Posted on 01/21/2005 9:01:35 PM PST by quidnunc
Paris – Watching George Bush's second inaugural from a bistro in Paris is like watching the Red Sox win the World Series from a sports bar in New York City. Odds are that someone around you is celebrating - I mean, someone, somewhere in Europe must be happy about this - but it's not obvious.
Why are Europeans so blue over George Bush's re-election? Because Europe is the world's biggest "blue state." This whole region is a rhapsody in blue. These days, even the small group of anti-anti-Americans in the European Union is uncomfortable being associated with Mr. Bush. There are Euro-conservatives, but, aside from, maybe, the ruling party in Italy, there is nothing here that quite corresponds to the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax, anti-national-health-care, anti-Kyoto, openly religious, pro-Iraq-war Bush Republican Party.
If you took all three major parties in Britain - Labor, Liberals and Conservatives - "their views on God, guns, gays, the death penalty, national health care and the environment would all fit somewhere inside the Democratic Party," said James Rubin, the Clinton State Department spokesman, who works in London. "That's why I get along with all three parties here. They're all Democrats!"
While officially every European government is welcoming the inauguration of President Bush, the prevailing mood on the continent (if I may engage in a ridiculously sweeping generalization!) still seems to be one of shock and awe that Americans actually re-elected this man.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It is a sign of the possibly terminal sickness in today's MSM that so mundane a thinker as Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times could rise to be the Newspaper of Record's leading foreign policy analyst. Friedman, who apparently has never met a foreign policy cliche he is not willing to polish and present as deep wisdom, does, however, serve a purpose: he is a sure-fire bellwether as to what the collective liberal media elite are thinking about, talking about and are likely to feature prominently in yet another R.W. "Afghanistan, whoops, I mean Iraq, is Vietnam redux" Apple page one news "analysis."
(We always wonder why the NY Times bothers with these news analyses since it would be much more cost-effective to simply print "Bush is an IDIOT!!!" in 4-inch newsprint, but we digress…)
As a liberal bellwether, Friedman represents the ultimate in conventional wisdom (the good ol' CW). The CW is hopelessly naive about Palestinian intentions; Friedman is hopelessly naive about Palestinian intentions. The CW is that any foreign policy challenge or setback is due to some American failure; Friedman is pretty sure that any foreign policy challenge or setback is obviously due to some American failure. The CW is that Democratic policy provisions are always altruistically motivated and self-evidently good; Friedman thinks that … well, you get the idea.
Yesterday's Friedman column, "An American in Paris," is an exemplar of the genre. Chock full of cliches, lame metaphors and tired thinking — the kind one would expect from a political science professor at Evergreen State College — it was just crying our for a Fisking.
So, without further ado, please follow us to Friedmanland, were everything is always America's fault, Saudi princes have bona fide peace plans and if only Likud would retire from politics the Middle East would be an oasis of peace, science and industry!
"Watching George Bush's second inaugural from a bistro in Paris is like watching the Red Sox win the World Series from a sports bar in New York City. Odds are that someone around you is celebrating — I mean, someone, somewhere in Europe must be happy about this — but it's not obvious."
In Friedmanland, France is Europe and Europe is France (plus perhaps Germany, but only if the Christian Democrats/CSU aren't in power). Never mind that the President enjoys solid support in Iraq from half of Europe in the form of actual boots on the ground (United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ukraine, Moldova, Norway, Bulgaria, Albania, Slovakia, Macedonia, and until terrorism-stained elections the better half of Spain). Nope, so long as enlightened opinion in the Quai D'Orsay says non, then Europe is against us! Certainly no one Tommy talks to is pro-Bush. I mean, he is a journalist after all.
"Why are Europeans so blue over George Bush's re-election? Because Europe is the world's biggest "blue state." This whole region is a rhapsody in blue. These days, even the small group of anti-anti-Americans in the European Union is uncomfortable being associated with Mr. Bush. There are Euro-conservatives, but, aside from, maybe, the ruling party in Italy, there is nothing here that quite corresponds to the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax, anti-national-health-care, anti-Kyoto, openly religious, pro-Iraq-war Bush Republican Party."
