HEAR NO EVIL

After reading the comments on that recent anti-Americanism thread, I actually began to wonder if there's any point keeping this blog going. If US readers aren't willing to listen to constructive criticism, why bother? A lot of them, to be honest, talk like characters out of a Randy Newman song:

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us, so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Now, at the risk of boring everyone to death, I'll just repeat that I'm pro-American, I support the war in Iraq and if I'd had a vote I would have cast it for Bush at the last two elections. And I agree that there are lots of sound reasons for Americans to be angry at European condescension and double-standards. But the fact remains that this administration's communication skills are a problem. I'm not bringing it up just because I'm bored or because Bush's poll numbers are low or because I secretly dislike Americans. As a matter of fact, I gave a talk on the same subject at the Hoover Institution nearly three years ago, and I'm tired of hearing myself say the same old things.

My own impression, for what it's worth, is that not many people in the Washington power game seem particularly bothered by the image problem. Alex Massie - a staunchly pro-American journalist, BTW - comes to similar conclusions in the New Republic:

In the course of his administration, Bush has come perilously close to accomplishing the impossible: alienating Britain, forcing even its most reliably pro-American voices to question just how "special" the vaunted relationship is.

In the summer of 2002, Scooter Libby, then Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, huddled with British officials to discuss the course of the war on terrorism. As Sunday Telegraph Executive Editor Con Coughlin conjures the scene in his new book, "American Ally", Libby cavalierly mocked Blair's qualms: "Oh dear, we'd better not do that, or we might upset the prime minister."

In fact, on a range of issues, the Americans have upset the British, politely listening to their concerns and then, more often than not, simply ignoring them. A British offer to send 6,000 troops into the caves of Tora Bora to hunt for Osama bin Laden was rejected in November 2001. British proposals for postwar Iraq were, according to a senior Foreign Office official quoted by Coughlin, "dumped ... in the dustbin."

The initial round of primary reconstruction contracts went exclusively to U.S. firms; British companies had to complain before they were allowed a bigger piece of the action. Moreover, despite Bush's stated commitment to free trade, he imposed tariffs on European steel imports for over 20 months. And, ignoring repeated British pleas, the administration refused to engage on global warming or to make a priority of the Middle East road map.

Individually, these slights might be unfortunate; collectively, they look worse than careless. British patience is wearing thin as ongoing disputes with the United States coalesce to leave the British feeling like unwanted guests at a dinner party they thought they were co-hosting.

A must-read piece. You can argue about how valid some of the UK complaints really are (we all know that life isn't a dinner party) but the overall tone of the piece definitely seems right to me.

UPDATE: Roger Simon agrees that "the public relations aspect of the Bush Administration has been a disaster".... I don't accept that there's a "Yankee Go Home" element in the Tory unease that I referred to. It's surely much more to do with Iraq and the sense that everyone is floundering around. Personally, I haven't given up hope of a successful outcome, but let's face it, there are reasons to be gloomy. As a matter of fact, all those mistaken forecasts about the post-Saddam era are another reason why Schadenfreude predictions about where Europe is heading in the next 50 years should be approached with caution.

BTW, Shelby Steele has an op-ed in the WSJ about the link between anti-Americanism and white guilt. Could be a grain of truth in that. Imagine how irate the US-bashers would be if Condi were ever to get to the White House... [Hat-tip: JAS]

Austin Bay e-mails some comments on public diplomacy:

I've been a critic of this US failing for years. Getting rid of USIA was a mistake. I didn't defend USIA at the time of its demise and I regret that failure... However, USIA was the proverbial drop in the bucket in the culture and information wars, (though a useful splash). Here's what I think hurt US "cultural" diplomacy: Vietnam. Vietnam produced the "revolt of the elites." The US elite media magnified America's homegrown anti-American critique, and US elite media in the late 1970s and 1980s powered the global media...

There's also a second element at play here. A lot of the anti-American critique is re-hashed Soviet-era anti-US agit-prop. Even the Islamists have retooled the "anti-imperialist" diatribe. The old hard left and the theo-fascists share a common rhetorical conceit as well as common enemy.

