Dean's thirst for world's approval is childish

Rocky Mountain News ^ | 12/13/03 | Vincent Carroll

[bdeaner]

Carroll: Dean's thirst for world's approval is childish

December 13, 2003

Howard Dean believes a president should be judged by the worldwide popularity of his policies. At least that is what he suggested to Fox News' Chris Wallace the other day, after Wallace asked Dean why he'd said Bush "doesn't understand what it takes to defend this country, that you have to have high moral purpose."

Wallace apparently thought he could cajole Dean into admitting the president did indeed have a moral purpose "in trying to set up democracy in the Middle East," even if the president's policies were all wrong. But the Democratic front-runner would have none of it.

Advertisement

The president "has forfeited our moral leadership in the world," Dean insisted - adding later, in case Wallace missed the point, that "most people in this world think that America has forfeited its moral leadership. That's a terrible thing, because our moral leadership is part of our defense, not just having a strong military."

Things have gone so badly, Dean opined, that "today there are not very many countries, after three years of George W. Bush's presidency, where people want to be like us anymore."

There are two problems with Dean's analysis. The first is that it's adolescent. People who wring their hands over whether their behavior will be liked, as opposed to whether their behavior is right, belong in junior high school. "What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner, 'I stand for consensus'?" Margaret Thatcher famously asked.

The second problem with what Dean said is that it's based on a false premise: the world once liked America but now despises us because of Bush. To be sure, for a few shining days or so after Sept. 11, 2001, much of the world radiated goodwill toward the United States (beyond the dark recesses of the Muslim street, of course, where the attacks were celebrated). But anyone who expected the goodwill to last simply hadn't been paying attention to the 20th century. America may be the perennial destination of choice for millions of immigrants, but it has rarely been celebrated or even appreciated by the intellectuals who dominate the press and universities abroad. In fact, more often than not they have despised this country, or at least ridiculed it as a bumptious backwater.

The origins of this attitude go back many decades, particularly in France. In the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville's appreciation of America was the exception. Most French intellectuals tended toward Stendhal, who dismissed the United States as "this nation of ignorant shopkeepers and narrow-minded industrialists, which, throughout a vast continent, cannot boast one single work of art."

Attitudes actually hardened after World War II, as Jean-Francois Revel explains in his book Anti-Americanism (Encounter, 2003). In the 1950s and 1960s, Revel explains, Europeans "saw America as the land of McCarthyism and the execution of the Rosenbergs (who were innocent, we believed), of racism and the Korean War and a stranglehold on Europe itself . . ." And Revel says those who claim anti-Americanism came into its own only after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a single "hyperpower" have simply rewritten the past.

Anti-Americanism "was almost as virulent" in Europe during the Cold War as it is now that the totalitarian threat has disappeared, he recalls - and from both the political left and the right. "The European right's anti-Americanism stems fundamentally from our continent's loss during the 20th century of its 600-year leadership role."

If you find the attitude of French President Jacques Chirac maddening, consider the nasty libel of America by Charles de Gaulle. "In 1944," de Gaulle said, "the Americans cared no more about liberating France than did the Russians about liberating Poland."

To be sure, the average European hasn't necessarily shared such views, anymore than the average citizen of Latin America has always agreed with the frequently virulent anti-Americanism of the intellectual class of that region. As an exchange student in Brazil years ago, I was repeatedly interrogated about my opinion of the nefarious David Rockefeller and other North American financiers, but mainly by college students.

It is wonderful to be liked, and it's understandable why some people try so hard to curry the favor of their peers. But striving to be liked by the world is a fool's mission if you are president of the United States, as history has shown time and time again. It is lesson Dean himself will learn in short order if he actually does manage to oust the incumbent.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com

[bdeaner]

Of course Dean and the frogs have much in common: they both hate America and everything it stands for.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Mr. Carroll argues that Dean would soon learn that currying favor by acting in some fawning or even servile, I suppose, manner toward the countries of the world doesn't work. "[S]triving to be liked by the world is a fool's mission if you are president of the United States."

As far back as I can remember (WWII) the left has always wanted to redistribute our power. The Rosenbergs were not traitors. "Sharing" nuclear technology with the Soviets abetted world peace. Having a single superpower is dangerous, especially if it was America. They are far worse today. It seems just having a sovereign America is dangerous for the world, period. According to them.

Does this mean I'll vote for Bush to keep Dean or any of the Clinton pukes out of the White House? No.

Despite all the great things the President has done I cannot stand the sight of an American president's lips planted on the corrupt government of Mexico's butt. The insult to our Republic is unforgivable. Hmmm. That lips thing again.

These are interesting times. The military was betrayed in Vietnam. Then to heap insult upon their injuries and deaths they were kicked around for years after the betrayal. They owe the politicians. I see the same political/media quagmire screwing with the military mission today.

