Posted on 11/04/2004 5:44:29 PM PST by GulliverSwift
Brits to America: You're Idiots!
Well, 51 percent of you, anyway.
Americans who think post-election anti-red-state recrimination is a U.S.-only phenomenon should check out the cover of Thursday's Daily Mirror: Over a picture of President George W. Bush, the paper asked, "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Inside, the left-leaning British tabloid headlined its editorial, "WAR MORE YEARS." In a clear demonstration of the trans-Atlantic culture gap, the paper's description of the president's beliefs—clearly intended to strike Mirror readers as a radical agenda—is simply an accurate, if crude, précis of his platform: "Mr Bush opposes abortion and gay marriage, doesn't give a stuff about the environment, is against gun control and believes troops should stay in Iraq for as long as it takes."
The Mirror wasn't the only British paper with a striking cover. The Guardian's "G2" section was fronted by a page of solid black containing just two small words: "Oh, God." Meanwhile, the Independent ran the headline "Four More Years" along with iconic images from the first Bush term: kneeling prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib, soldiers fighting in Iraq, oil-drilling machinery, sign-wielding religious extremists, and a smirking Dubya. In France, Libération ran a picture of the president under the headline, "L'Empire empire"—"The empire declines."
Many of the British commentaries followed a consistent formula: We wish the other guy had won, but Bush scored a convincing mandate this time around, so we have to live with it. As the Guardian put it: "We may not like it. In fact … we don't like it one bit. But if it isn't a mandate, then the word has no meaning. Mr. Bush has won fair … and square. He and his country—and the rest of the world—now have to deal with it." In a fit of double-negativity, the Independent's editorial added: "This does not mean, however, that we do not contemplate the second Bush term with considerable trepidation. Another four years of a president in thrall to the religious right and the neo-conservatives is another four years in which the United States risks sliding back into an earlier age of bigotry and social injustice." Writing in the Times of London, Simon Jenkins' condescending sigh of disappointment typified the genre:
Mr Bush's election will give the rest of the world a collective heart attack. It expected a Kerry win. At the very least it expected Americans to somehow rein in a man it sees as naïve and dangerously belligerent. … Americans declined to rein him in. They legitimised him. The rest of the world has been roundly snubbed.
An op-ed in the Guardian went to great lengths to describe negative stereotypes of the American electorate, then rejected them much less convincingly: "Americans are seen as unsophisticated, wilfully ignorant, obsessed with such issues as abortion, guns and gay marriage, and wedded to a device which seems calculated to impede the wishes of the majority—the electoral college. … Americans are far more complicated and unpredictable than we understand them to be."
The conservative press cheered Bush's victory. Rupert Murdoch's Sun said: "The world is a safer place today with George W Bush back in the Oval Office. His re-election is bad news for terrorists everywhere." The Daily Telegraph agreed: "The triumph of his Churchillian conservatism will … strike fear into all enemies of America and the west." The Telegraph's version of the "get used to it" theme was more positive: "[America] is diverging from Europe: it is younger, more self-confident, more prosperous, more devout, more diligent, more democratic and, in short, more conservative. Europe must come to terms, not only with Mr Bush, but with the nation that has elected him." The Times encouraged Bush to let recalcitrant foreigners woo him: "The President should not waste time trying to appease or win over those who have no time for him. There is the chance, perhaps, that with the passage of time the qualities which Americans see in this politician will become more obvious to others."
In Spain, leftist El País urged Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero to "accommodate the new reality, even though the result isn't what he hoped for" and fix the country's strained relationship with the United States. "This doesn't mean turning the page or starting over from the beginning, but leaving behind the unfortunate declarative politics on both sides." Conservative ABC—in what may have been a subtle dig at the Spanish voters who elected the Socialist Party, which had pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq, after the March 11 attacks—praised Americans for their steadfastness: "[Bush is] a president firm in his convictions and ready to fight to the end, until victory, against the threats that hang over America (and over all of us, even if we don't want to see it)."
Elsewhere in Europe, France's leftist Libération got with the program: "A new reactionary majority … has cemented its hold on American democracy. The rest of the world may deplore it, but it will have to adapt to this reality." Turkey's Hurriyet also echoed the familiar grin-and-bear-it theme: "American voters have once more brought someone they deserved to the presidency. In this case, what is left for us is to bear it and to protect our own interests with maximum sensitivity." But Sovietskaya Rossiya defaulted to quaintly archaic Cold War rhetoric: "Bearing in mind that Bush's policies are prompting increasingly powerful rejection in the entire world, mankind will inevitably unite against the common evil—American imperialism."
Your jealousy is showing!!
"mankind will inevitably unite against the common evil—American imperialism"
This is what the U.N. is actually all about. This Russian has voiced what all the Left around the world is after. The U.S. conservatives are the major obstacle to the Left gaining control of the world. So now, they would like to unite the world against us. They control the press almost everywhere, and they constantly paint the U.S. in the worst light. It is all by design, with long range goals in mind. They may have lost the U.S., but they have been victorious everywhere else, and they know we can't stand against the whole world.
What kind of evil empire will it be when a Leftist is in charge of the WHOLE WORLD? That's their vision, and they think it will lead to paradise. Those who haven't drunk their Kool Aid know that it will instead be hell on earth. Orwell describes their world in his book "1984".
Indeed. Why would we? He has succeeded and dealt major blows to our enemies.
"They legitimised him."