That noted, the Bush Administration's public diplmacy has been tone-deaf and dismal. In part the Bush folks do not trust the Beltway media. Bush is also a dismal public speaker. If he only had the gift of public poetry, like Tony Blair-- but he doesn't.

Comments

[Peter Nolan]

Yeah, too true. This administration just doesn't look after its friends, which is the most basic rule of politics.

[M Pav]

Among my (mainly anti-Bush) friends and acquaintances I usually feel as if I'm out there on my own defending the Bush admin. It's nice to stick to your principles in the face of popular opposition, it's quite another thing to pretend that popular opinion doesn't matter. Reagan knew what to do, persuade the people that his policies were right. Bush is too inarticulate to do that. If I didn't find justification for his policies elsewhere, he would never persuade me. I get uncomfortable listening to him. I hope Tony Snow helps.

[John Burgess]

I'd point out that it wasn't just Bush who ignored European or British public opinion. When I was Press Attaché for the US Embassy in London, 1994-98, (i.e., during the Clinton Administration) I had an impossible time getting senior US officials to talk with the British media about issues of bilateral concern.

During the course of some 20+ visits to the UK, Secretary of State Albright did exactly two interviews with the British media. Both, alas, were with David Frost. Frost: one hard question, no follow-up, but endless fluff until time ran out.

Her Press Secretary deigned to do one interview with the BBC, for a mid-morning broadcast. During the entire four years.

A little too much taking the British for granted, in my book, but that's the way they wanted to do it...

Other Cabinet officers were not so parsimonious with their talents, particularly when there was a hot-button issue at hand; the Secretary of Defense, for instance, did several important programs while arguing Kosovo and Sanctions on Iraq.

Ambassador Crowe, on the other hand, was frequently on "Today", arguably the most important media presence in the UK.

[Helian]

“After reading the comments on that recent anti-Americanism thread, I actually began to wonder if there's any point keeping this blog going. If US readers aren't willing to listen to constructive criticism, why bother?”

Anyone actually reading the comments can see that there are a good number of Americans, including myself, who agreed with your constructive criticism. How is it, then, that you justify the conclusion that “US readers” en masse are unwilling to listen to constructive criticism? Your remarks are illogical, and you seem to be succumbing to the same anti-Americanism that you claim to oppose. Here’s another example:

“I'm about as pro-US as they come, but I have to say I'm beginning to run out of patience - and hope.”

Tell me, if this does not imply that you are abandoning your pro-US position, and, consequently, becoming anti-American, what does it mean? It seems to me the only other rational meaning the statement could have is that, whereas you formerly refrained from criticizing the US, you will now commence to criticize her. If that’s the case, what, exactly, inhibited you from criticizing her before? Were you really what SPIEGEL refers to as a “poodle,” a “vassal,” one who mindlessly supported America, right or wrong? Did you really believe that anyone who criticized America was “anti-American?”

Anti-Americanism has never been about criticism or the lack of it. It is an irrational, though predictable and inevitable, response to a world in which the US is perceived as the one remaining superpower. Criticism of America now by her friends is more important than it has ever been before. Your conclusion that no one is listening because some Americans react with impatience and scorn to any criticism, is palpably and demonstrably false. There are similar “patriots” in every country. Americans in general are certainly more receptive to criticism today than they were in the 19th century when Mrs. Trollope, who you refer to in a later post, and a host of other British writers almost uniformly noticed their tendency to reject it out of hand. I doubt that they are worse than many Europeans in that regard in our own day. Go on a German or French blog and post similar comments, and you will get a similar response. Would you, therefore, conclude that “German readers aren’t willing to listen to constructive criticism,” or throw up your hands and exclaim that you are “beginning to run out of patience – and hope” in the German people? I we take you seriously, then considering the torrents of hatemongering anti-American propaganda that has come pouring out of Germany and France in recent years, we Americans should have long ago thrown up our hands as well, and “run out of patience – and hope” in the French and German people. I, for one remember how much good both of those people have done for the world in the past, and am far from reaching such a conclusion. It is no more justified in the case of the American people.

Anti-Americanism exists, and is a grave problem in the world today. Does it really surprise you that some Americans react cynically to honest, constructive criticism when they are deluged by the one-sided, relentlessly negative propaganda of the haters every day? Is it really so far-fetched to suggest that, if your criticism is not being sufficiently heard and responded to, anti-Americanism is a significant source of the problem? If you really want your criticism to be heard, you have all the more reason to resist mindless manifestations of anti-American hate. I hope you will continue to do so.

