American Conservative -- No Endorsement

[Rspaight]

American Conservative magazine didn't endorse anyone this year, since they hate Bush and hate Kerry even more. (They like the Constitution party.) Instead, they wrote several editorials expounding on the case for voting for each of the candidates. The pro-Bush one, written by Pat Buchanan, basically says, "Bush is a disaster but Kerry would be even worse. Besides, if Kerry wins he'll get the blame for Iraq. I want Bush to win so he'll get the blame." Not exactly a rousing endorsement.

Here's the pro-Kerry piece:

Kerry’s the One

By Scott McConnell

There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?

The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.

But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.

George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.

[Gee Oh Are Tea]

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S ......

During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

OK, I've extracted selected quotes that echo precisely how I (and likely most non-Americans) feel.

Mr Krabapple, this is exactly what I trying to say in the other thread about Kerry. Perhaps this man has been able to articulate it without being OTT. If Americans shrug at this, then there's no hope. That's always been the basis of my point: are Americans aware, and do they care, that in the last four years they have become the most hated people on Earth (and for tangible reasons, not just because they are rude and obnoxious tourists, their nauseating flag-waving and jingosim or that they are obese to the point of bursting).

Cliff

[krabapple]

NB, GORT, the quote you exceised was written by *Pat Buchanan* -- an rabidly conservative *American* (perhaps that's an irony only an American would realize?). So the idea that an American can't understand how an non-American feels is thereby refuted.

His sentiments are *not* uncommon here, btw. I share them myself. And I'd say about half the country
'cares;' and about half 'doesn't care' whether the US is the 'most hated people on earth' or even in the top five most hated people on earth'.

(My understanding is that polls tend to show that American *people* aren't hated, but their *government* is..if so, that's you being unmodulated again. Isn't hating a 'people' the path to
evil?)

[Rspaight]

NB, GORT, the quote you exceised was written by *Pat Buchanan* -- an rabidly conservative *American* (perhaps that's an irony only an American would realize?). So the idea that an American can't understand how an non-American feels is thereby refuted.

Scott McConnell, actually. Pat wrote the pro-Bush column, which I linked to but didn't quote. I don't know where Scott hails from, but in a mag like American Conservative, I'm betting he's a Yank.

Ryan

[Matt]

My understanding is that polls tend to show that American *people* aren't hated, but their *government* is.

It would seem the US Government and citizens are one in the same to other countries.

Isn't hating a 'people' the path to evil?

No question! Then again, don't terrorists always have a rational justification in their minds for their actions?

[Rspaight]

I've been out of the country twice this year (Canada and Japan), and in both cases the people have been very friendly, but very concerned. They want to know what's wrong with us, why so many here support such a terrible government. I have no answer, other than to sadly point to the PIPA study.

Ryan

[Matt]

I wonder how much Anti-U.S. rhetoric foreign citizens are exposed to?

[Rspaight]

Other than the stuff coming out of the White House, I'm not sure.

In Canada, American media is widely available, so I'd think they're looking at the same stuff we are for the most part.

Japan is pretty apolitical from what I could see while I was there (August). It just didn't seem to be a big concern. There were several posters around for the impending release of F9/11, though.

Ryan

[dudelsack]

I spent a good bit of time in Europe in 2002 and even when the Iraq war was merely pending, I had to answer a lot of questions about why the heck we were bothering. I couldn't give any answers other than to say "I didn't vote for the prick" and "not all Americans think exactly like their president."
They were actually kind of shocked by this. I think their media tends to tell them that all Americans are cowboy assholes with a grudge, and with their experience with troops stationed there and college students on, um, 'study abroad programs'...probably not a lot of anectdotal evidence to the contrary, either.

[krabapple]

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:34 pm Post subject:
Quote:
My understanding is that polls tend to show that American *people* aren't hated, but their *government* is.


It would seem the US Government and citizens are one in the same to other countries.

No, it *wouldn't* Matt -- that's the point I was making to GORT: polls show tthat 'other countries' (you mean : people in other countries, right?) can make a distinction between the leaders of a country, and its people. They won't *necessarily* make that distinction -- and they can be swayed by propaganda. But sweeping claims are not warranted. yet ther eyou go making one. Sheesh.

Isn't hating a 'people' the path to evil?

No question! Then again, don't terrorists always have a rational justification in their minds for their actions?

Yes. But 'rational' only means, argued logically from a set of premises. So, what' s your point?

[krabapple]

Scott McConnell, actually. Pat wrote the pro-Bush column, which I linked to but didn't quote. I don't know where Scott hails from, but in a mag like American Conservative, I'm betting he's a Yank.

Ryan

My mistake -- and McConnell is an 'antiwar conservative' who, like Buchanan, has thus broken ranks with the mainstream of conservatism; the American Conservative is their organ. (McConnell is, I *think* also the same SM who writes for the kooks at the Ayn Rand Institute; and he's quoted favorably far too often by the thoroghly loathsome 'VDARE' and other White Power sites for my tastes) He's only rare among *conservatives* -- his views on the war and Bush aren't rare in teh US populace. It's a 'strange bedfellows' situation, given that no self-respecting lilberal would want to be anywhere *near* the likes of McConnell and Buchanan on most social issues.

"Scott McConnell is the executive editor of The American Conservative.

