Prefatory Note: Despite the charges of cheapshotery my last attempt at this provoked, I’m going to dive head first into how much goodwill a touch of humility brings again. Given how Buddha-less the blogosphere has gotten over this torture scandal issue, let me note up front, for clarity, my driving concern here is the US’s image in the world (and how we need a good one to do right by Iraq), not Bush’s or Kerry’s image in the upcoming election.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
European allies are now even less enamored of our President than they were before the torture photos emerged. This is worrisome, given that before then, as a recent straw poll in Britain revealed, Bush was already pretty damn unpopular:
… perhaps the only surprising thing about the vehemence of anti-Bush feeling, based on a reading of newspapers, opinion polls and interviews around Europe, is how unsurprising it truly is. In fact, one reason the recent disclosures have proved so damaging to the American cause here is that Mr. Bush had so little good will upon which to draw. (emphasis mine)
This is not easily dismissed as transatlantic partisanship, unfortunately. Those polled here “were all Conservatives, by tradition and temperament the Republican Party’s natural friends across the Atlantic.”
Hopefully the importance of the continued goodwill of our closest ally in the war on terror is clear. But anytime someone references an article titled “Europeans Like Bush Even Less Than Before”; there’s a good chance a significant chunk of a panpartisan audience will immediately stop reading, thinking who gives a flying @#$% what the Europeans think.
For those readers, I bring this up again for another reason. In re-reading Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man recently*, a passage about goodwill jumped out at me:
Legitimate regimes have a fund of goodwill that excuses them from short-term mistakes, even serious ones….
This, it occurred to me, provides for interesting food for thought regarding the sense some have that liberals are exploiting the torture scandal toward hyperpartisan ends.
The Fukuyama passage continued.
Legitimate regimes have a fund of goodwill that excuses them from short-term mistakes, even serious ones, and failure can be expiated by the removal of a prime minister or cabinet. In illegitimate regimes, on the other hand, failure frequently precipitates an overturning of the regime itself.
Now I’ll admit, I’m most likely mixing things together in this, but I’m wondering if the source of all the liberal outrage over this mistake is not found in the still deeply rooted sense that the Bush Administration is illegimate. (I’m repeatedly on record as saying I don’t think the Administration is illegitimate, so please don’t misunderstand me here).
Of course that doesn’t necessarily explain why liberals consider what happened at Abu Ghraib prison a “Bush mistake”; but it may explain why those who do are calling for resignations and more to make amends or reparation here.
~~~~~~~~~~
*In part, as research for a piece I’m working on for Von’s proposed new blog on Islam issues to counter LGF (btw, Von / Tacitus, how’s that coming)?
They, in their ignorance, are terribly confused because of who got more votes. They don’t understand our more enlightened system, comparable to no other, and can’t see that Bush got all the votes he needed, could have gotten whole bunches more if they had been needed, and really wouldn’t want the votes of people who didn’t vote for him anyway.
Of course he is legitimate. He got the votes of at least 25% of the voting age population, and 5 supervotes.
I have this image of a supervote in a red cape and blue Underoos. And little yellow booties. And underneath, it’s William Rehnquist.
Somehow, I don’t think I’ll be getting any sleep tonight.
Not me. I thought he didn’t win the election; I thought the Supreme Court decision was wrong both on the merits and on the basis of the constitutional principles the majority justices normally espouse; but I got over it. I didn’t particularly like his policies, and some — e.g., scrapping our existing policy on N. Korea — struck me as dangerous, but then I didn’t expect to like his policies. I thought he was impressive after 9/11, and said so, though I loathed some of the provisions of the Patriot Act. The outrage began when he actually claimed the right to imprison US citizens without granting them any right to a trial or to counsel. It got worse when I realized to my absolute amazement that we were going to do both the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the search for bin Laden on the cheap. It got worse again when it became clear that we were going to go to war in Iraq, which struck me as deeply misguided under any circumstances, but incomprehensible in the midst of the supposed war on terror. But it didn’t really reach its present proportions until the moment when it became clear that we had embarked on this misguided war without a serious plan for the occupation. I mean: never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that they would do THAT. I find their mixture of cluelessness and arrogance terrifying in an administration that is supposed to be governing my country, which I love.
less enamored, wait for the UN Oil for Food Scandal to raise its ugly head.
less enamored, wait for the UN Oil for Food Scandal to raise its ugly head.
Gonna be a close race to see if that scandal breaks wide open before the video footage leaks out, Timmy.
I had an interesting conversation with a friend about the UK. I’m rooting for the Tories at the moment because I think Blair should go down. And since his party has kept him afloat instead of finding another candidate, Labor has lost my support. It’s pretty much the mirror image of my feeling here in the US. I would have alot more sympathy for the Republicans if they ran McCain this year and admitted this Administration should be replaced. But it’s not happening and I’m supporting the oppostion here in the States.
very strange. just read yahoo news uk via reuters that Labor leaders are calling for Blair to step down before the elections to make way for Chancellor Gordon Brown to run as head of Labor instead. i think time is moving too quickly and it’s time to go to bed!