[Clive]

Helian, you're continuing to make my point for me. Thanks. As a matter of fact, I have said all this before, but it seems to me the situation is a lot more urgent now.

I agree with John Burgess that this problem goes back way beyond the Bush years. It's fair to say both countries have been guilty of taking each other for granted.

[Helian]

"It's fair to say both countries have been guilty of taking each other for granted."

I assure you not all Americans take our dear old mother for granted, in spite of our rather stormy adolescence.

[Meg]

Clive – in your original post you opened a gate for discussion, and the crowd poured in to play verbal paintball. The sniping, the nyah-nyah-nyahing, and the personal attacks make tiresome reading. The insistence on misinterpreting your remark about running out of patience (with US efforts at explaining its position) as proof that you’re thus de facto anti-American is risible. But please, don’t assume that the posters who turned this thread into a rhetorical free-fire zone are representative of your US readers. Maybe they are, but I think a lot of these folks came to lob grenades, not to discuss. And they’ve had a hell of a party.

John – I’m a long-term American expat in London, and I miss Admiral Crowe.

[Jake]

Having started that little brawl on the original post, I feel somewhat responsible for your now giving up on your American readers. But my comment started with a simple question, "What would you have us do?" And the second comment did the same. Granted you provided an update with a list of suggestions, but if now you want to take your blog and go home because some readers thought them somewhat weak... well, perhaps you should grow a thicker skin.

At least the Americans are engaging on sites like this where the host is not shy about taking both sides to task. I don't see many Brits or Europeans asking you for your advice on how to fix our various differences.

[Frank Lee]

May I offer an anecdote that might illuminate why Americans "aren't willing to listen to constructive criticism," as Clive puts it? When I was in graduate school, I took a sociolinguistics course with a professor from France. I was curious about how we might trace history through the development of languages, and I asked in class, "Do researchers assume that language appeared in different places independently, or do they assume that there was one Eve language from which we can trace all others?" The professor looked at me like I was a moron. "Don't be stupeed," she snarled. "Adam and Eve are just a meeth." My classmates and I just stared at her, dumbstruck. "I was speaking metaphorically," I said, but she went on with a rant about how uneducated her American students are, how can she do serious research with religious fanatics, and so on. She understood perfectly what I meant, but she chose to be disingenuous, because it would make me look stupid (or so she thought -- we just thought she was a fool). And I would bet a year's salary that she relates a distorted version of this episode to her European friends, to prove how ignorant Americans are. So, Clive, if Americans are resistant to criticism from Europeans, it may be in part because they've heard it all before, in its most unfair form, and have stopped listening.

You say yourself that you feel like giving up. Well, here's my broken record again: if there ends up being a broadening split between the United States and Europe, that will be bad for the United States, but it will be catastrophic for Europe. The Europeans have a greater incentive to keep the partnership going. To do so, you will need to change the tenor of your conversation entirely. That comparison you made of your American readers to the character in the Randy Newman song was merely insulting. America benefits from her ties to Europe, but not enough to endure the insults. Good luck.

[the chakman]

You know, I've been to around 18 countries, and I think I can reqasonably say, every one has had thier own version (in thier head) of "America".

Sometimes the impression is positive, most of the time it's negative. But theres ALWAYS a response.

I think the real problem is that neither side really thinks of the other as a friend, but more as a stategically ally. And now what was reserved for the governments passes on the the people.

So we are at an impasse. The rest of the world "hates america", or at the very least dislikes it, and 5 years after 9/11 thats what most americans assume as the truth, and it SEEMS like a fact that this is the way it always was, and always will be.

Of coarse, like the previos posters in the other thread from germany...we will have Europeans that say "NO I used to like america...it's just Bush". They are telling the truth as far as they know. But by now it just seems like BS to many americans.

[MikeK]

I like the blog Clive and I don't mind being criticized. Please don't shut it down because some of my fellow country men are being asshats. Seriously people, if you think Clive is "anti-american" or whatever you could just go back to the comment thread on LGF and the problem would be solved.

