So you think 7/7 has brought Britain and America together? Think again

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 07/07/06 | Gerard Baker

[Pokey78]

IT’S PROBABLY just as well no US tennis players made it beyond the quarter-finals at Wimbledon this year because it’s evidently going to be an uncomfortable summer for Americans in London. Despite the best diplomatic efforts of Condoleezza Rice, who, even as rogue-state crises proliferate, continues to dispense charm and elegance in equal measure, the US seems to be sinking steadily deeper in British public esteem. Listening in to Prime Minister’s Questions from across the Atlantic this week, I noticed a common theme. There was outrage that three British bankers are facing extradition to the US; alarm that the safety of British forces in Afghanistan is deemed threatened by US military actions; complaints about the failure of Western (read, principally: America’s) leaders to do more about Africa.

Flipping randomly through the British press, I spy an ugly American on every page — and I don’t even have to read The Guardian. In The Sunday Times last weekend you could find Jeremy Clarkson fulminating about America’s authoritarianism and its taste for double-egg burgers. (He may have been on to something about the first but I’ve lived in the States a while now and never seen a double-egg burger. More’s the pity.) A part of John Prescott’s latest troubles are caused, I suspect, by the fact that it was a wealthy American at a Colorado ranch with whom he was consorting — an uncivilised, brash American who was plotting to turn that avatar of British cultural achievement, the Millennium Dome, into a casino.

More seriously, the outpouring of comment on the July 7 anniversary seems to reflect a broad consensus that, rather than establishing any solidarity with America, the terrorist attacks merely underlined the differences. We British, it is universally averred, deal more calmly and understandingly with the threat and don’t go clumsily invading third countries.

To cap it all, on July 4 of all days, a YouGov poll in The Daily Telegraph suggested the British have never had a lower regard for America.

Does this epidemic of anti-American sentiment really reflect an historic disenchantment? Or is it just a passing phase, a rejection of current American leadership, not the people and the nation?

That the Bush Administration is not liked in Britain is not in doubt, but the YouGov poll plumbs new depths. One per cent — yes, 1 per cent — of the British public think George W. Bush is a great world leader. There are probably more people who think England can still win the World Cup.

The poll then highlights the usual litany of things that the British don’t like about US policy — the war in Iraq, torture, detention without trial. But it purports to suggest something much worse: that it’s not just this Administration’s bungled war and slightly unsettling attitude to the rule of law that gets British goats. It’s the whole damn, four wheel-driving, McDonald’s-munching, Starbucks-slurping, Barbie-fondling lot of them. The polls found that substantial majorities despise American society, believing it to be divided economically and racially, violent, uncaring, ignorant.

There are some bright spots — but even they make you wonder. Steven Spielberg, who made his money making films about odd-looking creatures from outer-space, is the most popular American. Michael Jackson, who spent his money trying to make himself look like he belonged in one of those films, is the least popular.

There are some methodological objections to the poll. The questions were, shall we say, somewhat loaded. What about the questions not asked? Do you think the world would be better off today if, say, France or Germany were the dominant global powers? China? Russia? But I don’t doubt that overall it’s a reasonable picture of current views.

A number of things are at work. First, it is not news to say that most British don’t like President Bush. Nor is it news that many have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class. But they don’t think the President is some sort of aberrant figure in American society. What they dislike about him is that he represents the things they think they know about America and have always despised — its supposedly vulgar, brash, uncultured, uncivilised character.

On top of that, America is now far more dominant in the world than it has ever been: this not only causes certain amount of resentment, it also just makes America an even more inviting target. Let’s be honest. Nobody I know has strong views about Latvian society, so even if Latvia were run by the Devil’s Spawn I doubt we would have strongly negative views about it as a nation.

Then, of course, there’s the media’s portrayal of America in Britain — anthropology lessons in an alien culture with emphasis on the wacko (see any news report about fat people, oil company executives, religious fundamentalists and so on).

