Jeffrey Gedmin: Why so many Europeans have hated George W. Bush

Proudly presenting the English version of Jeffrey Gedmin's article in WELT "Why so many Europeans have hated George W. Bush" (Warum Europäer George W. Bush hassen). It's an excellent piece. I have only a suggestion to make regarding the title: "Why so many Europeans hate George W. Bush" would be a slightly more appropriate description.

Mr. Gedmin is Director at the Aspen Institute Berlin.

Why so many Europeans have hated George W. Bush
Die Welt, 15.11.2006 / By Jeffrey Gedmin

Now that the Democrats will control Congress, there is some relief. More than 200 members of the European parliament have issued a statement praising “the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world. A little relief." According to ARD the damage has been immense: “Die Amerikaner haben keine Ahnung, wie es im Kongress zugeht. ... Es gibt keine offenen Debatten ... Das ist keine Demokratie mehr. Es handelt sich praktisch um ein autoritäres System.“ („The Americans have no idea how things happen in Congress. … There are no open debates … This is no longer democracy. … This is practically speaking an authoritarian system”).

I keep wondering why so many have hated George W. Bush. The Democrats in the Senate, John Kerry included, had already rejected the treaty by the time Bush arrived. As for Iraq, maybe things would have been different if we had found weapons of mass destruction. But then again nearly everybody thought Saddam was hiding WMD and no one runs around screeching that Al Gore or Joschka Fischer lied.

I have a theory. I helped convene a conference in Prague in parallel to a NATO summit several years ago. On the last evening of the summit, Czech President Vaclav Havel invited our conference participants to attend a state dinner at Prague castle. Chirac, Blair, Schroeder, Bush, all the leaders from NATO countries were there. One of our participants was a Gore advisor, who introduced himself to the President. The President greeted him warmly, and said to Mr. Chirac standing nearby, “Hey, Jacques, I want to introduce you to a friend of mine.” The U.S. President then took a short walk with this Democratic adviser, asking along the way about advice for new exercise equipment for the White House. In the end, my Democrat colleague was charmed. If I tell a group of Americans this story, they tend to conclude, love him or hate him, that Bush is a pretty likeable, down-to-earth guy. If I tell this story to Europeans, they either invariably look disgusted (as in--“how unsophisticated, un-statesman like!”) or their faces go blank. My theory? Bush’s greatest sin is that he is too American. 

When some Europeans say they like Americans, they tend to mean those Americans who seem most like European Social Democrats, and even then they airbrush out inconvenient details like the fact that Bill Clinton favoured the death penalty, that Hillary voted for the Iraq war, or that John F. Kennedy, that suave and promiscuous East coast liberal was also a staunch anti-communist, who frequently quoted from the bible. George W. Bush is the full package of everything that makes Europe squirm. He is anti-elitism. He’s religion. He’s morality and muscle. He’s patriotism and self-confidence. He is very un-European.

As for foreign policy, it’s the idealism thing that seems to cause confusion with our European friends time and again. Remember how contemptuously Helmut Schmidt treated Jimmy Carter and his human rights campaign? Ronald Reagan was not exactly a hero at the time when he came to Berlin and told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. Mr. Bush may have badly mismanaged Iraq, but does anyone still believe this was all about oil?  When European commentators say they are yearning for an end to American unilateralism, our moral crusades and the influence of those dreaded “fundamentalist evangelicals,” what they really mean is that they are longing for the United States to become more like Europe: secular, post-national, consensus-seeking and Social Democratic. So on to the next disappointment. Even with the Democrats, it ain’t gonna happen.

As an add-on, I suggest this article (Europe is Finished, Predicts Mark Steyn) by Daniel Pipes. Also, have a look at this article by Jeffrey Gedmin in Weekly Standard, which elaborates some of the points presented here.

Comments

[Pamela]

That the New World is a primitive, degenerative environment has been a meme in European culture since before the American Revolution.