[chakman]

I don't think that Clive is anti american in any way. That's really nuts.

And clive, instead of shutting down the blog, we should find out what the problems and misunderstanding are, and how we can solve them.

[alcibiades]

It's actually a shame that Alex Massie didn't publish this article in a mainstream conservative publication, instead of the New Republic, which is reliably anti-Bush.

The issues he mentions would have a better chance of getting noticed and addressed - not just as a way to bash Bush - if this had been published, say, in an oped in the WSJ. They may be big issues in Britain, but I guarantee you that most Americans have heard little or nothing about them.

Many American Conservatives are quite sincere in their regard for both Tony Blair (his foreign policy, not his domestic one, which often seems incomprehensible) and Britain, as a result of their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So in fact bringing this kind of attention to them on your blog might eventually lead to more people paying attention to the problem, and eventually - if enough people notice - to pressure to solve them being applied.

Although much of this issue seems like typical bureaucratic and congressional intransigence. Of the never-address- anything-unless-it-turns-into-a-crisis sort.

You know what I mean. The kind of thing that Charles Clarke is currently facing in the Home Office.

And these days, if anyone is going to leak our secrets in a way that will hurt the Bush Admin, it's more likely to be current and ex-CIA agents themselves, rather than the British.

[tcobb]

As I see it, Americans and Western Europeans held good opinions of one another during the cold war period because we shared the same interests. The US wasn't defending Europe from the Soviets out of the warmness of its own collective heart. It was in our own interest to do so. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union the common purpose dissolved. The plain fact is that our respective interests have diverged and in many cases conflict with one another now. This was inevitable.

Can anyone really dispute that part of the French and Russian opposition to deposing Saddam came about from the fact that Iraq owed both countries a great deal of money and they were afraid that the new regime might repudiate those debts? Those concerns were legitimate. Very materialistic, but legitimate nevertheless.

The major problem seems to me that on both sides of the Atlantic the politicians tend to frame issues as having great moral overtones, when in most cases self-interest rather than morality is what its all about. But its easier to sell a position using emotion rather than reason if you're able to get away with it.

[hepzeeba]

>>It's actually a shame that Alex Massie didn't publish this article in a mainstream conservative publication, instead of the New Republic, which is reliably anti-Bush.

This is one of the biggest problems: *prejudice*

Where an article is published, who it was who said a smart and useful and constructive thing, where on the political spectrum (if there even is such a thing) a good idea comes from--those things SHOULDN'T MATTER.

These days, they are all that matters. We are all devolving into a bunch of Stalinists.

[alcibiades]

Really, hepzeeba, don't you think that is a bit of an overreaction.

Stalinist, indeed.

My point was merely, in a very pragmatic sense, the article would have gotten more positive exposure among people who might be concerned about this relationship and in a position to influence the necessary people in a publication the majority of whose readers these days are not knee jerk Bush despisers.

And I say this as someone who used to have a New Republic subscription.

It's not the source of the information, it's its dissemination I was referring to.

If you think that has something to do with Stalinism, go right ahead.

[hepzeeba]

alcibiades---

Yes, it was a thoughtless, inapt pejorative (in which I included myself), and I regret having used it. I did not mean to address it to you personally. It was a cranky complaint.

Here's the thing: When you call TNR "reliably anti-Bush" it says to me that you've chosen to hear only those things that won't offend you. It says to me that you've closed off your mind. (I'm not defending TNR--I've got no dog in that fight. I spot-read 'em all.)

Again, this isn't an attack on you personally. I know people who wake up and fall asleep to NPR (the very liberal public radio network in America, for those of you who don't know), and people who will watch only Fox News (i.e., the Murdoch-owned TV network), etc.

I don't blame them. It's awful to be assalted by someone else's bias day in and day out. Luckily we can choose what we watch, listen to, etc. Indeed, that's precisely what makes our world not Stalinist, and I never take that right for granted.

Still, we're in dire straits if all the people who posted here can't find a way to bridge the gap. We are, after all, on the same side.

I meant to say that too many of us---and I include myself again---tend to judge people and to scrutinize publications, blogs, etc. for their ideological origins and/or purity before deciding whether we will listen, or open our minds.