A Ph.D. in history from Columbia University, he was formerly the editorial page editor of the New York Post and has been a columnist for Antiwar.com and New York Press. His work has been published in Commentary, Fortune, National Review, The New Republic, and many other publications."

[krabapple]

I spent a good bit of time in Europe in 2002 and even when the Iraq war was merely pending, I had to answer a lot of questions about why the heck we were bothering. I couldn't give any answers other than to say "I didn't vote for the prick" and "not all Americans think exactly like their president."
They were actually kind of shocked by this. I think their media tends to tell them that all Americans are cowboy assholes with a grudge, and with their experience with troops stationed there and college students on, um, 'study abroad programs'...probably not a lot of anectdotal evidence to the contrary, either.

Again, I doubt European views of the American people are any more or less ridiculous or unfounded or reflexive than Americans' views of the 'foreigners'. That has been my personal experience (whcih includes havin glots of non-US citizen friends, and a visit to Paris this year) . The average person around the world is, well, *average*. How many people anywhere take the time to really research the truth of their prejudices? People around the world may wonder how so many could support Bush -- but guess what, so do many people *here*! The Bush/Kerry right has been getting lots of coverage around the world. I'm sure any 'foreigners' following the news in any of hte *free* countries have an inkling of how deep the division is here.

[Gee Oh Are Tea]

(My understanding is that polls tend to show that American *people* aren't hated, but their *government* is..if so, that's you being unmodulated again. Isn't hating a 'people' the path to
evil?)

As has been stated, this isn't Buchanan (though he has written some things not complimentary of Bush).

OK, semantics again. Yes, you are correct - polls overwhelmingly state that the American "people" are well-liked. However, if the election goes Bush's way on November 2, then all Americans (even the 50% who care about the rest of us Earthlings) will not be so loved.

Anyway, I'm telling you again, if you think I'm unmodulated and OTT, you really need to guage the pulse of the rest of the world. This may sound unbelievable but one Canadian paper stated that the upcoming US election is more important to Canadians than the one we just had ourselves in June (which considerably reduced the power of the sitting government). The whole damn world is going crazy right now over the prospect of Bush being re-elected.

Cliff

[Gee Oh Are Tea]

I wonder how much Anti-U.S. rhetoric foreign citizens are exposed to?

That's funny!!! Here in Canada, we don't have any "anti-US rhetoric" other than watching the news (i.e dying Iraqis, suffering Palestinians, fat Republicans all patting each other on the back). Our government and business people are shitting themselves right now that Canadians are becoming too anti-American (especially as to how it will effect trade and commerce). There was a lot of anti-Canadianism in the US because we refused to go to Iraq. We also weren't too happy that one of your yahoo pilots killed four of our soldiers in Afghanistan (and got off scott-free) in an unfriendly fire incident.

We do get most American news broadcasts and are appallled at how soft they've been on Bush. Of course, you don't see half the shit we see on CBC (Canadian news) and the BBC from Fallujah after one of your "precise" missiles hits a target of .......... women and children.

Yeah, anti-US rhetoric. You're right, Matt - 5 billion people must be wrong about the US.

Cliff

[krabapple]

(My understanding is that polls tend to show that American *people* aren't hated, but their *government* is..if so, that's you being unmodulated again. Isn't hating a 'people' the path to
evil?)

As has been stated, this isn't Buchanan (though he has written some things not complimentary of Bush).

McConnell and Buchanan are basically of a piece ; they are two of the three co-founders of 'American Conservative', and McConnell edits AC and was formerly the editor of the almost campily right-wing tabloid New York Post. McConnell leans incrementally to the left of Pat, but they keeps him still way over on the right, comapred to 'real' liberals.

OK, semantics agin. Yes, you are correct - polls overwhelmingly state that the American "people" are well-liked. However, if the elction goes Bush's way on November 2, then all Americans (even the 50% who care about the rest of us Earthlings) will not be so loved.

Let's say that 's so, and it goes down that way . Is that response rational? To 'not love' the *half* of the country that cares about what the world thinks, and has been voicing its dislike of Bush? Should I, as a Kerry voter who cares about world opinion, really *empathize* and *condone* and *forgive* such stupidity, or shoudl I call it thoughtless ,lazy, counterproductive rhetoric (not to say ironic -- isn't *pissing on your allies* the sort of thing that the US is being condemend for in the first place?) , as I feel it would be?

Anyway, I'm telling you again, if you think I'm unmodulated and OTT, you really need to guage the pulse of the rest of the world.

I have. I think there's too much lazy, unmodulated, unthoughtful, OTT rhetoric out there (both outside the US, and within it) , and I think it works against the entirely legitimate concerns of the anti-Bush forces. Worse, it plays *right into* the hands of the right wing here. Much more encouragain is the rise of things liek factcheck.org and spinsanity.com.
Do 'foreigners' know about them?

This may sound unbelievable but one Canadian paper stated that the upcoming US election is more important to Canadians than the one we just had ourselves in June (which considerably reduced the power of the sitting government). The whole damn world is going crazy right now over the prospect of Bush being re-elected.

It doesn't sound unbelievable to me at all; the US, currently the most powerful country in the world, is quite possibly at an historic crossroads, and Canada sits right next to it. For better or worse, what happens here *could* have momentous effect there.

One hundred years ago, on a different geopolitical map, there was a saying acknowledging that events inside powerful countries have vast border-crossing consequence : 'When France sneezes, Europe catches cold'.