I want conditions -- preferably not the WMD Gen. Franks spoke about -- that will move the military to act. A Dem administration is sure to cause those conditions. Americans are at war defending America. The Dem leadershp is not.

I will trust that patriots in the military and law enforcement will act without waiting for another WMD. Hey! The Constitution is a "living" document, right Dems? So what is this about civilian control over the military? Your courts got an army? I didn't think so.

Go patriots!

[Damagro]

Does this mean I'll vote for Bush to keep Dean or any of the Clinton pukes out of the White House? No.

---

I'm not sure I understand your comments. I disagree with the President on immigration, spending ,and other issues. On the whole though, who deserves my vote?I'll definitely cast my vote to keep Dean or any Clintonista from gaining power. The preservation of my country is number one on my agenda

[nopardons]

Which it would NOT do.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Then what will?

"America at War." The military and law enforcement are doing a great job but they are hindered. I've seen the movie.

I've seen the version where political parties, political careers, media distortions, treason, and apathy hand the enemy victory after being defeated in battle. Now I'd like to see the "greatest generation" version where America has the will to win the war. That ain't going to happen with politics as usual, IMO.

Now with the capture of Saddam our enemies within have a new cause: a fair trial for Saddam. More media distortions and "anti-war" demonstrations.

In this "remake" the plot thickens. Lurking behind the enemy is a foe who has stated more than once, "We can afford to lose a few hundred million citizens, how many can you afford to lose?" They've reworded it a little bit with regards to Taiwan but it's still the same serious threat. Now they have access to the technology to follow through.

Oddly, many of our citizens trade our technology to that foe for dollars ostensibly to improve that foe's well-being and make them warm and cuddly. Sure.

The military and the state and local law enforcement could not do it without cooperation from the militia. That's patriotic American civilians. Everybody else, beware. That's the way it should be.

"In my view, the stakes are much higher in the war on terror than in anything we've faced since World War II, and probably World War II as well," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers.

[aruanan]

There are two problems with Dean's analysis. The first is that it's adolescent. People who wring their hands over whether their behavior will be liked, as opposed to whether their behavior is right, belong in junior high school. "What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner, 'I stand for consensus'" Margaret Thatcher famously asked.

Excellent.

[nopardons]

Oh give it a rest! there have been, throughout FR's years, many posts about how the American people will rise up, have a bloody revolution, and the Conservatives, the REAL " conservatives ", will take over. PIPE DREAMS and childishness, which Jim has repeatedly said he does NOT want posted to FR ever again.

No one rose up to take it to the streets, during the 8 years of the Clintons' administration. They won't do so, should Dean ( or any other Dem ) upset President Bush in '04, which is NOT going to happen; especially not now.

Fiction books and movies are NOT " real " and are NOT scenarios that the average American citizenry is about to engage in. Rather, the " average " person is far too complacent, ill informed, lazy, and more ready to just accept anything and everything. OTOH, those, on FR, with the biggest mouths, who shout about " watering the tree of liberty ", are keyboard/armchair warriors...all mouth and no DO !

[sinkspur]

You read lots of comic books, I take it.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

The reference to a "movie" was a metaphor. The description of the "movie" is what I remember of that era. I do not want to see a repeat of the political/media quagmire that cost us victory. We cannot let politics and treason trump the mission and accomplishments of the military this time.

IMO what is occurring today is a virtual repeat of those events with additional aspects: 9/11, a virtual invasion by ILLEGAL aliens, and today the chi-coms are in position to deliver on their threats.

I am not talking about "American people will rise up." I am giving my opinion that springs from Gen. Franks' comment that said say good bye to the Constitution if there is a WMD attack here. I say again. I had rather lose my rights temporarily than permanently. Let's do it ASAP before we have to suffer a WMD.

I sincerely believe that a patriot-dictator -- and the President could be the one but for his approval of ILLEGAL immigrants, IMO -- is required to handle our early 21st century wars. The Vietnam war proved politicians cannot handle it, IMO.

[nopardons]

The Nam War proved that Dems are liars, stupid, JFK's and LBJ's administrations did NOT contain " the best and the brightest " anything, and that this nation should never fight a war, by NOT fighting a war.

"RED DAWN " didn't come about, " ON THE BEACH " didn't manifest itself, even " 2001 " didn't happen ! Metaphor my Aunt Fanny...you're allowing yourself to swallow, as whole cloth, fictional accounts, which never, not ever, playout, in real life, as they do in a book/film/T.V. show. Reality has a sneaky way of coming up with things man never manages to come up with in fiction; no matter how close said fiction may come.

