Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
A tale of two continents
Published on April 2, 2004 By Draginol In Current Events

For reasons I can't quite understand, some people argue that we should take into account what Europeans think of Bush and Kerry. Why?

I think the reason is cultural lag. A seeming obsession to worry about what the "mother country" thinks of what we're doing. What's worse is that many Europeans seem to think that their opinions should matter to us. The whole thing is very selective too. It's not based on merit. It's not based on population. It's not based on economics. It's particular to Europe.

Let me give you an example: How often in these debates over Iraq have we heard about how France thinks about what we should do? Now, compare that to Japan. Japan has a larger population, a much higher GDP, and produces a lot more products and services that people use on a day to day basis. Yet France gets an incredible amount of attention. The US had Japan's support for its actions in Iraq. Japan has even sent troops there. But you rarely hear about that.

It's cultural lag. Many Europeans are unaware that individual European nations are not a major concern to most Americans. They don't go and pick presidential candidates based on what Belgium thinks any more than we're going to poll what Argentina thinks. But because Europeans believe their opinons should matter more to us than other nations, they chaffe at when someone like me points out that Americans don't care. Nor should they care. National governments are suppoed to do what is best for their own citizens. Not what's best for some minor nation state across the ocean.

It's not arrogance.  It's common sense. I wouldn't expect that someone in Belgium care what someone in Pakistan thinks of their leaders when voting. Despite the fact that Pakistan has a vastly higher population. Citizens in Belgium should only care what their leaders will do for them.  Same in France. 

BTW, do you think the French worry what we think of Chirac? Poll Americans and those who even know who he is are liekly to have a generally unfavorable opinion. But you rarely hear about Europeans worrying what Americans think. Many Europeans seem to demand that we listen to what they think of our leaders and take it to heart. But they seem to show no concern about what we think about their leaders. It's a one-way street.

We don't expect Europeans to care what we think when they vote for their leaders. Which is good because they've made it clear they don't care. Despite that, some Europeans expect us to care what they think of our leaders. And when someone points that we don't care, it's us that are called arrogant. Amazing.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 02, 2004
I agree with you Brad, it is a one-way street that can be attributed to pride. I want to give you another perspective on it maybe how they think. The U.S. has great influence on the decisions other countries make as well as directly with the selection of goverment of a few countries. That might be why a lot of Europeans feel we should pay attention to what they think of our country. I try to rationalize what could cause that way of thinking. I must admit my knowledge of the actual workings of Eu is somewhat limited but from what I do know, the Union itself was modeled closely after the U.S.. It's as if they are trying to counter us or keep us in check. I agree with you on the aspect that as Americans we shouldn't care just like they don't care.
on Apr 02, 2004
first of all: no, generally Americans should not care what Europeans think of your candidates for the presidency of your country.

but believe it or not, you need support from European (and a few other) countries on that war on terror you are on currently. to be more specific: monetary and military support. don´t forget who paid the bills for the second Gulf War: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ troops from foreign countries are also needed, they are there in Afghanistan, for Iraq they would be neede as well, but only few countries are willing to contribute.

so if that war on terror is high on your agenda it might be smart to consider which administration will be more able to get that support. you wont get this kind of support from Bangla Desh for example, they only might send a few badly supplied troops that you will have to pay for.
on Apr 02, 2004
What about the support the U.S. provides other countries? Why do Europeans tend to not want to care what we think of your government when I think we provide the rest of the world the with more support than any other country. Let us be honest why should it be a double standard? What makes Europeans better than anyone else? or vise versa?
on Apr 02, 2004
Brad,

Americans are free to elect who they want. Every one else is free to have an opinion about who you elect. Go ahead and elect whoever you want but if you re-elect the current brash unilateralist, don't expect relations with the EU to improve.

"Many Europeans are unaware that individual European nations are not a major concern to most Americans"

I totally disagree. In Europe the stereotype of Americans is the exact opposite i.e. that Americans don't know or care what goes on outside the US. We are very aware of American insularity.
on Apr 02, 2004
We should definitely not care what Europeans think about our candidates. All nations are for their own interests, whether that be economics, world trade, world dominance or whatever. Of course, therefore, nations would want the U.S. to have the weakest president. Then they could take advantage of us in every way.
on Apr 02, 2004
I think it's always wise to be open to what your allies think and feel. That's only natural. Now if you're talking about them being able to set policy or involve themselves officially in American elections then no. But yes every free open minded nation should be receptive to what its' allies are thinking. Why not?
on Apr 02, 2004
i don´t quite see the double standard you are speaking of. in Germany, where i come from, on the last election (shortly before the third Gulf War) the opposition party quite often mentioned how bad the relationships with the US became under the current government.