Leclerc writing in his opus Natural History said of animals in the New World "shrink and diminish under a niggardly sky and an unprolific land". Also, animals tranported from Europe became smaller.

Franklin and Jefferson both vigourously argued against the degeneracy theory (it's even discussed in the Federalist Papers). Jefferson eventually got Leclerc to modify some of his views buy sending him exhibits, but not before he and Franklin got the goods on one of Leclerc's disciples, the abbe Raynal. Jefferson tells the story of a dinner Franklin hosted outside Paris at which Raynal was a guest. At table, Raynal got on about the theory of the degeneracy of animals and man in America. Franklin, ever the pragmatist, asked everyone to stand up.

All the Americans were taller.

The same dynamic still goes on. For Europe, America must be worse. They need it for their own sense of superiority.

[European]

The fitting answer to Gedwin´s tirade has been published in "Der Tagesspiegel", a leading newspaper in Berlin:

Jeffrey Gedmin, Direktor des Berliner Aspen-Instituts, schreibt in der "Welt": "Ich frage mich, weshalb so viele Europäer George W. Bush hassen. " Lieber Mr. Gedmin, es hängt unter anderem damit zusammen, dass 600 000 Tote ziemlich viele Tote sind, und damit, dass Bush und seine Leute die Wahrheit verdrehen, wo immer sie können. Als ob nicht auch viele Amerikaner Bush hassen würden! Schauen Sie die letzten Wahlen in den USA an. Oder nehmen Sie Wahlen nur zur Kenntnis, wenn das Ergebnis Ihnen in den Kram passt? Gedmin schreibt außerdem: "Fast alle haben geglaubt, dass Saddam Massenvernichtungswaffen versteckt, aber niemand kreischt, Al Gore oder Joschka Fischer hätte gelogen. " Mr. Gedmin, die Welt hat an Saddams Waffen geglaubt, weil Ihre Leute der Welt mit allerlei Tricks die Existenz dieser Waffen weisgemacht haben. Warum klagt niemand Fischer an? Weil Fischer und Gore keinen sinnlosen Krieg angefangen haben, Bush dagegen schon. Ist das so schwer zu begreifen?

There you have it.

[Pamela]

Oh no, not the 600,000 dead canard again! Can these people not do simple arithmetic?

[Don Miguel]

"The Americans have no idea how things happen in Congress. … There are no open debates … This is no longer democracy. … This is practically speaking an authoritarian system."

I suggest that ARD study their own EU a little closer if they want to see a loss of democracy and an "an authoritarian system."

[joe]

Add another "0" and I bet a lot of Germans could understand euro's math a lot better,

[joe]

Oops......and I should have added:

There you have it

[James W.]

@European

That's it?

Mr. Gedmin, die Welt hat an Saddams Waffen geglaubt, weil Ihre Leute der Welt mit allerlei Tricks die Existenz dieser Waffen weisgemacht haben.

This is a statement born of pure ignorance of history. But, fitting for those who wish to remain ignorant. Tricks? What tricks? UN tricks? French tricks? German tricks? Every major intelligence agency tricks?

The irony is that YOU are the one being tricked.

Senseless war? Removing a dictator, and his heir to the throne sons, from power is senseless? The Iraqi's were facing at least the next half century under those beasts. Now, they have a chance to take another path. "Ist das so schwer zu begreifen?"

Let's not forget about the nuclear program that the media (unwittingly?) admitted existed. The NYTimes acknowledged that the UN also believed Saddam to be nearing development of nuclear weapons.

[RayD]

@ "European"

I think the Tagesspiegel author's arrogant tone and willingness to cite the 600,000 dead Lancet propaganda lie is all the evidence we need that he himself will twist the truth and lie in any way necessary to discredit those he opposes politically.

By the way, who are Gedmin's "Leute"? This sounds like some sinister neo-con conspiracy that continues to haunt the most terrific dreams of Germany's whacked out, far-left media elite. The fact is that French and German intelligence also believed Saddam had WMD. Nobody "tricked" them or forced them to come to that conclusion. Once again, the Tagesspiegel author is engaged in another paranoid lying spree to discredit his opponents and seize the moral high ground.

