Europe's candidate for president [The Economist]

AS JOHN KERRY girds himself for the presidential fight, he is being cheered on from over the water. A picture of the junior senator from Massachusetts recently adorned the cover of Le Nouvel Observateur, a left-wing French magazine, under the title “The man who can beat Bush”. Since, according to a recent poll, only 6% of Europeans strongly approve of George Bush's handling of foreign policy, that is recommendation enough.

But Mr Kerry also has family ties that make him so beguiling to Europeans. His grandfather, it transpires, came from a tiny Czech village. His first cousin, Brice Lalonde, served as environment minister in a French Socialist government in 1988-92. Mr Lalonde told the French press that he recently saw his cousin, and talked fondly of shared childhood holidays in Brittany. He commented in Libération that “our mothers were sisters. But I don't want to damage him, because you know that at the moment it is better not to appear too French in the United States.”

Quite so. At a recent Washington breakfast, Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, greeted guests with the words: “Good morning, or bonjour as John Kerry would say.” The senator is indeed reportedly fluent in French, and is even said to have chatted up Teresa Heinz, now his wife, in the language. He can also trot out phrases in other European languages. The correspondent for Stern, a German magazine, noted approvingly that Mr Kerry had not only expressed deep concern to him about the state of American-European relations, but done it in German, saying: “I am really concerned. Seien Sie sicher.”

The flattering effect that this has on Europeans should not be underestimated. It grates deeply that Mr Bush appears neither to know nor to care much about the old continent. By contrast Mr Kerry, who went to a Swiss boarding-school while his father was a diplomat in Berlin, is seen as a throwback to a more sophisticated, Europhile era in which the American elite naturally looked across the Atlantic. As Stern rhapsodised to its readers, “Bush quotes the Bible, Kerry Pablo Neruda. Bush likes local novels, Kerry loves Shakespeare. While Bush doesn't read the newspaper and is proud of it, Kerry reads Le Monde.” As well as wrapping up the French, German and Swiss votes, Mr Kerry would also run strongly in Portugal, courtesy of his wife, who was born in the Portuguese colony of Mozambique.

Naturally there is also a political element to the Europeans' Kerryphilia. The standard phrase among those who rail against American foreign policy these days is “I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-Bush.” This division between the American people and their elected leader is a little too convenient. But it is true that Republican presidents tend to emphasise the aspects of American life that are most alien to the European elite: religion, guns, militarism, and hostility to the welfare state and the green lobby. By contrast, Mr Kerry is sound on two hot-button issues dear to Europeans: the Kyoto treaty on climate change, and the death penalty. And while Mr Kerry may have voted for war with Iraq, most Europeans assume that he would have been less gung-ho about rushing ahead without a broader international coalition. All this means, in the words of Thomas Klau, a columnist for FT Deutschland, that Mr Kerry is “the dream candidate for the old world”.

European journalists may have no problem giving voice to their longing for an end to the Bush presidency. But European political leaders must be more cautious. Over the past couple of months Germany and France have made a concerted effort to rebuild relations with the Americans. Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, has just completed a trip to Washington that was designed to demonstrate that his long quarrel with Mr Bush was over. This week French and American troops launched a joint operation to stabilise Haiti, an event hailed in Paris as marking a reconciliation between the two countries.

As for Mr Bush, although his campaign strategists may have fun with Mr Kerry's French connections, he will want to be careful about exposing himself to Mr Kerry's charge that he has alienated the European allies. All sides are likely to use the 60th anniversary commemorations of the D-Day landings on June 6th as a photo-opportunity to demonstrate that ties between the United States and Europe are back on a sure footing.

Besides, whoever is in the White House, tensions between European and American approaches to the world seem sure to persist. The heyday of Atlanticism came to a close with the end of the cold war. The overriding concern for America now is the stabilisation of the “Greater Middle East”. And for all the hopeful talk, on both sides of the Atlantic, that this might be a new project on which to rebuild American-European relations, the reality is that attitudes and priorities will remain different.