Worry about REAL thunbgs, rather than the maybes/could be/ might bes and don't imagine that you're posting anything " new ", which other nightmare dwellers haven't long ago posted to FR and been slammed down on.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I do worry about real things.

I have recollections of W.W.II and the "greatest generation." I remember them as committed to winning. No politician put party or career ahead of victory. No media folks believed that they should be "neutral." No one hesitated to name the enemy and call him names. No one worried about offending anybody by killing the enemy by the thousands, millions if necessary.

The references to the movies you name are insulting but that's your way. My movie reference was a metaphor. I should try to keep it simpler, I suppose.

The "best and brightest" was generally how the media referred to the men around JFK. They carried over to LBJ. The youth of the day were celebrated as the smartest ever. That's fact. The media always noted that when featuring the few of them opposed to the war. I clearly remember those and most things. I was well into my twenties and a news junkie but I did not depend upon the TV network "news."

The events I described from that era are real. I sincerely see similar things today. This war is for all the marbles and it's not 6,000 milies away.

Would you suggest that General Franks and General Myers are getting their views from movies? (Just in case, NO I am not comparing myself to the two generals or a movie about two generals.)

[Fzob]

It will be disgusting to watch this cockroach also know as Dean sprint back to the center after he has convinced the loony left wing that he's presidential material.

Of course the media with enable him on his run to the political center without bothering to point out his hypocrisy. Just watch, assuming he does win the Demorat primaries, he'll be taking credit for advising Bush in the war effort by Oct 2004.

[bdeaner]

I agree, Dean will sprint right (to more moderate ground), but I don't think he will radically change his tune on Iraq. What he'll do is emphasize stuff like fiscal responsibility, but he'll tone down his anti-war rhetoric at this point. That tune will change to a demand for more 'international cooperation.' Loser.

[nopardons]

You remember WWII as a child, forgetting, or never knowing about the N.Y.Times' deification and whitewash of " "Uncle Joe ". I was too little , back then, to remember anything much about it; however, I know what it was like from a wee child's perspective, family stories, and extensive reading. And NO, there were Bundists, isolationists, Commies, and yes, the sheeple of that day, who were against us being in WW II...even AFTER Pearl Harbor!

I used the " best and the brightest " line, because it was sheer propaganda then, as it is now. It is as accurate, as your supposed " metaphor ". I was almost an adult/an adult during the JFK/LBJ times and I have a better grasp and memory of all that, than obviously you do.

I've been a political/news junkie, since I was a toddler. My mother did that to me, and it stuck. Not only were my immediate family, but my extended family and almost all of their friends the same, but I imagined, growing up, that EVERYONE else was just like us too. How wrong I was. LOL

War, the kind fought by suicide bombers, is nothing new to America.

Anarchists/Socialists/Marxists/Communists have been pulling this stuff, here, RIGHT HERE, ON OUR SOIL, for the past 100+ years, with interludes of quiescence. Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson, stamped all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, during wartimes past.Lefty " intellectuals ", Hollywood " stars ", Broadway performers and writers went to bat for Sacco and Vanzetti ( sp ? ), long before you and I were even a gleam in our respective fathers' eyes, let alone either one of us being alive. The only thing to have changed is technology.

Generals shouldn't be president/make major policy; they aren't equipped to do so. Wes Clark is an example of this, as were Grant,and even Ike. Washington was a true Renaissance man, so let's leave him out of that mix. :-)

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Very thoughtful reply. I am curious. One thing I've prided myself on is my memory. Just what is it in my description of the those days that is in error? The "best and brightest?" The "best and brightest" term was never used as a pejorative term except by those of us who were not fond of Kennedy. It was Ivy league. It was Kennedy. It was part of Camelot.

[nopardons]

Camelot did NOT come into vogue until well AFTER JFK's assasination. Jackie cooked it up and spoon fed it to E.B.White, over tea, one afternoon, convincing him that his book and sunsiquent play/movie was THE sine quo non ( sp ? )/evaluation/representation of the Kennedy presidency. She, single handedly endorsed the use of the term for that, and E.B. dutiful little lap dog that he was, made certain that all of his pals used ( abused ) it.

You claim to know what and how to use a metaphore ( neither is true, BTW), but are incapable of seeing the allusion I was using, re the BEST & THE BRIGHTEST line, which was not only used ( MISUSED ! ) for the JFK/LBJ administrations, but also for the cretinous baby-boom generation; both of which we just dumb and dumber.

I don't know you personally, we haven't sparred much on FR, but your memory, from what I've seen on this thread, is selective. Maybe we are just coming at this, from too many different directions for it to be somprehended by the other. Let's just call it quits...shall we? We aren't getting anywhere, fast, in this discussion and I'm now more than bored with it.

[not-an-ostrich]

You can't have it all. That's arrogance.