Yes, Tom, we get it: Europe hates Bush. And you gotta love that definition of the Republican Party. Reasonable concerns about the sanctity of life and room in the party for those who both favor (Pataki, Guilani, Schwarzenegger) and oppose (Bush, Santorum, Kyl) abortion obviously makes the party rabidly anti-abortion. If Bush is concerned about the institution of marriage, well, then he's "anti-gay." We all remember which party it was that used gay-baiting in the debates to try to acquire anti-gay traction, don't we?
The anti-tax thing we'll take gladly. We believe the USG should take what is necessary for the government's core functions and the rest of the income belongs to the American people. And that anti-national-health-care crack is pretty revealing, isn't it? Haven't the Democrats been assuring us since HillaryCare that they aren't for national health care? And, it works so well! You can tell by the hordes of Canadians dying of cancer not fleeing to the US for health care. I mean when some rich Middle Eastern prince is sick they always fly off for treatment at the East Bigglesforth Hospital in Dorwestershire and not, say, Mt Sinai in New York City. Everyone knows this.
Anti-Kyoto? Anti-Kyoto?!? Tommy Boy, when the Kyoto came up for a vote in the U.S. Senate for ratification the result was rejection and a motion to transmit the Senate's reasons for its strong opposition that was carried by a vote of 95-0. Perhaps that was during that short time that the Republicans held a 95-5 advantage in the Senate, and the five Democrats were attending a Sierra Club summit? Or perhaps American opposition to the Kyoto protocols is solidly bi-partisan?
"Openly religious" is perhaps the funniest thing Friedman has written in years in terms of a description of the Republican Party. Tom, out here in America most of us are religious and, what's worse, we're damn open about it. When his team were told by the same hacks that have led them to defeat after defeat in election after election (Bob Shrum, Donna Brazile, phone call, line one!) that the R's were winning due to "values," the Dems lost no time in wheeling out post-make-over Nancy Pelosi over to CNN to spout as many bible verses as her staff could whip up in 45 minutes. Perhaps Tom and the gang at the NY Times would prefer we were all "secretly religious" like those wacky Christians in the good ol' Soviet Union? Those were the days!
"If you took all three major parties in Britain — Labor, Liberals and Conservatives — "their views on God, guns, gays, the death penalty, national health care and the environment would all fit somewhere inside the Democratic Party," said James Rubin, the Clinton State Department spokesman, who works in London. "That's why I get along with all three parties here. They're all Democrats!'"
This one cuts close to home, since Mr. Christiane Amanpour, was once an Assistant Secretary and a pretty damn good Chief Spokesman. That aside, we find it strking that Friedman accepts Rubin's views of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats (aka the Monster Raving Looney Party) as evidence of Britain's political advancement and not, say, evidence of a complete lack of diverse democratic poltical discourse on key issues. Here we see the Friedman Democratic Paradise, where all parties agree on all the issues in advance. You know, like civilized people.
"While officially every European government is welcoming the inauguration of President Bush, the prevailing mood on the continent (if I may engage in a ridiculously sweeping generalization!) still seems to be one of shock and awe that Americans actually re-elected this man."
Nice sarcastic use of the term "Shock and Awe!" That hasn't been a Democratic Standard for over 2 years now for nothing! Uberlib_from_Berkeley006, the NY Times is stealing your stuff, mannnnnnnnnnn… .
"Before Mr. Bush's re-election, the prevailing attitude in Europe was definitely: "We're not anti-American. We're anti-Bush." But now that the American people have voted to re-elect Mr. Bush, Europe has a problem maintaining this distinction. The logic of the Europeans' position is that they should now be anti-American, not just anti-Bush, but most Europeans don't seem to want to go there. They know America is more complex. So there is a vague hope in the air that when Mr. Bush visits Europe next month, he'll come bearing an olive branch that will enable both sides to at least pretend to hold this loveless marriage together for the sake of the kids."