OFF TOPIC:
i know the US provides a lot of economic aid. the biggest donor in absolute numbers is Japan though. France provides almost as much support as the US and has a much smaller population. if you look at aid per capita or as percent of GNP the US is at the bottom of the list.
source: CIA World Factbook http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2062.html
on Apr 02, 2004
The United States holds a unique position being the lone superpower. What happens in our elections directly effects Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the rest of the world. The office of president is the single most powerful position in the world. There concern is a real one. They want a man in office that will respect international law, make peace, and not threaten the Earth with the most powerful military in history. Europeans are different from Americans. You may have the false patriotism that leads you to think "America: right or wrong," but we should care what the citizens of the world feel, believe, and say. These facts will inform my vote in November. One of the main reasons Americans supported last years invasion of Iraq was because they believed falsely that world opinion supported the action. It did not, but that misinformation was spread by our jingoistic media and convinced many of your compatriots to support a complete mistake. We should care what people outside of the vaccuum of America think, because they exposed to more of the truth than most of us.

Mine is a point of view that many Americans hold dispite your ability to recognize it.
on Apr 02, 2004
I totally disagree. In Europe the stereotype of Americans is the exact opposite i.e. that Americans don't know or care what goes on outside the US. We are very aware of American insularity.


I think that a lot (not all) of Europeans are trying to emphatically show opposition to the U.S. for this war in Iraq. Spain is a prime example and even though they have vowed to remove their troops lo and behold they find another bomb. It is wise to open to what your allies feel when it concerns them but just like the mouse said when it involves elections we should not care. As far as American insularity when it comes to our own elections we should be narrow-minded because it is for our interests that we should elect a candidate not for foreign interests. Maybe I am being naive but it just seems logical.
on Apr 02, 2004
I thought it was because they believed falsely that Iraq possessed WMD.
on Apr 02, 2004
I guess that it depends on whether or not you want a president that is more likely to uphold good relations to the European countries. Isn't it up to each American voter to take that into account? If my country hade a president rather than a prime minister chosen by the ruling party, I would factor the presidents ability to uphold and improve diplomatic relations into the equation.

As a European I do not see that you have any obligation to consider our opinion of your presidential candidates at all. It is not our business.

I think that most of the European opinions come from two sources:
1) I think that the average European opinion of Bush is that he is less than bright, lied about the weapons of mass destruction and too eager to use military force than most Europeans find necessary. Anyone else would be a better choice.
2) The American election gets much coverage in the media over here. In Sweden we get more coverage of the American election than the elections of most other European countries. The American election is regarded as somewhat entertaining and discussed as casually as the latest sex scenes in Big Brother tv-show. Much media coverage will make people form opinions one way or the other.

On the amusing side I think that many Europeans would find this article fairly arrogant on its own.

on Apr 02, 2004
The problem exists when we do things like the war in Iraq and we try and get international support. Half of the President's job is to manage the nation in domestic affairs, the other half is to manage the nation's interests abroad, and honestly you need to be able to get support internationally for doing a great many things. How the rest of the world regards a president is a very important thing, because it dictates trade and military situations. The President must be a diplomat, and a diplomat who is generally disliked/disregarded by those he has to work with is automatically a very bad one. Bush is a very very bad diplomat, which helped result

But in the end, we do the same thing with other nations, we belive our opinions should matter in foreign elections. I remember a lot of rhetoric being tossed around my campus saying Chirac should be removed from office. I also remember Fox News calling the election of the liberal candidate in Spain to be a "mistake" And then there's the instance where we went in and forcefully removed another world leader because he very very strongly clashed with what we liked. (I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I am merely offering it as an example of our own attitudes)

We aren't as isolated as we like to believe. This is a global economy, a global workforce, and political boundaries are growing fuzzier and fuzzier. We have to play nice with our neighbors and allies, just like they have to play nice with us... and we can't pull a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude.
on Apr 02, 2004
1) I think that the average European opinion of Bush is that he is less than bright, lied about the weapons of mass destruction and too eager to use military force than most Europeans find necessary. Anyone else would be a better choice.

John Kerry said Iraq had WMD's, do the Europeans think he lied also?
on Apr 02, 2004
John Kerry voted for the war and then he later oppposed it after WMD's were not found but when did he "say" Iraq had WMD's? can you give me a credible source I.E. a major news article? I am seriously interested in seeing actual evidence of that.
on Apr 02, 2004
These are a few kerry quotes that can be found. Most of them are from speeches, and interviews.

""The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, 10/9/02

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senate Speech

“I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03

“Mr. Kerry … Said Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Posed ‘A Real And Grave Threat’ To The United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)
2 Pages1 2