Timmy: less enamored, wait for the UN Oil for Food Scandal to raise its ugly head.
I didn’t realize that you were so thorough a supporter of Annan, Timmy.
You do realize that the Oil for Food scandal is likely to implicate not only the UK but also the US governments (they’re the only members of the Security Council who saw the complete contracts) and that Halliburton is one of the companies mired in it?
About the only person likely to come out of this well is Kofi Annan, who responded promptly and effectively to allegations of corruption, setting up an investigation with a speed that puts the Bush administration to shame.
“About the only person likely to come out of this well is Kofi Annan, who responded promptly and effectively to allegations of corruption, setting up an investigation with a speed that puts the Bush administration to shame.”
I don’t think you have been paying attention as well as you think if you think that.
🙂
You are letting Kofi’s words blind you to the UN actions–the letters to the companies involved.
I don’t think you have been paying attention as well as you think if you think that.
I don’t think you have been paying attention as well as you think if you think that.
You are letting Kofi’s words blind you to the UN actions–
I think you are letting something (I’m not going to speculate what) blind you to the UN actions – and to the history of the Oil For Food program.
the letters to the companies involved.
If you mean this, I’m really not clear what’s bothering you about it.
It’s hard for me to take anyone who thinks Bush illegitimate seriously, and I do mean anyone.
As for goodwill, it’s nice to have when you have it, but lack of popularity in no way negates Bush or any other president to act in what he or she feels is the country’s best interest. Those caught up in popularity contests are thinking too emotionally for my taste. It sounds so high school.
As for Kofi, he will not come out well on the oil for scandal as I wrote here. He cannot claim openness and transparency by word and stonewall by deed.
If he’s stonewalling Volcker, not cool. If he’s stonewalling Chalabi & pals, I’m kind of okay with it….
Unfortunately most of the people covering this story, I would trust as far as I could throw. Which doesn’t mean it’s not real; just that it’s hard for me to draw any conclusions.
Caring what our closest ally in the world thinks is not high school. I mean, you could analogize the Marshall Plan to the school president who promises free candy to everyone if you wanted to be snooty, but you’d be overlooking that it was one of the single most important moments in the Cold War. If you want high school, look to the Freedom Fry Congress of 2003.
If he’s stonewalling Chalabi & pals, I’m kind of okay with it….
He’s stonewalling Congress, the U.S. government, which provides 22% of the UN budget. His claim of openness and transparency is a LIE in light of the hush letters he is sending out.
OK, that’s enough thread-jacking, thank you. All this “Don’t look here! There’s potentially a REAL scandal over there!!!” nonsense may fool some of the people, but there’s a key question here and I’m wrestling the podium back away from the food-for-oil distraction.
Those caught up in popularity contests are thinking too emotionally for my taste. It sounds so high school.
It does when you characterize it as a “popularity contest” but, what if, instead, you characterize it in economic and manpower terms. Can the US afford in $$$ and troops to go it alone in the war on terror? Lack of popularity may in no way negate Bush or any other president to act in what he or she feels is the country’s best interest, but a lack of resources can certainly have an impact.
To me (and I’m generally awful at math) this one is simple:
goodwill = resources
anger over arrogance = fewer resources
To get all ego-bruised and sour-graped over the lack of goodwill those with the resources we need hold for us, to huff in disdain “We’ll go it alone then,” to actually think that “You’re either with us or with the terrorists” should be an all-encompassing, compellng argument even in the face of blatant disrespect…that’s what I’d call high school.
Then the next question is, Edward, who lost the goodwill. We may have lost goodwill with several countries in Europe and in other places, but by their words and actions, they have lost goodwill with us. The culpability is not a one-way street. The French continue to be the perfect example.
Let’s use the British here Bird Dog. Have they lost goodwill with us? We’ve seemingly lost goodwill with them.
Pointing the French as having something to hide and pissing us off in no way explains the British.
Britain and the rest of Europe are more liberal, which explains their 2-1 support for Kerry over Bush. Bush not only needs to get out more in public in the U.S., noted here, but also abroad.
Here’s what irritates me about the NYT piece, at least as regards Britain. The opening paragraph started with several Tory party members who didn’t like Bush and then noted that the results of a straw poll of “some legislators” were “not pretty”. Well, how not pretty is not pretty? How many legislators? Could those legislators be some disgruntled wing of the party (TINOs?) or does it reflect the party’s mainline view? We don’t know and the NYT doesn’t illuminate. As such, it has bias written all over it, a nice lead-in to a story about unpopular Bush is.
Good call on the lack of scientificness in the NYT piece, Bird Dog.
Here’s some better data.
Bush, whether he likes it or not, whether it’s fair or not, represents the US abroad, so it’s fair to some extenst to equate him with the “US Image” in these stats (over a year old, granted, but showing a decline that began with Bush’s presidency).
In 1999-2000 87% of Britains had a favorable view of the United States. That dropped to 75% in 2002 (despite the support we had post 9/11). And then plummetted to 48% in March 2003.
extenst = extent