US President Lyndon B. Johnson who visited the troops on a spectacular trip to Vietnam but who later increasingly lost his party's support on account of the war, and ultimately gave up any hopes of re-election. Richard Nixon was elected as his successor."

----

Die Behauptung war natürlich blöd, aber ein Kern Wahrheit steckt doch darin. Johnson hat auf seine Kandidatur verzichtet, nicht weil er bald Rentner werden wollte, sondern weil er wußte, daß er bei einer Wiederwahl keine Chance hatte. Hätte er kandidiert, dann hätte Nixon ihn genauso stark geschlagen wie er 1972 George McGovern geschlagen hat, und wie Reagan Mondale 1984 geschlagen hat.

Die Rheinzeitungs neue Version des letzten Paragraphs, die "Jeder wie er will" oben berichtet, stimmt.

[Alene Berk]

I don't know German. I don't know German domestic politics, and should I wish to make some historical analogy, I would know that I needed to factcheck. What is astounding is how much reporters and opinion columnists in other countries (not only Germany) "know", and feel competent to microinterpret, about American politics. Most of them seem to be mindreaders, as well. Given these phenomenal talents, they should come here, amend the US Constitution, and run for office to lead us from our wilderness.

[Was geht mich mein Geschwaetz von gestern an?]

N24, 27. November: Sie verwiesen dabei auf den früheren US-Präsidenten Lyndon B. Johnson, der bei einer spektakulären Reise die Truppen im Vietnam besuchte, dann aber bei der Wahl klar Richard Nixon unterlag.

N24, 28. November: Sie verwiesen dabei auf den früheren US-Präsidenten Lyndon B. Johnson, der bei einer spektakulären Reise die Truppen in Vietnam besuchte, später jedoch wegen des Krieges immer mehr die Unterstützung seiner Partei verlor und schließlich auf eine Kandidatur verzichtete. Zu seinem Nachfolger wurde Richard Nixon gewählt.

Also hat man's einen Tag spaeter korrigiert, natuerlich ohne Verantwortung zu uebernehmen.

Wann man nun noch die Prognosen zum Irakkrieg korrigieren koennte, saehe alles schon viel besser aus.

[blog of unknowing]

Mamamontezz
I don't know if it's a forgone conclusion that Johnson would have been clobbered. True, Nixon ran on his "secret plan" but if you look at the numbers he handily beat Hubert Humphrey in the electoral college, but not so in the popular vote.

The Dems also had a lot of other troubles, what with RFK getting shot and Humphrey as a sort of stand-in who never ran in any of the primaries. Not to mention the riot deliberately instigated by Tom Hayden and other leftists. It's amazing Humphrey did as well as he did -- but he did. And VPs are often face election on the feeling people have for the President - witness Ford, Bush Sr., Gore who lost his home state and barely beat out Bush Jr. for the popular vote.

In sum, a comparison between Johnson and Bush makes little sense -- particularly since the secret plan of the 9 Nazgul running for the Dems is no secret -- surrender without dignity.

[Panther]

David,

Not only are you after the truth, you clearly remember your history. Might i add, if you get ran out of the journalism business, you would make a wonderful history teacher! The good lord knows, knowledgable world history teachers are hard to come by now a day's!

[Xrlq]

BOU: Actually, that was my post you're reacting to, not Mamamontezz's. While I agree that the Johnson/Bush analogy is inapt, this is because Iraq is not equivalent to Viet Nam, not because Johnson and Humphrey are interchangeable. Humphrey the stand-in lost respectably; Johnson himself would not have.

[KH]

As of 9:30 pm US EST, 11/30, the FAZ is still wrong. Amazing!

"Sie verwiesen dabei auf den früheren Präsidenten Lyndon B. Johnson, der bei einer spektakulären Reise die Truppen im Vietnam besuchte, dann aber bei der Wahl klar Richard Nixon unterlag."

[Erik Eisel]

The comparison to LBJ is laughable. Geroge W. only consults LBJ's playbook when he wants to know what not to do.

This is an excellent post today, and your main point about the overeagerness of the German media to re-interpret American history is right on the money.

For a good analysis of precedents for George Bush's trip to Baghdad, read Max Boot's piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal.

On a final note: what's wrong with George Bush gaining politically from this visit? The campaign season started about six months ago. It's high time he started doing something to get out the vote.

The trip to Baghdad could have been a tasteless campaign stunt. Instead, as Andrew Sullivan points out, it was extremely meaningful.

[Tommy]

The sad thing is, Americans as a group are dumb. i say this as one of them, and it sickens me. By and large, we have no knowledge of out history even of the last hundred years. I am in college currently and am saddened by the lack of common knowledge of our military history here. i have had debates(arguments) with a HISTORY MAJOR who wants to be a High School HISTORY TEACHER who thinks that all of the wars in this century were propagated by "those bloodthirsty republicans," and has debated feircely with me that Lincoln was not the first president to be assasinated in office. A history major, senior, graduating in may, doesn't know basic facts. Couldn't name the four presidents who have been assasinated. She is the ilk that will be teaching my children when they come along. My point is that most people wouldn't think twice about reading that and taking it at face value simply because they know no better. Sickening. Thank you for the article, it renews my hope that not everybody on this planet is as stupid as most Americans have become and not everyone takes everything at face value.
All spelling and grammatical mistakes are intentional.
tommy.

[Tommy]

No, no, i have taken that into mind. i know that there are those in this great nation that can think outside the box, but as it stands, in college you are indoctrinated, at least at public or state college, into the leftist worldview of "Tolerance unless you say something I disagree with." This is what i see, and i also see that those who question are torn to little bitty bits, not only by the teachers but by the apple polishing parrots that the professors teach. Maybe it is just a southern thing, but i'm not so sure anymore. Don't understand me so quickly, though, i would not live anywhere else by choice, it is only that my BS-o'meter pings off the scale when the prof touts tolerance while refusing to accept the fact that other people have different ideologies. The irony amuses me.
Slainte.
Tommy

[Google]

That said, I think there are very few cases in human history where violence is justified.
Search Google http://www.google.com/