I’m away on vacation as you read this. I really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to provide you with reading material for a few weeks. Proof? I’m about to quote myself.
Back in May 2006, the British blogger Clive Davis (who has since moved his blog to the Spectator’s site) broached the subject of European anti-Americanism.
Here’s what I had to say:
I would posit two kinds of anti-Americanism:
–cultural/social/casual anti-Americanism
a) of the kind Clive Davis and Andrew Sullivan are talking about (I think)–from people of good will who wanted (and want) this scary new muscular foreign policy to succeed, because the stakes are so high, and who are stumped, disappointed, hurt and worried about the mess we’re in and the (terrifying) incompetence and callousness (and worse) that has been exposed in the war in Iraq. Which, whether it is or not (and who really knows?), looks stalled.
a) of the kind practiced by, say, my European parents, who were always remarking (good-naturedly) on the naivete, silliness, corniness, provincialism, and boorishness of Americans. It was frustrating, seeing as they were raising me in America, but I got used to it. And of course I took their point.
However, we never confused that with:
–political anti-Americanism
a) of the kind practiced by America’s political enemies, who seek to undermine American “hegemony” (cultural and/or economic) in order to further their local or regional or global political agendas [see: Iran, North Korea, China, to name just a few, and many non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and others whose names we haven't heard yet...but maybe we will].
b) of the kind practiced by its “politically correct” “allies” (see: France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Berkeley, Cambridge, the Upper West Side of New York City, the campuses of the top 300 American universities, most mainstream media organizations not owned by Rupert Murdoch, etc.). In that straitjacketed world, anti-Americanism is the only “anti” feeling people are allowed to have and to express–after all, it’s not nice to be “anti” anyone who is less powerful, less privileged, less white, less rich, less empowered, less fortunate, etc.–and they display those feelings with relish and zeal, comfortably certain that they will never come to any harm because of it. And, quite possibly, the more they’re forced to suppress their “anti” feelings about “the Other,” the more virulently anti-American they become. (Thus their response to the cartoon jihad.)
————
One further point, regarding the recent upsurge in anti-Americanism–I think it’s due to the perceived failure in Iraq, which in turn is due to the unreasonable expectations.
Partly, we were set up to have them (”Mission Accomplished”, “greeted with flowers”; etc.). Partly, though, they (including most Americans, I’d say) actually believed the myth of the “great superpower” (see Mentar’s comment above: “What has changed is my idealistic perception as America as the trustworthy benevolent-altruistic superpower.”)
And now it turns out that the emperor has no clothes. It doesn’t make people laugh, though. It scares them. And they’re (we’re) right to be scared and anxious. And angry.
Finally: Bush has explained Iraq over and over–in a post 9/11 world, allowing Saddam to continue his misbehavior–and possibly to ally himself with OBL– was an unacceptable risk.
If some people do not agree—and the politically correct of all persuasions and ethnicities and parties and creeds do not–that isn’t Bush’s fault. But the extraordinary incompetence of the prosecution of the war, the obscene arrogance, the crude cronyism, the rewarding of the loyal, etc., etc.. All of that is Bush’s fault and responsibility. And still I hope he succeeds. And we succeed.
Apologies for this very long post.
Posted by: hepzeeba | Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 04:26 AM