The sad fact that the Angry Left refuses to admit is that Saddam Hussein was in gross violation of well over a dozen UN Security Council resolutions for 12 years. They can't admit that the multilateral approach failed in Iraq, it failed in Rwanda, it failed in Somalia and it is failing again in Darfur today. There were ample grounds for removing Saddam's murder regime from the map and how quickly we forget the hundreds of thousands who were actually killed or allowed to starve to death at the hands of that horrific regime.

And for the past three years they have been screaming at the top of their lungs that Iraq = Vietnam, attempting (with some success) to convince the world of a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat for America. They realize that if you repeat something often enough, people will begin to believe you. In Germany this has long been the case. In the USA, it is now beginning to take hold. We can only hope for significant push back in the near future.

[LC Mamapajamas]

I have a question for some of our expats living in Europe:

re: "(„The Americans have no idea how things happen in Congress. … There are no open debates … This is no longer democracy. … This is practically speaking an authoritarian system”)."

Do any of the European national governments or the EU have a version of C-SPAN? Do THEY know what their parliaments are actually doing minute to minute?

For those Europeans who don't know about C-SPAN, this is a television network that doesn't do anything BUT televise... live... what Congress is doing. C-SPAN 1 broadcasts the House of Representatives, and C-SPAN 2 broadcasts the Senate. When the full bodies of the legislature are not on the floor, the network goes to committee meetings and investigations. At night, after hours in the Eastern Time Zone, they replay some of the more interesting things that happened during the day. When Congress isn't in session, they look into other political events happening across the nation (election campaigns, special event dinners, that sort of thing). They've even been known to broadcast from the floor of the British Parliamentary Houses and others in other nations from time to time when scheduling allows, or an important event is occurring.

So... can the Europeans actually SEE what's happening in their parliaments as Americans can see Congress? Do they have an entire network devoted to it?

[LC Mamapajamas]

I suppose what I really want is for someone who speaks fluent German to challenge the comments reported in this article and ask the Europeans to give a good description of the European version of C-SPAN, so that we poor, mislead Americans can finally upgrade C-SPAN and understand how we have been duped by our vile Congress, who have obviously been wasting our taxpayer money in heavily engaging Industrial Lights and Magic to produce computer-generated debates on the floor of Congress.

[Yeshooroon]

Nothing surprises me anymore in German media. They'd have many friends with our far leftist in this country. I am curious how did the freedom of East Germany slant the politics and media?

offtopic...
Have you guys seen this story? Skulldugery in Germany Politics...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448908,00.html

Any truth you think to an attempted coup?

And yes, CSPAN is great! Keeps them somewhat honest. But they do their dirty dealing in the corners. Politicians from around the world are largely negotiators and compromisers without much morals. Considering they all start off with Corporate and Special Interest money in their pants pockets.

What is amazing to me is how obsessed German media and others are with American policy or culture. This would normally be considered a psychological condition with prescribed medications

Thanks for the coverage guys!

[Pamela]

The Americans have no idea how things happen in Congress. … There are no open debates … This is no longer democracy. … This is practically speaking an authoritarian system”)."
Americans have no idea how things happen in Congress.

hmm. Why is this do you think? Is this a big secret? Does nothing appear in the press? Is the press muzzeled? Do Americans have no access to their elected representatives? Are we not properly educated? Are we just stupid? Should Europeans set up a ministry to educate Americans about how our Congress works?

I pose these questions as a professional lobbyist.

And a born American.
There are no open debates

Got it. That must explain why all leaders of both parties goes on the talking head shows to elucidate their side of the debate every fucking day.

This is no longer democracy.

Ok, the United States of America is hereby declared a totalitarian state.

This is practically speaking an authoritarian system”)."

I expect to be carried away any day now.

Ok, let's get serious.

Why are people who refuse to incorporate objective facts into their argument given any credence?

There is after all, a knowledge that can be objectively known.