Thus, polls suggest that Americans are far more sympathetic to Israel than Europeans and also more open to the use of military force. Some Europeans complain that American policymakers, preoccupied by the Middle East, take a cavalier approach to some extremely sensitive issues, such as Turkish membership of the European Union. One German analyst groans that “as far as the Americans are concerned, the discussion over whether Turkey should join the EU is already over. Now they want us to accept Israel, Palestine and Georgia.”

Were John Kerry to win the White House in November, such differences would remain. Indeed in some areas, such as trade, the quarrels between the two sides could get worse: Mr Bush has been bad enough, but Mr Kerry is deploying some alarmingly protectionist language in his campaign. The United States would remain preoccupied by the war on terror, pro-Israeli and willing to use its military strength unilaterally. Mr Kerry might explain American views more tactfully than Mr Bush. He might even do it in French. But transatlantic tensions would endure.

"No flowery, pretentious language here. I can 'splain this to you without trying to impress you with multisyllabic words and complex thoughts difficult to absorb. It's just this simple: These people would vote for Kerry because he would weaken us and empower them. " www.boortz.com

3 posted on 03/04/2004 10:36:50 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

With the news that Kerry is the candidate of the informed European left, can there remain any doubt - if doubt there ever was -- that George Bush's campaign has been blessed by the grace of God ?

Only God could have written this script -- you cannot make this stuff up.

5 posted on 03/04/2004 10:43:21 AM PST by blanknoone (How much of her money will Teresa let Kerry waste on his Presidential bid?)

"By contrast, Mr Kerry is sound on two hot-button issues dear to Europeans: the Kyoto treaty on climate change, and the death penalty"

For their chattering classes, and maybe ours. Kerry voted against Kyoto, but from day one of his vote has appeased the environmental ignorati with appeals that it should be "renegotiated" never in six years offereing an idea how.

It's typical of Kerry's rhetoric - for example pretending to be against outsourcing by offering a solution (3 months warning) that does nothing when closely examined.

Well, this is an article that should be given the widest publicity: everyone should know Kerry is close to his 1st Cousin who was a French Socialist Minister, that he favors Kyoto and opposes the death penalty. And that he seems to instinctively defer to European intellectuals, especially leftists like Pablo Neruda and the French leftist paper Le Monde.

These things may sit well in Cambridge, but they won't sit well even in South Boston, let alone the rest of the country, outside of Manhattan and a few university towns.

8 posted on 03/04/2004 10:48:32 AM PST by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo [Gallia][Germania][Arabia] Esse Delendam --- Select One or More as needed)

9 posted on 03/04/2004 10:49:39 AM PST by ambrose ("John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands" - Lt. Col. Oliver North)

Europe's preference is obvious.

I've noticed two trends. One, Liberals citing European article to prove Bush is a bad guy. Two, "Conservatives" citing Indian articles to prove unrestricted and unnegotiated outsourcing is good for Americans.

Mr Kerry might explain American views more tactfully than Mr Bush.

Erm... no, he probably just wouldn't explain them very much at all.

Those who are against us will always lobby for a weak president. The USSR did it every election cycle. I heard them supporting Mondale and Dukakis on the radio in the last two elections before the fall.

Europe's preference is obvious.

The Economist speaks for Europe just like the New York Times speaks for America. The article bases their whole ridiculous theme on "a recent poll" concerning some Europeans' views on GW's foreign policy. No word about just 'who' these so-called Europeans are. Any of them from say, Poland? I don't think so. What about Europe's views on trade? On America having a president you can trust? Some poll-- I'm afraid the Economist has gone the way of the BBC.

You're right on.

I say that in early August, about three months out from the election, we send Kerry a bunch of official looking letters telling him that in three months, he'll be outsourced from his job as the Democratic presidental candidate.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.






	Copyright © 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.