This very self-destructive tendency has been most pronounced on the left up till now. Perhaps the center cannot hold, either.

[alcibiades]

I guess I'm thinking about this column, since notorious.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030929&s=chait092903

As well as the fact that whenever the New Republic sends me an email to entice me to subscribe, the majority of the articles it links to are reliably anti-Bush, often with an unpleasant sneer to them, a trend that I think accelerated with the new editor, Franklin Foer. Which led me to conclude that the anti-Bush audience is their target market for expanding their subscriptions, rather than the center.

I could be wrong about their strategy, I suppose, but if I am, they're doing a poor job of advertising, because the message isn't coming through.

I am a little confused however by your saying, OTOH, "it says to me that you've chosen to hear only those things that won't offend you" and OTOH, "Again, this isn't an attack on you personally."

You do appear to be painting me still all black and white based on what, one or two emails, then mitigating that by saying it is not personal. A contradictory stance.

In any case, I'll reiterate the point I was trying to make initially. Which is that I think conservatives in the US do feel a strong tie to Britain.

I also wonder if the slowly widening gap that Clive's Tory acquaintances are beginning to feel doesn't come from the fact that the Bush Admin has better relations, oddly, with Labour because of Iraq, then with the Tories, with whom a special relationship has not yet reemerged in the David Cameron era.

Although that does not address the point made in the article that Clive linked to.

[Helian]

@Alcibiades

"As well as the fact that whenever the New Republic sends me an email to entice me to subscribe, the majority of the articles it links to are reliably anti-Bush, often with an unpleasant sneer to them, a trend that I think accelerated with the new editor, Franklin Foer. Which led me to conclude that the anti-Bush audience is their target market for expanding their subscriptions, rather than the center."

It's certainly true that TNR tends to approach most issues from the left. When Andrew Sullivan was editor, he did endorse Bush half-heartedly in 2000 if memory serves, although he made it clear he wasn't speaking for the entire staff. Of course, Andrew was never a perfect fit there. TNR did support going to war against Iraq, although they have become remarkably wobbly about Iraq lately, in typical leftist fashion. They now seem abashed by the triumphalist "I told you so's" of the "Nation" flavor of pacifist leftists who opposed the war from the start for the usual reasons. TNR is also staunchly pro-Israel, hardly typical of leftists in general.

I think the most important consideration in choosing which political mags to read is not which side of the political isle they're coming from, but the quality of the writing. In that respect, TNR has been outstanding in recent years. I hope they will continue to be so under their new editor. The editors may have a leftist take on many issues, but they seldom fail to take note of and analyze the significant arguments of their opponents. They have remarkably little of the moral high ground arrogance so typical of many on the left these days.

Sorry for the diversion, but I respect TNR, so thought I would give them a plug. It's not easy making a living doing what they do these days.

@Hepzeeba

"Where an article is published, who it was who said a smart and useful and constructive thing, where on the political spectrum (if there even is such a thing) a good idea comes from--those things SHOULDN'T MATTER. These days, they are all that matters. We are all devolving into a bunch of Stalinists."

I think "Stalinist" is a little extreme, but there's still a lot of truth to what you say. There is a general tendency to ridicule or, if that doesn't work vilify serious political opponents these days, rather than debate them. Take the following comment:

"Seriously people, if you think Clive is "anti-american" or whatever you could just go back to the comment thread on LGF and the problem would be solved."

As all good blogosphere wonks will recall, LGF did a resounding, boom-chuka-luka slam dunk on Dan Rather in the faked Guard memo affair. His dismantling of the memo was irrefutable, and made Rather's journalistic apologists look like a bunch of clowns. I don't read Johnson very often, but this is hardly the first time I've seen an artifact of the whispering campaign against him. It's an interesting phenomenon in the context of the memo debacle.

[hepzeeba]

Alcibiades and Helian:

Apologies again. I've flagellated myself on my own blog too.

You might be interested in this from today's Washington Post:

>The test found Republicans preferred to get their news from Fox -- even when the news stories were about subjects far removed from politics, such as sports or travel.