Note how in Friedmanland, it is always the U.S. that must come bearing the olive branch, taking the steps to heal wounds. It's almost as if France, Germany and Russia had absolutely nothing to do with the trans-Atlantic rift by their ridiculously transparent pro-Saddam stonewalling! Nope, France's diplomats can circle the globe stirring up anti-American animosity, but it's all Bush's fault, isn't it? After all, we all know there is no evidence (*cough* oil-for-food *cough*) that parts of Europe were profiting handsomely from the Saddam trade.
"Europeans were convinced that Kerry had won on election night and were telling themselves that they knew all along that Americans were not all that bad — and then suddenly, as the truth emerged, there was a feeling of slow resignation: 'Oh well, we've been dreaming,' " said Dominique Moisi, one of France's top foreign policy analysts. "In fact, real America is moving away from us. We don't share the same values. ... In France it was a very emotional issue. It was as if Americans were voting for the president of France as much as for president of the United States."
Yes, I'm sure Jacques in Tours is crying in his onion soup over the emotional impact of our Presidential election. But, you know, it works both ways. We were in tears for days when an un-reconstructed fascist almost won the Presidency of France.
So, in a way, we understand. Somehow I get the feeling that "foreign policy analyst" means the same thing in French that it does in English, i.e. someone who agrees with Tommy.
"That sense that America is now so powerful that it influences everyone else's politics more than their own governments — so everyone wants to vote in our elections — is something you hear more and more these days. Elizabeth Angell, a 23-year-old American studying at Oxford, told me that a Pakistani friend at school had asked her if he could just watch her fill out her absentee ballot for the U.S. election. "He said to me, 'It's the closest thing I am going to get to voting. ... I wish I could vote in your election because your government affects my daily life more than my own.' "
This is one of the oldest Euro-lefty lines since Billy Bragg toured in support of "Taking with the Taxman About Poetry." (Note to Billy: we really dislike most of your politics, but we must admit we think you're talented and we could not live without "The Milkman of Human Kindness" on our iPod rotation). Look, pay taxes, serve in our military and share our basic values and we'll talk about that vote … until then, bugger off, wankers.
"The one concrete result of the U.S. election will probably be to reinforce Europe's focus on its own efforts to build a United States of Europe, and to further play down the trans-Atlantic alliance. "When it comes to emotions, the re-election of Bush has reinforced the feeling of alienation between Europe and the U.S.," Mr. Moisi said. "It is not that we are so much against America, it is that we cannot understand the evolution of that country. … This election has weakened the concept of 'the West.' "
Monsieur Moisi, it's your feckless kow-towing to Islamic fascists that has weakened the concept of the West. But not to worry; we'll defend it for you. You're French, you should be used to that feeling.
"Funnily enough, the one country on this side of the ocean that would have elected Mr. Bush is not in Europe, but the Middle East: it's Iran, where many young people apparently hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq. An Oxford student who had just returned from research in Iran told me that young Iranians were "loving anything their government hates," such as Mr. Bush, "and hating anything their government loves." Tehran is festooned in "Down With America" graffiti, the student said, but when he tried to take pictures of it, the Iranian students he was with urged him not to. They said it was just put there by their government and was not how most Iranians felt. Iran, he said, is the ultimate "red state." Go figure."
Hey, good for you Tom! You've noticed the street in Iran is generally pro-American! Only took you about 3 years to blunder upon the bloody obvious, but good for you, old boy!
Seriously, though, he did manage to raise half-a-good point with that cute "red state" comment. What if the best way to defeat Islamic Fascism (or, if you will, the Salafist movement, as the President rightly referred to it the other day,the damn chimp-faced idiot) is to let it win? It appears to us that those Muslim populations that have been directly exposed to fundamentalist rule are those most innoculated against its charms. Certainly the Iranians and the Afghans have had their fill and don't wish for more.
There's an idea for you Tommy: perhaps a Saudi prince friend has an idea for how to create a new Caliphate? Get back to us on that will you?
(NewSisyphus in New Sisyphus, January 21, 2005)
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_newsisyphus_archive.html
They're all turds.
Ouch..That sould hit the spot.
Did you see the chimp-faced idiot remark? What was that
all about?
Hey, Mr. Friedman!
Who cares what the Europeans think.
Are they an example to follow?
Thanks for the post. NewSisyphus nails Tommy.