He was already legitimate, and America had been supporting him resolutely for years, already. In 2002, Republicans won seats at the by-election, a rare accomplishment for a party in power in time of war and recession. The left has simply confused their own sneers for some global reality.
"The rest of the world has been roundly snubbed."
No not snubbed. The rest of the world was given a choice, which they apparently still cannot grasp in its existential clarity. "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists".
Many may wish they could evade that choice and substitute another, that the actual situation facing the modern world could just go away because they wish it to, and in particular that America's power in the world could go away because they wish it to. But that is in practice simply siding with the terrorists.
They think they can refuse the choice, but neither Bin Laden nor the American people will let them. Radical Islam stirred up a hornet's nest on 9-11, and we are the hornets, and we are now abroad in arms to destroy them. Anyone who wishes may help us in this. Anybody who wants to die may oppose us in this. Outside those two categories, anyone else is simply irrelevant to modern world politics.
We don't care what you think or how you whine. We don't need your advice, and certainly not your approval. Courageous physical action at our side is welcome, and physical opposition will bring our immediate entirely unmetaphorical wrath. Inaction, noisy or not, will earn our deep contempt and indifference.
In case any Europeans still do not get it, we are on a mission. Help, or get the heck out of the way. You will be run over if you interfer.
Churchill to Bush: Keep buggering on!
I think the English people are so much different than we are. They seem so much more placid, so calm. Not that that's a bad thing, I just like how we Americans are so full of life, so exuberant - by comparison.
Having spent an hour in an English grocery store, I found quite a few differences there. The only candy bars I recognized were Mars bars and Starbursts. Their candy bars had names like Flake, Yorkie ("It's Not For Girls" is printed on the side), Double Cream, Dubble, and Dairy Milk with Caramel Crunchie.
Their "crisps" (potato chips) are very different than ours. No Fritos, no Cheetos. Lots of different flavors, such as Oven Roasted Chicken and Thyme and Mature Brie and Cranberry. And their "American style" donuts were dipped in granulated sugar with some kind of jelly inside. I don't think I have ever seen anything like that here in America. ;-)
Having spent five wonderful years in the UK -- out in the country (Yorkshire) and not in the cities, the heart and soul of Britain is with us, and not with the wankers at the Mirror.
What a bunch of ninnies.
Well, we have Barney Frank.
Yeah right you Bloody Brits! Guess we became the most powerful nation on planet earth by being idiots? What is the genius behind your plight in the world economy? You bunch of socialists bums!
It's not the Brits, it's British versions of the New York Times and Boston Globe.
If we are so dumb, why do we have all the good cars?
More Euro-peeing?
Far too much Brit bashing going on here lately. This is a left-wing rag so don't lump all of Britain in with their opinions.
This shows you who the idiots are, LOL.
I kinda feel sorry for those on the continent (including the U.K.) that portrays most Americans (51.1%) as stupid. We were stupid when we landed on the moon. We were stupid when we went over there two times so democracy and freedom could be saved. (Maybe ya'all should be speaking German or Russian?). We were stupid when we vanquished the Iron Curtain. Real stupid freeing hundreds of millions of people. And for confirmation regarding stupidity, ask the women in Afghanistan how stupid we are.
Well, I say to the Europeans, get your aspirin and bromide, you've got four more years of W. I will enjoy watching your lamentations and hearing the gnashing of teeth.
Oh, and btw, the males of your need to stop taking estrogen.
5.56mm
Ooh, The Redcoats are Coming! The Redcoats are Coming!
I agree. It's like the people of this country all being judged by something written in one of our newspapers. Something written by our liberal media doesn't represent the feelings of the people of our great country, for the most part anyway.
this is the email i sent to the author of the posted article:
It was nice to see a couple of paragraphs indicating that there are actually some conservative newspapers in the rest of the world. It was a surprise considering the headline attached to the article. Do the headlines come from the writer or from the editors at Slate....and did the headline express your view?
It is interesting to me and many others here that the MSM as we call it (Main Stream Media) is so clearly politicized and determined to shape opinion. You should be aware that the progressives do not have an exclusive franchise on intelligence. World events are complex and the understanding and reaction to them requires an honest discourse between those who have varied opinions. We are probably not sharing the same view of the world at this moment, but let me assure you that we do not think that we are perfectly correct. We do believe, however, that the world is more likely close to our understanding of it than the way others see it. In addition, we are resolute in our determination to respond to these events in what we believe is an appropriate way. I am speaking of the international challenge presented by Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists.
I am one of the ones who has come to the conclusion that this is a serious threat that should be dealt with now. I do not expect to be able to move to the correct solution in one easy step. I think that there will be errors and difficulties. I would hope that others who view these events and our response to them will take the time to consider that we are acting in good faith and with good intentions to counter a threat that may not be apparent or understood either by ourselves or our critics.
You should consider that I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, that I was an early supporter of Howard Dean, and sent him a generous contribution in the beginning days of his campaign. Furthermore, I opposed the Viet Nam War, and refused to participate in that conflict. For me to support the election of President Bush required a lot of thought and study. I am confident that I have made the right decision. If I am shown wrong by the march of events, then I will admit it and support another solution. For now, however, I believe that he represents the best leadership that we were offered and that is why I voted for him, even though I think that he has made mistakes, and I expect to see him make some more. I do believe, however that he offers the best chance to get it right eventually. I respect those who disagree, but not those who are so ignorant as to demonize this President and those who have supported him.
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.