600,000 dead Iragis is a claim that can be objectively evaluated and when done so, is thoroughly discredited.

Yet there is no accountability, intellectuality, morally or politically for the figure

This is not a case of moral relativism. Is it plausible that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed or is it not? How do we assess the possibility?

But assume, for the sake of argument, that indeed, 600,000 Iraqis have died. Is the relevant question then:

So what?

or

What now?

I know the answer I have but I'm just giving the rest of you a tease.

[LC Mamapajamas]

Pamela: "Why are people who refuse to incorporate objective facts into their argument given any credence?"

Because the statement you and I quoted came from 200 members of the European parliament.

That GIVES them credence.

[LC Mamapajamas]

Addendum: Their positions as members of parliament gives them credence whether they are right or wrong. They are obviously wrong, but the situation is that they have made a public statement that is, as an effect, an official position of their political party or parties.

[LC Mamapajamas]

Yeshooroon: "And yes, CSPAN is great! Keeps them somewhat honest. But they do their dirty dealing in the corners."

True, but the statement, which is what I was referring to, was about debates, which are televised. These clowns apparently have never heard of C-SPAN.

[Pamela]

@LCMama
Because the statement you and I quoted came from 200 members of the European parliament.

That GIVES them credence.

One of the fundamental questions I've not been able to answer empirically: Is this a class issue? One of the first contacts I ever had with David was about Bush - that Europeans just viewed him as Joe Sixpack in a good suit.

So, Ok, let's just put it out there, empiricism be damned.

The EUnichs view Americans as primitive: we've got the religionists, the racists, the whatever; all have a voice and no one tells any one what their place is. How uncouth.

But in Europe, well, you may very well have those same kinds of people, but they understand where and what there limits are because there is an elite to guide them.

And of course, there is the small problem of the second generation of immigrants who don't care to be guided by the self-appointed elite.

[Mir]

Yes, the article in the "Tagesspiegel" mirrors the mainstream in most of our German media these days. It isn't pretty, is it? There are only few exceptions left, like the "Welt".

@ LC Mamapajamas

>> "Do any of the European national governments or the EU have a version of C-SPAN? Do THEY know what their parliaments are actually doing minute to minute?"

In Germany we have a TV channel called "Phoenix" that sometimes broadcasts debates from the "Bundestag" or "Bundesrat" - but only when they think it's important. You can however watch everything via Internet. To answer your question: It IS possible to know what they are doing. The average German probably only hears a 10 seconds statement from every "major" politician in the daily 15 minutes evening news show (including 5 minutes about sport). Same is true with any other statements: They have no idea what President Bush actually said, but they know it's wrong and - of course - stupid.

[LC Mamapajamas]

Thanks, Mir... that's exactly the information I was looking for. So, yeah... Germany has C-SPAN Light. And the Internet, which everyone has.

I'm wondering, considering Pamela's comments, if what we are looking at here is simply the fact that Europe has not yet outgrown the age of the Feudal Lord taking care of the peasants? It makes me wonder sometimes.

[Sarah]

I did a little research and found this:
Q. Did the U.S. Senate vote against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?

A. No. The protocol has never been submitted to the senate for ratification. The Bush administration has referred to a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution, which registered views on some aspects of protocol negotiations. The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: "It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees … that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real…. Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently… [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer."
,retrieved 12/27/06

Apperently, Jeffrey Gedmin twists the truth again in his article, since he doesn't mention that Kerry didn't oppose the Kyoto Protocol but is a strong supporter. How can an important newspaper like "Die Welt" not do any research about the articles it publishes?

[joe]

sarah,

This might come as a surprise to you but the proof is in the vote cast. In the case of Jon Curry, he voted for the resolution with was a vote against the treaty.

One thing you might wonder and failed to answer is why did not former Pres Clinton sent it to the Senate, it was the treaty he took part in developing. The answer is he knew it would fail. No POTUS sends treaties for ratification if he feels they will fail. It weaken the office of the POTUS.