I can't wait for 2008. It is only going to get better. May the dems throw-up (barf alert) Hillary as the nominee. That should bring us to 2016 and counting...
I finally figured out what's so off about Friedman. Jews don't name their kids "Thomas". I never heard of a Rabbi Tommy. Something was definitely amiss in his family.
I grow weary of the endless, insufferable articles about how the European crapweasels hate President Bush and look down their noses at us backward Americans. I care not a whit for them or their decaying nations and much less, their opinions.
An American in Paris - By Thomas L FRiedman
Published January 20 2005
paris
Watching George Bush's second inaugural from a bistro in Paris is like watching the Red Sox win the World Series from a sports bar in New York City. Odds are that someone around you is celebrating - I mean, someone, somewhere in Europe must be happy about this - but it's not obvious.
Why are Europeans so blue over George Bush's re-election? Because Europe is the world's biggest "blue state." This whole region is a rhapsody in blue. These days, even the small group of anti-anti-Americans in the European Union is uncomfortable being associated with Mr. Bush. There are Euro-conservatives, but, aside from, maybe, the ruling party in Italy, there is nothing here that quite corresponds to the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax, anti-national-health-care, anti-Kyoto, openly religious, pro-Iraq-war Bush Republican Party.
If you took all three major parties in Britain - Labor, Liberals and Conservatives - "their views on God, guns, gays, the death penalty, national health care and the environment would all fit somewhere inside the Democratic Party," said James Rubin, the Clinton State Department spokesman, who works in London. "That's why I get along with all three parties here. They're all Democrats!"
While officially every European government is welcoming the inauguration of President Bush, the prevailing mood on the continent (if I may engage in a ridiculously sweeping generalization!) still seems to be one of shock and awe that Americans actually re-elected this man.
Before Mr. Bush's re-election, the prevailing attitude in Europe was definitely: "We're not anti-American. We're anti-Bush." But now that the American people have voted to re-elect Mr. Bush, Europe has a problem maintaining this distinction. The logic of the Europeans' position is that they should now be anti-American, not just anti-Bush, but most Europeans don't seem to want to go there. They know America is more complex. So there is a vague hope in the air that when Mr. Bush visits Europe next month, he'll come bearing an olive branch that will enable both sides to at least pretend to hold this loveless marriage together for the sake of the kids.
"Europeans were convinced that Kerry had won on election night and were telling themselves that they knew all along that Americans were not all that bad - and then suddenly, as the truth emerged, there was a feeling of slow resignation: 'Oh well, we've been dreaming,' " said Dominique Moisi, one of France's top foreign policy analysts. "In fact, real America is moving away from us. We don't share the same values. ... In France it was a very emotional issue. It was as if Americans were voting for the president of France as much as for president of the United States."
That sense that America is now so powerful that it influences everyone else's politics more than their own governments - so everyone wants to vote in our elections - is something you hear more and more these days.
Elizabeth Angell, a 23-year-old American studying at Oxford, told me that a Pakistani friend at school had asked her if he could just watch her fill out her absentee ballot for the U.S. election. "He said to me, 'It's the closest thing I am going to get to voting. ... I wish I could vote in your election because your government affects my daily life more than my own.' "
The one concrete result of the U.S. election will probably be to reinforce Europe's focus on its own efforts to build a United States of Europe, and to further play down the trans-Atlantic alliance. "When it comes to emotions, the re-election of Bush has reinforced the feeling of alienation between Europe and the U.S.," Mr. Moisi said. "It is not that we are so much against America, it is that we cannot understand the evolution of that country. ... This election has weakened the concept of 'the West.' "
Funnily enough, the one country on this side of the ocean that would have elected Mr. Bush is not in Europe, but the Middle East: it's Iran, where many young people apparently hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq.
An Oxford student who had just returned from research in Iran told me that young Iranians were "loving anything their government hates," such as Mr. Bush, "and hating anything their government loves." Tehran is festooned in "Down With America" graffiti, the student said, but when he tried to take pictures of it, the Iranian students he was with urged him not to. They said it was just put there by their government and was not how most Iranians felt.
Iran, he said, is the ultimate "red state." Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.