Most British don’t like much of what the US Administration is doing now, that’s clear. But consider this: Polls suggest most Americans themselves think the Iraq war was a mistake. I would bet neither this nor any other Administration will contemplate doing anything like it again for a long time. Torture was outlawed by a vote in the US Senate that was 90-9 last year. The Supreme Court — a moderately conservative institution these days — has ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay must be given proper legal protection in accordance with US law and the Geneva Conventions.

You can agree or disagree with all of these positions, but you can’t argue that they’re any less American than their opposites. The US is a large, chaotic, complex, multifaceted, constantly changing society. It defies simple characterisation. But it is its very openness, its very willingness to examine itself and have others continually pore over it, that makes it so easy to characterise. Americans are often criticised for lacking nuance. The world could do with a tad more nuance when it looks at America.

[kaktuskid]

We British, it is universally averred, deal more calmly and understandingly with the threat and don’t go clumsily invading third countries.

Tell that to India. Or any of the former "colonies".

[CWOJackson]

"...the US seems to be sinking steadily deeper in British public esteem..."

It's about time we just turned our back on old europe and turned our face towards the Pacific Rim...let them pi$$ and moan amongst themselves. When was the last time we "really" needed a European nation? Seems our relationship with them has been pretty much one side for two centuries now.

[calex59]

But consider this: Polls suggest most Americans themselves think the Iraq war was a mistake. I would bet neither this nor any other Administration will contemplate doing anything like it again for a long time. Torture was outlawed by a vote in the US Senate that was 90-9 last year.

What a load of BS!

[Mr. Mojo]

I noticed a common theme. There was outrage that three British bankers are facing extradition to the US; .....complaints about the failure of Western (read, principally: America’s) leaders to do more about Africa.

lol....so the Brits' panties are in a wad about a few bankers and lack of American military action in Africa (while at the same time complaining about our "authoritarianism" and "hegemony")? Hilarious.

We British, it is universally averred, deal more calmly and understandingly with the threat and don’t go clumsily invading third countries.

The comedy continues. Is the author familiar with the history of Britain prior to WW2?

There are probably more people who think England can still win the World Cup [than like President Bush].

Face it, there are probably more Brits who care about the World Cup than there are who care about Islamists infesting what's left of their country.

On top of that, America is now far more dominant in the world than it has ever been

You finally hit on it, Gerard: Envy.

[monkeywrench]

These articles are intended to divide us from our allies and isolate us. Ignore them.

[bkepley]

Does anyone care what the British public thinks about anything anymore?

[Thoro]

Londonistan.

Nuff said.

[CremeSaver]

"Does anyone care what the British public thinks about anything anymore? "

I try to care, I really do. I still try to think of Europe as a friend and ally, but day after day of reading garbage like this makes it very hard. I especially dislike this particular author he's too smarmy. It truly is time to cut Europe loose. They are no friends of ours.

[Owl558]

"Nor is it news that many have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class."

In the 1700s it was a commonly held belief amongst many of the European elite that the "primitive" state of North America rendered all aspects of the continent "primitive" and less developed when compared to Europe. The theory pointed to the indian tribes and us uncooth colonists as proof of our indigent state. The reasoning went that even the plants and animals of North America were inferior to their counterparts in Europe. European deer, for instance, would be larger and healthier than deer in the colonies. The same went for horses, squirels, fish, etc.

Of course, we now know that the Europeans who held this belief were simply full of themselves.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

To many of theses ?

Maybe Not enough of them !

[sageb1]

"Nor is it news that many have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class."

This is where our own liberal elites stand, as well. Euro-weenie wannabes.

[HawaiianGecko]

This article over "regime change" in Iraq conceals a little known irony—it offers a cast of characters and a reprise of arguments that shaped an earlier invasion of that same country. Not the Gulf War of 1991—rather, it was the British invasion of 1941.