On the other hand, Democrats avoided Fox when it came to political news and preferred National Public Radio and CNN. And when the news focused on controversial issues such as the Iraq war and politics, "partisans are especially likely to screen out sources they consider opposed to their political views," said Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar, director of the communication lab.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302299_pf.html

[Pamela]

Oh puh-leeze. You criticised America under the auspices of being pro-U.S. and because some of your criticism was shot down - specifically in my case that (a)not being an American citizen, Bush owes you no explanation at all (b) every issue you complained about not being well-enough informed about is readily available on the web

Go ahead - shut down the blog - a lot of your American commenters aren't going to give you the slack you think you deserve because you say you're pro-American. But you haven't responded to anything other than the demand for specifics of your complaints about the Bush admin

- Iraq
- Koyto
- Gitmo

You aren't arguing the arguments - all you can do is post the lyrics of some lame Randy Newman song.

Mike K
>>Seriously people, if you think Clive is "anti-american" or whatever you could just go back to the comment thread on LGF and the problem would be solved.

I have lived on LGF for years - as grayp - and I have studied anti-Americanism for years. I'm not calling Mr Davis anti-American - I'm calling him a lazy debater.
--------------
alcibiades
>>
And these days, if anyone is going to leak our secrets in a way that will hurt the Bush Admin, it's more likely to be current and ex-CIA agents themselves, rather than the British.

And what a remarkable nic for such a post.
----------

The bottom line Mr. Davis, is that there are apparently a good many intelligent, engaged posters here, and all you aren't engaging them - you're whining, yes indeed, but not engaging them.

No, I do not think you're anti-American. And even if I did, that would not necessarily preclude the merit of any argument you might make.

But please stop whining.

[Clive]

Pamela, I don't know what else you want to hear. I thought I'd already explained that I was talking about how policy is presented. I've also pointed out that Roger Simon and Austin Bay agree with me on that. (Or are they not right-wing enough for you?) None of my criticism was shot down - most of the critics here didn't seem interested in addressing the issue. So there's not much I can add, except that the kind of debating you and other people engage in actually feeds anti-Americanism.

[Mike K.]

I would be happy to buy Clive a beer if I ran into him at a bar (or maybe a pub if I ever visit Europe.)

Helian: I read LGF as well, but the comments on the blog are retarded. Europe isn't going to vanish and if it were people in the States shouldn't gloat about it. I am sure that most of the people who post on the blog are decent enough, but the internet breed's rivalry where there wasn't any and hostility where there shouldn't be any. I think it has something to do with anon...

[Al]

I'm a londoner, and a quite new reader here, and while i do not agree with what Clive (pardon the informality) says some of the time i deeply respect his way of communicating himself and his opinions. I do no such good job on my blog.

I notice on Fox they have started on the Dixie Chicks again - and cds being run over by bull dozers are the images many of us carry in Europe when America starts speaking about Democracy and tollerance around the world. I don't believe for a second that that is how most Americans think of the Dixie Chicks, but those are images we get of how you treat your own dissenters as a nation.

The whole of America does seem to come under a lot of critiscm form Europeans, but mine and those of my "serious" friends are about foreign policy, healthcare provision, broader education policy, poverty in the south - discussing rationally the problems of another nation does not make the participant anti-that country.
I won't deny for a second that there are cartoonish cracks and cheap shots (more in good fun than than menace)

The American critiscms of Europe are similarly mixed - some light hearted cheap shots some utter idiocy and some reasoned concern over US bases and European foreign policy, et.al.

But on both sides there are the extremes. Americans who view Europeans as entirely Godless and spineless, and being consumed by Arab influences.
Europeans who see America a purely a land of fat, oafish classless god-bothering idiots are no better.

I digress, basically, lay off of Clive. Please.

Al

[Al]

I will at this juncture qualify myself by saying - i just don't get or do patriotism.

I live more in London than in England, and large parts of London are vapid holes, the public transport is attrocious, libraries are closing, roads appauling, people gruff and the weather lousy most of the year.
that doesn't mean i don't love more of london than i dispair of it.

Should i using (some american logic) leave London because i don't love it unconditionally?

Nationallity is an accident of birth, sometimes something to be thankful for, but a curse for a majority of those on this earth with no running water or healthcare.

So instead of worrying about how much we hate or love our respective locales some perspective on how much this matters in the wider scheme of things may not go amiss.

Al