In May 1941, in the midst of a World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered his reluctant Commander-in-Chief Middle East, General Sir Archibald Wavell, to march on Baghdad to effect a "regime change." The British Prime Minister's arguments reflected many of those same concerns expressed today by members of the George W. Bush administration: British intervention would "pre-empt" Axis support for Rachid Ali, a violently anti-British Arab nationalist whose government threatened Britain's strategic position in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. It would strike a blow at a terrorist challenge orchestrated by a charismatic Islamic cleric. British intervention also would protect oil reserves vital to the British war effort. Furthermore, Churchill was willing to wave aside offers of third-party mediation in favor of a "unilateralist" approach. Conversely, Wavell's arguments against an invasion of Iraq mirrored contemporary objections—he simply lacked the resources to add Iraq to an impossibly extensive list of military commitments. A military attack, Wavell believed, would make Britain's position in the Middle East less, not more, secure. Better let sleeping dogs lie and take care of pressing business elsewhere.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/dec02/middleEast.asp

 

[Steely Tom]

So you think 7/7 has brought Britain and America together? Think again.

No, I didn't think 7/7 brought Britain and America together. I didn't think 7/7 changed anything about the relationship between Britain and America. What gave you dimwits at The Times that idea?

I absolutely hate newspapers that think they have me all figured out. This is one of the things that most annoys me about Newsweek (which I read about once every six months, usually in a doctor's office). They "assume the sale," talking to their readers as though they are all a member of the same club, and all think exactly the same things about every subject.

My eight-grade teacher taught us (when we studied propaganda) that this technique is called bandwagon.

[BurbankKarl]

No American player advanced because they are lazy, Hollywood wannabes

[HawaiianGecko]

Come to think of it they invaded Iraq and actually held it under colonial control after WWI. It was Mesopotamia at the time, but Baghdad is still Baghdad.  Read the following for further infomation.

British Air Power and Colonial Control in Iraq: 1920 – 1925

By David E. Omissi

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/1990airpow.htm

 

 

[Enchante]

What is most evident is the unwarranted influence of a psychotic leftist media that propagandizes Brits and all Europeans with a constant stream of drooling Euro-twit lunacy. The story of how such a large % of Europeans now regard America as the main "threat to stability" in the world and not Iran or Islamo-fascism, etc. is a story of stark raving left-wing depravity. A continual refusal to face obvious facts and instead to rant and rave and "Blame America, Blame Bush" for everything wrong in the world.

When even the supposed conservatives (Tories) in the UK sound like raving moonbats it's time to wonder whether there is any hope left for European civilization.

[Irish Rose]

A number of things are at work. First, it is not news to say that most British don’t like President Bush. Nor is it news that many have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class. But they don’t think the President is some sort of aberrant figure in American society. What they dislike about him is that he represents the things they think they know about America and have always despised — its supposedly vulgar, brash, uncultured, uncivilised character.

To all my fellow Americans, I would like to say just two words...

Rock on.

[Brian Allen]

<< We British, it is universally averred, deal more calmly and understandingly with the threat and don’t go clumsily invading third countries.

Tell that to India. Or any of the former "colonies". >>

Put most simply, so even any lurking Limeys might get it, there is not a square foot of ground upon the planet upon which a bloody Brit has planted his hind hoof that is not the worse for his having passed by.

The problems of Iran and Iraq may be directly traced to Britain's bastardry.

Why, even once somewhat decent London(istan) -- in which one is around 6 times more likely to be the victim of violent crime than if in, say, New York, is rapidly becoming inhospitable to Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization.

[Jameison]

" The Sunday Times last weekend you could find Jeremy Clarkson fulminating about America’s authoritarianism and its taste for double-egg burgers"

Jeremy Clarkson?
Is he not the moron that used to present stupid program on cars about 8/10 years ago, on the BBC?.
If I remember him correctly, he was an insufferable idiot and a buffoon.
When did he start writing articles on politics, then? I see he sucks at political writing, just as he sucked on his stupid TV program.